Recently, there has been a lot of activity with teams moving to different conferences to either increase competitive balance or gain more national exposure. It started with Colorado moving to the Pac 12 and Nebraska moving to the Big 10. Now teams such as TCU and Boise State are seeking to do the same thing due to their recent success in football. I think a good model to use for keeping conference and competitive balance at their peak would be to look across the pond at how European soccer leagues use relegation and promotion.
I'll use the Premier League to show how it works since it's probably the one people are most familiar with (Premier League has teams such as Manchester United, Manchester City, and Chelsea just to name a few). Currently there are 20 teams in the Premier League. The bottom three at the end of the season are relegated to the Championship league which is a step below the Premier League. The consequences are loss of money, television rights, and popularity with fans and free agents. The top two teams in the Championship League move up into the Premier League for that season, and the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth teams have a playoff to determine who claims the final spot for promotion. Some might think that moving up lesser teams would only set them up to be the bottom three in the Premier League the next season, but that is not always the case. For instance, Newcastle United were promoted two years ago and finished 12th that year and now sit fifth this year with wins over powerhouses Manchester United, Liverpool, and Chelsea. This system would ensure that teams that have up and coming programs are given the chance to prove themselves against good teams year round instead of just one non conference game and perhaps a bowl game.
The need for a system like this is evident. Boise State and TCU consistently get to BCS bowl games and defeat ranked power conference (Big East, Big 12, Pac 12, Big 10, SEC, and ACC) teams during the regular season. There are also teams at the bottom of those Big 6 power conferences that get beat by top teams from lesser conferences. The bottom three teams of the Big 10 this year, Illinois, Indiana, and Minnesota, lost to teams such as New Mexico State, Division II North Dakota State, Ball State, and North Texas. Ouch. Getting rid of those teams would actually be beneficial to the power conferences as it would bring new life and competition to the conferences and present less gimme games to the Ohio State and Michigans of the world. Before the relegation begins, though, the conferences should be realigned based on geography.
Boise State is now a member of the Big East. Take a minute to process that last sentence. Boise State is east of Washington, sure. But the most west team in the Big East is Louisville, Kentucky. That makes zero sense. As it stands right now, the ACC and SEC are fine. Penn State should leave the Big 10 and join the Big East, creating an instate rivalry with Pitt and cutting down on travel. Missouri should come to the Big 10 as they already have a rivalry with Illinois and are close to the other Big 10 schools. TCU should play in the Big 12 since all the other big Texas schools already do, and perhaps even add Houston. The Pac 12, meanwhile should acquire Boise State and the conferences would be set. Also, the conferences with numbers should change their names. They should have already. There are currently 10 teams in the Big 12, and 12 in the Big 10. Confused? You should be. The smaller conferences would be structured based on geography as well, but there would only be six of them. Two in the northeast to be under the Big East and ACC, one in the southeast to be under the SEC, one in the midwest for the Big Ten, one in the south/southwest for the Big 12, and one in the west for the Pac 10.
The relegation and promotion would be the same as in soccer except the bottom three would automatically advance from the lesser conferences without a playoff. The teams relegated would lose national exposure as well as scholarships. They could still schedule non-conference games against the power teams to prove their mettle, but they would not be eligible for the playoff to determine a BCS National Champion which I will get to later. Some might say what if a team from the lesser conference goes undefeated much like Boise State? That's great. But the argument for whether or not they should play for the National Title didn't heat up until they did it consistently. If they do go undefeated, they would move up into a power conference and prove their worth there. It would also eliminate one year wonder teams like when Hawaii had Colt Brennan or this year when Houston had Case Keenum. Will Houston be a top team next year? Possibly. But in this system they would have to earn it in the Big 12 against the likes of Oklahoma and Texas. On the flip side there may be powers like Florida or USC who do bad one year due to injury, or a weak recruiting class that are relegated. People may ask wouldn't it be bad to lose a traditional power? My counter is teams like that should be strong and popular enough that they are able to climb back in the next year. Also, maybe it's time for new powers in college football. Who knows? 30 years from now the most feared teams could be Colorado, Virginia, and Vanderbilt for all we know.
The playoff system would be simple. All six champions from the power conferences go, regardless of their record. The top two teams by record, then BCS standing if there is a tie, get a bye while the three plays the six and the four plays the five. The argument of what if one conference has a down year and their conference champion is not that good will always come up. The counter would be the 2010-2011 Seahawks. They won a weak NFC West and were heavy underdogs against the defending champion Saints. They were able to get past them and even give the Bears a run for their money the following round. The bowls would still be in place so the second and third place teams in each conference could still make a statement, but they could not win the National Title. Also, because of promotion and relegation, it would ensure that even a "weak" power conference champion would have had to face challenging opponents.
I acknowledge that this system would not fix everything. With college sports there is always controversy and second guessing. Many times, in hindsight, people say this team could have beaten this team. Maybe. But there is no way of knowing. With this system, the regular season would matter much more, and due to the competitiveness of the conference, it would be more likely that one loss would not hurt you so much. While this is not meant to completely right the system, it would increase competitive balance, give the "little guys" a chance to prove themselves, and make college football more fun. It would give teams at the top and bottom more to play for and give us more of a reason to watch.
Matty O
