This Is Where College Football is Heading (or should be)

[Statler]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704009804575308782794344398.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_sports

The proposal meets everyone's needs:

1. MORE Money
2. A chance to always be a top dog.
3. Every game meaningful (because of chance of being demoted).

Probably won't happen as it makes too much sense.

[redpony]

Interesting article- interesting proposal/idea. It would be great if it would happen but we all know that the 'greedies' would prevent it.

GO PONIES!!!

[Topper]

DeLoss Dodds base salary is $627,000 per year. The average Big 12 AD salary is almost $500,000. Not to mention the coaches salaries, all of which are outrageous. This is an industry run by and for an elite group of people who are focused only on $$$$$, not the good of the sport.

[Otto]

That $627,000 salary is a drop in the bucket when you consider his free house, his lifetime membership at several different country clubs, the air force of alum-owned planes he has access to, the fact that he probably can't buy a meal in Austin (except with the UT card, etc.) He lives a lot larger than $627K suggests. Word is his list of perks dwarfs those granted to ADs at most schools.

[Topper]

I have lived a stone's throw from the UT campus for over 20 years and cannot remember seeing a player pay for a meal. But that is another story.

[SMU2007]

this proposal is incredible. wish there was a possibility of something like this happening. can't imagine anyone (fans) not liking this.

[MustangStealth]

This is a terrible idea every offseason when it is brought up, and it is still a terrible idea. Some things to consider:

-Even greater disparity. Since the EPL was formed in 1992, exactly 4 clubs have won the title. The top four clubs have held the top 4 spots in the league 75% of the time (58 out of 76). In that time, more than a dozen schools have won AP national championships in football. In less time than that, Boise St. has gone from I-AA to a top 5 ranking.
-Relegation is a negative feedback loop. The worst teams in the league are is essence punished by reducing their revenue and access to TV. This makes improvement difficult, and causes the gaps between the "haves" and "have-nots" to widen. Often, the drop causes the team to suffer even further due to loss of players (compare to decommits in CFB - think of a player who commits to SMU but changes his mind after they are relegated). Examples: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-sport/article-23664566-premier-league-casualties---clubs-that-have-struggled-since-relegation.do
-It can destroy rivalries. If UT and A&M don't want to play each other anymore because their panties are in a wad, that's fine. But I want to see SMU continue to play TCU, Houston, Baylor, A&M, etc. Those are the teams that I get excited about. I don't want to be stuck playing UNT, Louisiana-Monroe and UTSA because we got relegated. An example is West Ham, which has a big rivalry with neighbor Millwall going back more than 100 years. However, they have hardly played in recent years because they haven't been in the same division (until this year).
-The financial model doesn't work. The only way for lower division teams to improve themselves is to get a better caliber of player. That primarily has to happen by offering those better players money to play for you. The NCAA frowns upon that sort of thing.


And in the interest of full disclosure, I am an EPL fan. It just isn't the right system for college football.

[Statler]

This is a terrible idea every offseason when it is brought up, and it is still a terrible idea. Some things to consider:

-Even greater disparity. Since the EPL was formed in 1992, exactly 4 clubs have won the title. The top four clubs have held the top 4 spots in the league 75% of the time (58 out of 76). In that time, more than a dozen schools have won AP national championships in football. In less time than that, Boise St. has gone from I-AA to a top 5 ranking.
-Relegation is a negative feedback loop. The worst teams in the league are is essence punished by reducing their revenue and access to TV. This makes improvement difficult, and causes the gaps between the "haves" and "have-nots" to widen. Often, the drop causes the team to suffer even further due to loss of players (compare to decommits in CFB - think of a player who commits to SMU but changes his mind after they are relegated). Examples: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-sport/article-23664566-premier-league-casualties---clubs-that-have-struggled-since-relegation.do
-It can destroy rivalries. If UT and A&M don't want to play each other anymore because their panties are in a wad, that's fine. But I want to see SMU continue to play TCU, Houston, Baylor, A&M, etc. Those are the teams that I get excited about. I don't want to be stuck playing UNT, Louisiana-Monroe and UTSA because we got relegated. An example is West Ham, which has a big rivalry with neighbor Millwall going back more than 100 years. However, they have hardly played in recent years because they haven't been in the same division (until this year).
-The financial model doesn't work. The only way for lower division teams to improve themselves is to get a better caliber of player. That primarily has to happen by offering those better players money to play for you. The NCAA frowns upon that sort of thing.


And in the interest of full disclosure, I am an EPL fan. It just isn't the right system for college football.

This is all heading for 4 superconferences. If you don't two tier the system, we will never have the opportunity to play for the big prize.

[MustangStealth]

Look at the results of any league that uses this system - it won't give us that opportunity either. It rewards the elite and pushes the gap further and further every season, and in college football you can't be taken over by a foreign billionaire who buys all new players. Realistically there is very little chance of long term upward mobility like what Boise St. or TCU has done recently.

Italy: top 3 teams have won 18 of the last 20 championships
France: 4 champions in the last decade, 1 team won it every year from 2001-02 to 07-08
England: 4 champions in 20 years
Spain: 2 teams have won 23 of the last 27 titles
Germany: Slightly more parity here. 6 champions in the last 20 years, although 1 team has won 10 of those 20
etc.

[planoponyfan]

I understand the appeal of the EPL model, but it flies in the face of what we know to be big-time college football in the USA. People here love rivalries. Such a model would threaten some of those rivalries over the years. New rivalries would form for a while, but die off after one team or the other dropped or rose in status.

My view is that the only way to calm the waters would be to have the NCAA fundamentally change the way it does business. In Texas the UIL reorganizes the classifications of high shchools every few years. Teams move up and down in classification based on school size and some move from one district to another. The schools can appeal (I think) but generally don't. They've signed on to a system that has set parameters they agree to and they accept the UIL's decision. The NCAA could do something like this.

It starts with a clear definition of what Division I-A, I-AA, II, III programs are. Essentially you would let the schools decide which division they would be in based on what kind of financial commitment they are willing to make to athletics. After that, the NCAA would assign schools to conferences. They couldn't pick them themselves. They couldn't be independent. The conferences should be geographic in nature to foster better rivalries and keep travel costs low.

None of this addresses the biggest player in college sports: TV. Lawsuits years ago set up the system we have today for college sports broadcasts. I think what would likely happen under a system like the one I described above would be that the networks would do shorter term deals with conferences based on who is in the conference at the time the deal is made. It's possible some individual schools would have deals with networks, but the requirement that they be in a conference would not make that as lucrative.

None of what I've suggested here will ever happen. But I think it's the only way this system will calm down and become stable.

[Statler]

I understand the appeal of the EPL model, but it flies in the face of what we know to be big-time college football in the USA. People here love rivalries. Such a model would threaten some of those rivalries over the years. New rivalries would form for a while, but die off after one team or the other dropped or rose in status.

My view is that the only way to calm the waters would be to have the NCAA fundamentally change the way it does business. In Texas the UIL reorganizes the classifications of high shchools every few years. Teams move up and down in classification based on school size and some move from one district to another. The schools can appeal (I think) but generally don't. They've signed on to a system that has set parameters they agree to and they accept the UIL's decision. The NCAA could do something like this.

It starts with a clear definition of what Division I-A, I-AA, II, III programs are. Essentially you would let the schools decide which division they would be in based on what kind of financial commitment they are willing to make to athletics. After that, the NCAA would assign schools to conferences. They couldn't pick them themselves. They couldn't be independent. The conferences should be geographic in nature to foster better rivalries and keep travel costs low.

None of this addresses the biggest player in college sports: TV. Lawsuits years ago set up the system we have today for college sports broadcasts. I think what would likely happen under a system like the one I described above would be that the networks would do shorter term deals with conferences based on who is in the conference at the time the deal is made. It's possible some individual schools would have deals with networks, but the requirement that they be in a conference would not make that as lucrative.

None of what I've suggested here will ever happen. But I think it's the only way this system will calm down and become stable.

Nice points, but like you said your model will not happen.

Everyone has to get real...RIVALRIES ARE DEAD. Neb v OU ...history... TX v Aggie....gone and so it goes. MONEY is all that matters now. Whether we like it or not it's going to 4 sixteen team superconferences because of MONEY. We have to try to develop a system so that SMU can get in.

[PoconoPony]

I understand the appeal of the EPL model, but it flies in the face of what we know to be big-time college football in the USA. People here love rivalries. Such a model would threaten some of those rivalries over the years. New rivalries would form for a while, but die off after one team or the other dropped or rose in status.


It starts with a clear definition of what Division I-A, I-AA, II, III programs are. Essentially you would let the schools decide which division they would be in based on what kind of financial commitment they are willing to make to athletics. After that, the NCAA would assign schools to conferences. They couldn't pick them themselves. They couldn't be independent. The conferences should be geographic in nature to foster better rivalries and keep travel costs low.

None of this addresses the biggest player in college sports: TV. Lawsuits years ago set up the system we have today for college sports broadcasts. I think what would likely happen under a system like the one I described above would be that the networks would do shorter term deals with conferences based on who is in the conference at the time the deal is made. It's possible some individual schools would have deals with networks, but the requirement that they be in a conference would not make that as lucrative.

None of what I've suggested here will ever happen. But I think it's the only way this system will calm down and become stable.

Reminds me of the Federal Government. Politics dominates and all logic, common sense and the good of the tax payers is totally disregarded. Seems like college football has lost all perspective from its original intent to have regional rivalries and allow the student body to participate and enjoy. Today it is an entity unto itself dominated by $$$$$$$$ and little else.

[redpony]

Sad but true.

GO PONIES!!!