Could a relegation/promotion system work in CFB

Post #1 » by **bleu** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 4:33 am

Whether you love or hate soccer, in my opinion the English football league is absolutely brilliant for using a relegation/promotion system. For those of you unfamiliar with it, essentially there is a ladder of leagues in the system, and a team can climb between leagues by finishing at the top of their leagues (typically the top two or three teams), while the bottom teams drop out into the lower league.

Could a system like this work in college football?

Hear me out (I should note that I stole some of this from a poster on another site I visit):

4 "Power Conferences" of 16 teams, based on geography (North, East, South, West)
4 "Lesser Conferences" of whatever teams remain, also based on geography
Power Conferences have divisions of 8, and all teams within a division play every year
Every school plays 3 teams from opposite division of conference, and two from other conferences (similar to "bracketbusters" in basketball)
Bottom team from each Upper Conference gets relegated, and top team from Lesser Conference (after championship game) gets promoted
Second to last team in Upper Conference plays runner up of Lesser Conference for spot in Upper Conference
Playoff expands to 8 teams and each Power Conference winner gets in, along with 4 at-large bids (from Upper Conferences only)

Thoughts?

goober · Post #2 » by **goober** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 3:02 pm

it'd be a fun idea, I'd have a hard time seeing schools like Iowa State or Vanderbilt going for it

Post #3 » by **bleu** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 6:34 pm

Goober wrote:it'd be a fun idea, I'd have a hard time seeing schools like Iowa State or Vanderbilt going for it

I totally agree that it will never happen, simply because very few P5 schools would agree to it. But I see so many pros to having a system like that in place, it would improve college football exponentially in my opinion. You'd get so many great late season games between two schools fighting to escape relegation, and have the lower tier schools duking it out for a chance to get promoted. Having it sorted into area-based regions would also assure that you keep good rivalries going.

El Turco · Post #4 » by **El Turco** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 7:02 pm

dont like it just because for most programs have down years every now and then even if they are decent programs other years. ucf was the worst major team last year but they were one of the best teams in their conference previous 5 years. georgia tech was coming off 11 win season and had winning seasons 5 straight years but they were the worst team in acc last year. south carolina was the worst team in sec, yet they had 7 straight winning seasons some of which they were national contenders. i dont think it would've been fair to send down any of these programs instead of consistently mediocre ones that win just enough to avoid last place. unless you are an elite program like alabama, ohio st etc your program is going to go through some pretty bad years every now and then.

Post #5 » by **bleu** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 11:08 pm

Arda K wrote:dont like it just because for most programs have down years every now and then even if they are decent programs other years. ucf was the worst major team last year but they were one of the best teams in their conference previous 5 years. georgia tech was coming off 11 win season and had winning seasons 5 straight years but they were the worst team in acc last year. south carolina was the worst team in sec, yet they had 7 straight winning seasons some of which they were national contenders. i dont think it would've been fair to send down any of these programs instead of consistently mediocre ones that win just enough to avoid last place. unless you are an elite program like alabama, ohio st etc your program is going to go through some pretty bad years every now and then.

Yes, every team has a bad year now and then, but that's sort of the beauty of the system. Just because a team gets relegated down to the lower tier, doesn't mean they are just stuck there forever. It would take them being the worst (or second to worst if they lose to the second best lower tier team) in the conference to get relegated, and just like in the soccer relegation system, they would have a very good opportunity to be promoted back up the following year.

It's obviously not a perfect system, and I can see why some teams and fanbases would be very against it (which is why it will never happen), but I would take it every day of the week over having perennial garbage teams like Wake Forest, Vandy, Kansas, Boston College, etc. considered "Power Teams" while teams like Boise State, Houston, and San Diego State are stuck in weak conferences with a huge recruiting disadvantage and no real possibility of winning a championship.

Post #6 » by **Cactus Jack** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 1:00 am

Yes. It would be great! Great for some smaller schools. I would love to see it in some pro leagues as well. Like baseball, MLS, maybe hockey. I will admit that I'm not the most knowledgeable when it comes to hockey, but I think it could work with jr. leagues.

Post #7 » by **bondom34** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 7:43 am

I couldn't see bigger schools go for it, but I think if you read SB nation they do something where they fake this scenario and relegate/promote teams. They've done a few, this was this year's:

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2015/2/24/8052475/college-football-relegation-promotion-conferences-LIKE-SOCCER

El Turco · Post #8 » by **El Turco** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 10:54 am

bleu wrote:
Arda K wrote:dont like it just because for most programs have down years every now and then even if they are decent programs other years. ucf was the worst major team last year but they were one of the best teams in their conference previous 5 years. georgia tech was coming off 11 win season and had winning seasons 5 straight years but they were the worst team in acc last year. south carolina was the worst team in sec, yet they had 7 straight winning seasons some of which they were national contenders. i dont think it would've been fair to send down any of these programs instead of consistently mediocre ones that win just enough to avoid last place. unless you are an elite program like alabama, ohio st etc your program is going to go through some pretty bad years every now and then.

Yes, every team has a bad year now and then, but that's sort of the beauty of the system. Just because a team gets relegated down to the lower tier, doesn't mean they are just stuck there forever. It would take them being the worst (or second to worst if they lose to the second best lower tier team) in the conference to get relegated, and just like in the soccer relegation system, they would have a very good opportunity to be promoted back up the following year.

It's obviously not a perfect system, and I can see why some teams and fanbases would be very against it (which is why it will never happen), but I would take it every day of the week over having perennial garbage teams like Wake Forest, Vandy, Kansas, Boston College, etc. considered "Power Teams" while teams like Boise State, Houston, and San Diego State are stuck in weak conferences with a huge recruiting disadvantage and no real possibility of winning a championship.

there are few important differences with european football leagues though. one, in euro leagues everybody plays each other home and away so strength of schedule is just about same for everybody. with conferences this big you wont be able to make teams play round robin with each other, so naturally you'll see significant differences in strength of schedule. playing indiana at home instead of michigan state away could make the difference between relegation and staying in the league. even if you did away with out of conference games and expand the schedule to 15 games, you wont be able to play each team home and away which matters when the margin of error is so low. college football scheduling is unfair as it is across the board but at least it doesnt lead to such devastating consequences currently.

also recruiting and personnel you have is an inexact science, you cant just purchase players to reload your team like euro leagues(unless you are usc). many times good programs cant sign good recruits especially in skill positions like qb and rb because they already have elite players as starter and best recruits want to play right away. or there are periods where there arent quality players coming out their main recruiting grounds. this creates a vacuum at important positions for a year players graduate or go on to nfl early. also programs sometimes do get hurt by players that declare to draft early, south carolina for example lost 4 players to nfl early in 2015, while that may not sound like a big number those players could've gotten them an extra win or two that would have kept them from bottom of sec. at the end teams can be penalized for being good and you dont want that to lead to relegation.

sure teams can bounce back up next year but that is unfair to the schools that would lose millions of dollars and even worse unfair to the kids who are forced to play quarter or third of their career in a lower tier. i am all for punishing likes of kansas and colorado but i'd be more in favor a system based on long term performance where those teams are still penalized but programs still allowed to rebuild without crippling themselves. one year is just too volatile in college football.