Jump to content

Division 1 College Conference Realignment


dfwabel
 Share

Recommended Posts

Someone please correct me if and where the following statement is incorrect: If the SEC adds teams, they are just cutting the money "pie" that they get from CBS/ESPN into smaller pieces.

That 15 year deal won't be renegotiated and the money will just be split among more people, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They want Oklahoma and Texas. I think you are correct in the sharing of the money... but after the success of the BTN and its use as a bargaining chip, the SEC is scrambling to get a network together.

I think one thing Texas and Oklahoma is wary of is joining a conference that becomes too strong... which is why I think they would favor the Big 10 over the SEC. I don't see these school and football programs pining to join a conference where they beat the hell out of each other, and then potentially only get 1 team into the BCS Championship, and maybe a bunch of 3 or 4 loss teams in lesser bowl games.

Now someone will say, "what about the PAC-10?" Certainty an option. But I look at it as, the Big 10 is weak, but with the demise of the Big 12, it now becomes the 2nd best conference. When it comes down to it, USC and Oregon are the only contending teams, and with the USC sanctions, it might be a good 5-6 years before you see USC in a big bowl. As for Washington and Oregon State, it will be interesting to see how it unfolds in the future. 1 loss in a weak conference means no National Title. 1 Loss in the second best conference (Big 10), could still have national title possibilities.

I do think the Texas AD is on record as saying something to the likes of: "we love the possibility of Saturday nights in Happy Valley, in the Big House, or in the Horse Shoe. We certainty like the idea entertaining the Wolverines, Nittny Lions, and the Buckeyes, too."

So... take it for what its worth, but its fun to think about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure the SEC would move to "renegotiate" its ESPN contract post expansion upheaval. There may be more slices, but the pie would be getting bigger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, if the super-conferences end up breaking away, I see the NCAA getting rid of the FBS/FCS designation, thereby (ironically) deciding the Division 1 championship with the already existing FCS playoff.

Just imagine... Boise State (assuming they get left out of the breakaway mega-conferences) winning the NCAA football national championship... in a playoff!

In the meantime, others here have argued that the rise of mega-conferences would mean fewer non-conference games vs. mid-majors. I think it will go a step further: fewer non-conference games, period. Remember there are only 11-12 games per team per season, and bigger conferences make it that much harder to have every team play each of its conference rivals at least once per season. Furthermore, games within a mega-conference will be more attractive to TV networks than non-conference games vs. teams from less competitive conferences, or even from other mega-conferences. (As it is now, inter-BCS-conference games are compelling mainly because of their BCS implications, but with mega-conferences the same thing can be had without scheduling outside the conference, so intersectional regular-season games just become redundant.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone please correct me if and where the following statement is incorrect: If the SEC adds teams, they are just cutting the money "pie" that they get from CBS/ESPN into smaller pieces.

That 15 year deal won't be renegotiated and the money will just be split among more people, right?

I would bet their is a clause that if the SEC adds new members they can reopen the contract with ESPN. However, as Hedley said they are in a position where they don't have to act now. If the SEC expands with won't be to areas that they already have schools it will be to new territory. To add a GT, Clemson, or FSU basically splits the existing pie as those schools don't add new markets.

That said orangebloods.com is reporting A&M has the regents votes to go to the SEC, so it looks like the SEC is expanding and will probably also grab a 14th team to keep divisions even. That could mean trying to grab a more northern ACC school (VT, UVA, Maryland, UNC, ect). I think it may be VT mainly because UNC would have to drag NC State (And probably Duke although the SEC might like that) with them. Or they could grab another Big 12 leftover (assuming Texas and Oklahoma go to the pacific), perhaps a Kansas even though that would be an odd geographic fit.

And according to the Baltimore SUN via the ChiTrib the University of MARYLAND is being considered for the Big 10. WHAT! If anything I would think WVU, Pitt, Rutgers and Syracuse would jump to the ACC. That they would not lose MD.

Well first off Rutgers almost for sure at this point will be going to the Big Ten. Whenever in the next few months the Big Ten send out their next invites Rutgers will get one. Syracuse will probably also be the 16th team added to the Big Ten and thus probably wouldn't join the ACC. Pitt would be a nice addition for the ACC, West Virginia while has nice athletic programs may end up being a school that gets screwed in all of this because of their market and academics.

Basically when all said and done the ACC, even with their new tv deal will probably become what the Big East is now. That is the weakest financially of the major conferences. That leaves it open to the next round of attacks whenever expansion happens again. The SEC will eventually go to 16 teams, even if they don't expand to 16 immediately. Especially if the 16 team conferences get 2 automatic major postseason bids. That basically means at some point the SEC will raid the ACC. If you are Maryland you basically have to decide now which is the eventual better option. Personally speaking I think the Big Ten is and thus accept an invite if they get one. I think culturally Maryland is closer to the Big Ten and the north than the SEC and the south. Penn State would provide for a nice natural rival and so would Syracuse and Rutgers if they join as well. Also if UMD, Cuse and Notre Dame join the conference ends up being one of the better basketball conferences as well. Financially the Big Ten probably has the better growth potential with the network especially if ND is forced to join (and I think they will be forced in).

I don't think the ACC will end up going the way of the Big 12 or what may happen to Big East football, but after everything is done the ACC probably won't be a very good conference to be in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone please correct me if and where the following statement is incorrect: If the SEC adds teams, they are just cutting the money "pie" that they get from CBS/ESPN into smaller pieces.

That 15 year deal won't be renegotiated and the money will just be split among more people, right?

I'm pretty sure the SEC would move to "renegotiate" its ESPN contract post expansion upheaval. There may be more slices, but the pie would be getting bigger.

It may not be sliced smaller because of the additional ad revenue which might be seen from the SEC on ESPN Network. If you do not have this game, it was formerly known as the "Jefferson-Pilot SEC Game of the Week". It is the televised 12:30 (Eastern) game(s). The current nine state SEC footprint only has 18% of the USA's population, and the network currently includes 14 out of market states in syndication or on cable including VA, TX (all 3 major cities), IL (Chicago), MI (Detroit), IN, NC, NYC, Phoenix, and Pittsburgh. If specific schools are added, the footprint will grow and so will ad revenue. Getting UT, aTm, or OU will increase the ad revenue in syndication, or combined with the possible demise of a Big XII game of the week at the same time, more regional sports networks will pick up the SEC package over the ACC or Big East

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone please correct me if and where the following statement is incorrect: If the SEC adds teams, they are just cutting the money "pie" that they get from CBS/ESPN into smaller pieces.

That 15 year deal won't be renegotiated and the money will just be split among more people, right?

The bolded part is correct. The SEC won't be expanding just for the sake of expanding....they'll only be expanding if the incoming school(s) will increase their revenue exponentially. Adding a Louisville, a Texas A&M, or a Virginia Tech doesn't do that. Adding a Texas or a Notre Dame, or to a lesser degree an Oklahoma, does.

They want Oklahoma and Texas. I think you are correct in the sharing of the money... but after the success of the BTN and its use as a bargaining chip, the SEC is scrambling to get a network together.

I think one thing Texas and Oklahoma is wary of is joining a conference that becomes too strong... which is why I think they would favor the Big 10 over the SEC. I don't see these school and football programs pining to join a conference where they beat the hell out of each other, and then potentially only get 1 team into the BCS Championship, and maybe a bunch of 3 or 4 loss teams in lesser bowl games.

The SEC isn't scrambling to get a network. The conference already has 15-year deals...involving multi-billion dollars with each deal....with both CBS and ESPN. The SEC has CBS all to itself. Other than Notre Dame, no other school or conference has this distinction of having a basic TV channel to itself. The Big Ten shares ABC with the ACC and Big XII (and Pac-10, I believe). Also, with the deal ESPN has with the SEC, ESPN now has contractual rights to all SEC home events in every televised sport. The SEC doesn't need that conference network that the Big Ten has and the Pac-10 is creating.

The Big Ten and Pac-10, along with all the other conferences, are well behind the SEC. The only way they can catch-up to the SEC is by expanding and creating these super-conferences.

Texas and Oklahoma aren't going to decide with conference is best for them, just for the football competition aspect. They're going to go with the option that places them in the best financial situation in the long-term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say the Big Ten is well behind the SEC financially. They're pretty close...although they have taken opposite approaches to TV revenues.

I've know I've seen on ESPN.com that the Big Ten's tv contacts for football are the biggest of any of the conferences, and that's even without the revenue from BTN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say the Big Ten is well behind the SEC financially. They're pretty close...although they have taken opposite approaches to TV revenues.

I've know I've seen on ESPN.com that the Big Ten's tv contacts for football are the biggest of any of the conferences, and that's even without the revenue from BTN.

projected Revenue (After the SEC/ESPN contract was signed)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, if the super-conferences end up breaking away, I see the NCAA getting rid of the FBS/FCS designation, thereby (ironically) deciding the Division 1 championship with the already existing FCS playoff.

Just imagine... Boise State (assuming they get left out of the breakaway mega-conferences) winning the NCAA football national championship... in a playoff!

In the meantime, others here have argued that the rise of mega-conferences would mean fewer non-conference games vs. mid-majors. I think it will go a step further: fewer non-conference games, period. Remember there are only 11-12 games per team per season, and bigger conferences make it that much harder to have every team play each of its conference rivals at least once per season. Furthermore, games within a mega-conference will be more attractive to TV networks than non-conference games vs. teams from less competitive conferences, or even from other mega-conferences. (As it is now, inter-BCS-conference games are compelling mainly because of their BCS implications, but with mega-conferences the same thing can be had without scheduling outside the conference, so intersectional regular-season games just become redundant.)

You're kidding right? Unless Boise State ends up in one of the mega-conferences they may as well drop down to the FCS level and be done with it. How you guys can realize that this conference jumping is all about money yet still believe that the "outsider" conference schools are going to get a shot at anything is amusing to me. Boise State does everything well except make huge amounts of money and get great TV ratings. Why on Earth would these new mega-conferences, which we all admit are nothing more than a cash grab, have any interest in having a playoff that involves teams that aren't part of the new cash flow. Can someone explain to me how schools like Boise State and Utah will benefit in any way from these mega-conferences if they aren't a member of those conferences?

If there is a playoff it is simply not going to include "mid-majors." I've said it more times than I can remember at this point but I'll say it again... There is simply no way that any playoff that's part of this new mega-conference system, which again we all admit is about money, is going to include a Boise State at the expense of one of their own. That's more true now than it was before all this started. You guys think all this stuff is a good thing for the "BCS busters." The truth is it's the kiss of death for them. It may take a few years but you can count on it. Just look at the second sentence in bold to see why. In a climate that's all about money how are schools that aren't making any money going to survive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, if the super-conferences end up breaking away, I see the NCAA getting rid of the FBS/FCS designation, thereby (ironically) deciding the Division 1 championship with the already existing FCS playoff.

Just imagine... Boise State (assuming they get left out of the breakaway mega-conferences) winning the NCAA football national championship... in a playoff!

In the meantime, others here have argued that the rise of mega-conferences would mean fewer non-conference games vs. mid-majors. I think it will go a step further: fewer non-conference games, period. Remember there are only 11-12 games per team per season, and bigger conferences make it that much harder to have every team play each of its conference rivals at least once per season. Furthermore, games within a mega-conference will be more attractive to TV networks than non-conference games vs. teams from less competitive conferences, or even from other mega-conferences. (As it is now, inter-BCS-conference games are compelling mainly because of their BCS implications, but with mega-conferences the same thing can be had without scheduling outside the conference, so intersectional regular-season games just become redundant.)

You're kidding right? Unless Boise State ends up in one of the mega-conferences they may as well drop down to the FCS level and be done with it. How you guys can realize that this conference jumping is all about money yet still believe that the "outsider" conference schools are going to get a shot at anything is amusing to me. Boise State does everything well except make huge amounts of money and get great TV ratings. Why on Earth would these new mega-conferences, which we all admit are nothing more than a cash grab, have any interest in having a playoff that involves teams that aren't part of the new cash flow. Can someone explain to me how schools like Boise State and Utah will benefit in any way from these mega-conferences if they aren't a member of those conferences?

If there is a playoff it is simply not going to include "mid-majors." I've said it more times than I can remember at this point but I'll say it again... There is simply no way that any playoff that's part of this new mega-conference system, which again we all admit is about money, is going to include a Boise State at the expense of one of their own. That's more true now than it was before all this started. You guys think all this stuff is a good thing for the "BCS busters." The truth is it's the kiss of death for them. It may take a few years but you can count on it. Just look at the second sentence in bold to see why. In a climate that's all about money how are schools that aren't making any money going to survive?

You're overlooking what illwauk mentioned in the post I was responding to: Forming mega-conferences is in all likelihood just a step toward leaving the NCAA altogether and forming a separate governing body of their own. The "mid-majors" would, presumably, remain in the NCAA - and suddenly find themselves to be its new powerhouses in football (and probably other sports too). And of course, once the (ex-)BCS schools bolt from the NCAA there is no reason for the NCAA to even keep the FBS/FCS distinction anymore; since the bowls would presumably throw in with the new league for mega-conferences, the NCAA could just put everyone remaining under the playoff system.

So, my previous point stands: If/when the great mega-conference schism occurs, we could easily see the likes of Boise State winning a unified NCAA Division I football championship in a playoff. That playoff just won't involve any of the (ex-)BCS schools, because they'll be in a whole other universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question here from someone who knows very little about college sports and all of this conference nonsense.

As a Villanova allum, I (sorta) follow their basketball team and make a few road trips with them every year (mostly to check out other cities rather than watch the games, but it's become something fun I do with other allums.) Anyway, if all of these "super conferences" form their own tournaments and just F the NCAA, what happens to schools like 'Nova who don't field DI-A football teams (and therefore aren't attractive to a Super Conference) but have competitive basketball programs? Will they have a league to be in anymore? Would said league (if it exists) have access to compete for championships in a "Super Conference Tournament"? Or would it have to compete in what remains of the NCAA Tournament, which would essentially have the same status that the NIT has now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised more people aren't asking questions like that.

But my guess is that some negotiations would take place and this breakaway mega-conference alliance would end up being football-only since any other championship it tried to decide would automatically be disputable. In every other sport there's plenty of teams that either don't have football or aren't in BCS conferences that are perennial contenders for the national championship like Memphis, Gonzaga, Butler, a handful of Big East schools (basketball), Long Beach and CS-Fullerton (baseball), or Johns Hopkins (lax).

Or they could end up having two separate tournaments with the final being a game between the champion of each alliance.

At least those are the best case scenarios... the sad reality is that all this elitist dick-waving over football could end up killing the significance of every other college sport, whether intentional or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're overlooking what illwauk mentioned in the post I was responding to: Forming mega-conferences is in all likelihood just a step toward leaving the NCAA altogether and forming a separate governing body of their own. The "mid-majors" would, presumably, remain in the NCAA - and suddenly find themselves to be its new powerhouses in football (and probably other sports too). And of course, once the (ex-)BCS schools bolt from the NCAA there is no reason for the NCAA to even keep the FBS/FCS distinction anymore; since the bowls would presumably throw in with the new league for mega-conferences, the NCAA could just put everyone remaining under the playoff system.

I did indeed. I stand corrected on that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question now... and hopefully someone whose more up on the Pac-10 can answer it for me.

I saw on ESPN's bottom line last night that the SEC is really only interested in Texas and Oklahoma. If the SEC got them to join without their "dance partners," then what happens to A&M, Tech and Okie State? Would the Pac-10 still want them without the bigger schools it was assumed they'd come with... or would they be more likely to lock in on the Mountain West and go after the Utah schools, TCU and perhaps even Boise?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question now... and hopefully someone whose more up on the Pac-10 can answer it for me.

I saw on ESPN's bottom line last night that the SEC is really only interested in Texas and Oklahoma. If the SEC got them to join without their "dance partners," then what happens to A&M, Tech and Okie State? Would the Pac-10 still want them without the bigger schools it was assumed they'd come with... or would they be more likely to lock in on the Mountain West and go after the Utah schools, TCU and perhaps even Boise?

If Texas & Oklahoma join the SEC the Pac-10 in all likelihood would invite Utah to join Colorado in a 12 school Pac-10 instead of a 16 school mega conference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If ONLY Texas and Oklahoma go to the SEC... I don't think you will see the Big 12 fall apart. Kansas, Kansas State, Mizzou, and Iowa State have all said they would be interested in the staying in the Big 12. I could see them inviting TCU and maybe trying to steal some school from the SEC. If that happens, Colorado could have made a bad move.

I don't see some of the lesser SEC schools wanting to get beat up week in and week out with a football conference consisting of almost all power houses.

I think the PAC 10 would still want OK State and Tech, but I don't see them going alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.