I have been in favor for a decade of an upper and lower class Division 1 (or whatever it’s called now).
The super programs like OSU, Bama etc. can fight it out each year and the normal schools where it’s a fucking school first and not an excuse to have a football team can slow down the arms race and we can enjoy sports without the insanity.
A place like Iowa is never winning a Natty under the current system. I’d rather play in the BIG without OSU and have viable shots at the conference each year.
I'd love to see a relegation system similar to what is used in European soccer. Set things up by tier levels, let them battle it out and each season swap out the teams that finish in the bottom 3-4 spots with those that finish in the top 3-4 spots in the tier below.
It may not generate the revenue the way things do now, but I think it definitely balances the leagues out and makes the competition more fierce. I think it'd definitely improve the product as games would be more competitive and you'd see much less blowouts week to week.
This....I think it gets even worse because it is just one more thing to use to negatively recruit guys. "Oh, your team is gonna get relegated so you better transfer" and the next thing you know the shit league is basically in a perpetual state of "Detroit Lions/Cleveland Browns/NY Jets."
This doesn't play in college sports. A team could get good because it has 7 great upperclassmen and then they could easily suck the next year. 2020 was a weird year, but look at the fall of LSU from 2019 to 2020 as an example. Add the transfer rules and I think it gets even worse because it is just one more thing to use to negatively recruit guys. "Oh, your team is gonna get relegated so you better transfer" and the next thing you know the shit league is basically in a perpetual state of "Detroit Lions/Cleveland Browns/NY Jets."
"Oh shucks, Iowa got relegated but at least we get to play K State and Kansas instead of Ohio State and Wisconsin." Screw that.
Agree it doesn't work but something definitely needs to change. Bigger super conference sized conference are great, but not when you only see the Ohio State's of the Big Ten once every couple of years and continue to see the Nebraska bottom feeders on a yearly basis. In my opinion its not much different. At what point do conferences grow to the size where your right back to square one one playing a division made up of the conference you just left. I can very easily see the Big 12 imploding, the Big bringing on the bulk of the conference and then you have a Big Ten east and a Big Ten west made up primarily of the geographic split with one former conference in one division and the other in the other.
While expansion is great, I'm seeing OSU/PSU/Michigan being replaced by Maryland/Rutgers as crossover games and feeling the exact excitement that you referenced above with "getting to play K State and Kansas instead of OSU" I just don't see much of a difference.
Those numbers are only 2000-2009. When you include the 2010s and 20s the chart looks vastly different.The BIG is probably going to have to scramble. I would guess that whoever wins the BIG each year will be good enough to occasionally challenge the SEC in one in 4 years.
Winning rankings since 2000
OK State 50
Ariz/Stanford/Washington are 89-91
So the Big wouldn't be that weak. Only really missing a real strong program and two similar to Iowa.