Was coming here to see if anybody had posted this.

Relegation/promotion is the best OU can hope for at this point, otherwise we're going to be completely left out. Think there's some merit to this approach, but not clear to my why the Big 10 and SEC sign up.

And don't forget seeing the Marching 110!!!!

Honestly though, hasn't it really always been the case, OTHER THAN for students, true diehards or local citizens that have an easy trek to Peden, that all Ohio football (and for that matter, most of the G5 schools) is, is catching or game or 2 on a nice sunny Fall Saturday and hopefully watching a win? I've never had delusions Ohio could even remotely compete for a national championship and frankly, it's not even trying to. I think the last 10 years or so have been a golden age for Ohio football, although winning a MACC would be nice.

And you're not wrong in that thinking.

But my point is, if you're honest with yourself, is the fact that Ohio has no chance of winning an FBS championship whatsover ever stopped or prevented you from watching the team on TV, screaming at the TV when Albin makes a crazy play call, stopping you from screaming like crazy when CJ Harris tosses a strike to Tyler Foster in OT to win a bowl game or when Rickey Hill rushes for 5 TDs? No! You're into it because you love the team and Ohio football. Me too. We all do.

And truthfully, Ohio is on ESPN a good bit of the time, which I think's pretty cool.

So sure, we're not in the conversation with the big boys about a national championship. On the other hand, Ohio doesn't also spend the obscene amounts of $$$ it takes to try and win one. And whether we like it or not, Ohio isn't even trying to win the national championship, and I'm fine with that.

Edit: As a side note, overall one could argue Ohio's gotten a pretty good return on it's investment in football. It's on TV a good bit, wins a majority of its games, wins bowl games. All with spending at the very bottom wrung of FBS teams.

Mark, you're not serious about Ohio being in the top 80, right?

I’m very serious. At the end of this year, CBS Sports for example had Ohio ranked #66 in its final ranking.

I think we were top 80 this past season. But I'm talking about year in, year out. And you know the criteria used to determine top 80 will probably not br friendly to group of 5 teams.

So Ohio may have moved into the top 80 for this season under the new plan.

Exactly, to think the Northwestern's, Indiana's, Vandy's, etc being left behind simply is not going to happen. And yes, we are on the field been often a top 80, but we ain't starting there. The problem with this entire system of moving up, is you'd have to blow some schedules up when you have teams move up or down.

There are 60 P5 teams, that would leave 20 spots, not sure there is a spot for the MAC in that 20.

To your point even if they did leave behind the NW, Indiana, Vandy, etc, I don't know if Ohio would necessarily be at the top of their list to replace them.

Let's put this exercise into practice.

1. Alabama
2. Auburn
3. LSU
4. Texas A&M
5. Mississippi St
6. Ole Miss
7. Arkansas
8. Florida
9. Georgia
10. Missouri
11. Kentucky
12. South Carolina
13. Tennessee
14. Vanderbilt
15. Oklahoma
16. Texas
17. Michigan
18. Ohio State
19. Penn State
20. Michigan State
21. Rutgers
22. Indiana
23. Maryland
24. Purdue
25. Iowa
26. Illinois
27. Wisconsin
28. Minnesota
29. Nebraska
30. Northwestern
31. Washington
32. Oregon
33. USC
34. UCLA

(almost half is covered by the current Big 2 already)

35. Clemson
36. Florida State
37. Miami
38. Virginia
39. Virginia Tech
40. Duke
41. Wake Forest
42. UNC
43. NC State
44. Boston College
45. Syracuse
46. Pitt
47. Georgia Tech
48. Louisville
49. Notre Dame
50. West Virginia
51. Baylor
52. Texas Tech
53. Kansas
54. Kansas State
55. Iowa State
56. TCU
57. Oklahoma State
58. BYU
59. Cincinnati
60. Houston
61. UCF

So you've got 19 spots left for ~60+ other schools. You think Ohio deserves one of those year-in, year out? It wouldn't be completely insane to think they are deserving based on past merit and accomplishments in the Solich era, but who knows what they'd base this off of. Budgets? Attendance? Overall winning percentage? Who have you played against? After doing this I realized I left out three more schools in the ACC and new Big 12...

62. SMU
63. Stanford
64. Cal
66. Arizona
67. Arizona St
68. Utah
69. Colorado

And these programs I could easily see picked over Ohio.

70. Oregon State
71. Washington State
72. Boise State
73. Navy
74. Army
75. Air Force
76. Tulane
77. Fresno State
78. USF
79. Memphis

So you've got 1 spot. Let's say the service academies aren't included in this, so that's 4 spots. Promotion/relegation gets you to maybe 10 spots, if we're being generous.

Problem is, when we are top 80, we finish the season in the top 80, we do not start in the top 80. Meaning we wouldn't be in the top 80 alignment. And, be willing to bet any system that has a mechanism of upward movement would require more than one good year. And as suggested above, money will be a BIG factor in all this.

As I understand relegation/promotion, the lowest ranked teams from among the top 80 would drop out, while the highest ranked of the excluded teams would replace them. Thus, if Ohio was in the top 80 at the end of one year, they would be included in the Super 80 league the next year, for at least one year. I would think that they would be sometimes in, sometimes not.

In England, at the end of the regular season the bottom three teams in the Premier (top) League are relegated to the Championship (second best league). The top three championship teams move up to Premier League. They don’t play inter league games against each other as part of the regular league seasons. If I’m not mistaken all levels of English soccer follow a similar pattern.

That's the way it used to work. The new way is that each year's team will stand on it's own. Many of the best and worst players will then transfer out, and the coaches will reconstitute a new team for the next year, with as much as 1/3 of the total team replaced each year. While good coaches may be able to maintain consistent results by retaining more good players, and by choosing good players to add, there will the much less continuity, and progress in terms of success from year to year will be less predictable.

What would a relegation system accomplish? In my opinion, some coaches/schools will thrive in the new system, and outperform their peers, while others will falter, and under-perform. Relegation will allow those schools that perform consistently well to rise, and those that consistently under-perform to fall, at least until they make changes that improve their results. Will coaching salaries finally fall to earth in this new era, with or without relegation? Probably not, and they may rise faster.