We are trying out a relegation style conference. Top division gets +3 bonus scholarships. 2 worst teams in the "top" division move to the "bottom" division and the 2 best teams in the "bottom" division get moved up and get the +3 bonus.
You also took a few seasons off. Your Huskers fell on poor leadership. I don't think we should penalize the guys who stuck it out.
Wait, if the goal was promotion-relegation, why was I put in this division to begin with? Shouldn't the Top 6 have been Arkansas (13-0), Tennessee (13-1), Ohio State (12-2), Cal (11-2), Georgia (11-2) and then Notre Dame (12-2) added from out of conference as the 6th team? With the Bottom 6 being WVU (10-3, or Arizona who replaced them), Louisville (9-4), Baylor (9-4), Nebraska (9-4), Michigan and USC.
I don't mind a good challenge, but Nebraska is the worst overall rated team in the conference, finished tied for the worst user record and played in the conference's lowest ranked bowl. I think the initial math on these divisions might have been a little off.
I'm not suggesting to penalize the guys who stuck it out but I left once and returned to my original, far worse off, team. We have had multiple users quit mid-season to cherry pick far better new teams, in some cases more than once. Something I might have to do myself because my team is not going to be getting much better with age. +3 scholarships do me no good, I'm barely going to sign enough players to match my graduating Seniors never mind the 4 empty roster spots and 3 "bonus" scholarships.
I guess it is too late now though, I'm going to finish with a top 4 record in the top division after all this anyway. Just going to have to decide if I want to stick it out at Nebraska or try and move to a "win now" team where I can better compete next year.