| FTBL Conference Realignment Article

Before we jump into the deep end, I’ll tell you up front that this little screed runs way past tl;dr, but face the facts: the season is months away, spring football is weeks away, and National Signing Day is in the archives. You’ve got time, so read on.

A day away...but...
 
Interesting read.

Where is the next source of revenue for conferences is what I'm left wondering. Will TV contracts continue to increase at the pace they have in recent years? I just don't see how they can continue to increase like they have.

Dennis Dodds wrote something the other day about the upcoming Big XII expansion.

Bowlsby summed it up this way when asked the financial gap between his league and the SEC, a number that currently stands at about $9 million per year in rights fee revenue.

“If we do nothing, 12 years from now, we'll be $20 million per school behind the SEC and the Big Ten,” he said.

Sure, that sounds crass, but the bottom line is the bottom line.

“Success isn't all tied to the money, but it certainly isn't unrelated,” Bowlsby added.
 
Very interesting article. Guy hit the nail on the head.....money is the driving force.

The biggest issue I see with the 8 team play off is the amount of games played. We all know the world of academia and their grip (although not valid) is the time students are away from school and how it spreads from fall into spring semester. Never has been a real issue for basketball, but that is nothing more than a way for the academic folks to use smoke and mirrors and the auspices of education to validate their argument.

I like the idea of 4 16 team super conferences. Make your schedules consist entirely of teams from those 16 team conferences. It would be impossible with that large of a conference to play everyone within your conference. I had it figured up one time with an SEC model on how to play home and home series with everyone in conference for 2 years and swap, while maintaining your rivals ie UT/Bama. UGA/AU. Also with teams like aTm they could use one of their OOC opponents at Texas.

The issue is still money. Schools like playing a 12 game schedules at getting the definite guaranteed money. There is no guarantee you will make it to the play off and get those extra games late in the season. And plus, while the money is good, would it be as good as having a home game against a decent school from another conference? Only way I see a 8 game play off is if we went back to a 11 game schedule. Move bowl season up a little and shift some the games a little earlier.
 
I dunno. We always hear about how athletes are students first, yet the athletes who really do have to be students first (the ones playing in FCS, D2 and D3) play shorter regular seasons, but much longer playoff seasons.
 
If the big boys only play the big boys, college football is doomed. We already have a situation where the overwhelming majority of schools are not profitable. Smaller schools' athletic programs exist only because big schools pay $1 million+ for them to come play. If the big boys are limited to playing big boys, all the small schools will need to drop their athletics. The lower tier programs of the big conferences will also be in trouble because their <5 win program (thanks to playing the little guys) will become <2 win programs. Ticket prices drop and their main source of revenue is the conference media share. Before you know it, those programs will be shown the door to get at least a mid-level program that can raise the total conference payout.
 
I dunno. We always hear about how athletes are students first, yet the athletes who really do have to be students first (the ones playing in FCS, D2 and D3) play shorter regular seasons, but much longer playoff seasons.

Those playoffs are atleast played when they are out of school, minus a game or two. Heck, you get out the first or second week of December and then don't get back until the 2nd week or so of January.
 
Interesting to me that the Birmingham area is the sixth largest market when it comes to college football.

I have been an advocate of an eight team playoff for several years now. My thought is that if you have eight, you won't leave out anyone who might have a shot at winning it all, as happened in the first year of the playoff.

For various reasons the Big 12 has been in danger of collapsing for several years now, and the economics of the conference makes it difficult for Kansas, Kansas State and Iowa State to compete in football. It would not shock many people if that league collapsed. That could lead to realignment resembling the four 16 team leagues the author describes.

Personally, I don't see that happening. Getting that many conferences, not to mention school, agree on something like this makes herding cats seem like an easy task.

I do think that the Big 12 will expand to enough teams to once again make its name correct. Houston is a very logical candidate. Who the other candidate should be is a good question. BYU and Boise both have the football credibility, but they do little to improve the league's media footprint.

The author did not mention them, but East Carolina would be an interesting choice, certainly as good a fit as current member West Virginia, and the Tidewater area would be a decent media area.
 
I do think that the Big 12 will expand to enough teams to once again make its name correct.
I came away with the impression that the ACC didn't want UCONN in its expansion because of the basketball power that school has been/still is/will be. It seems to be they'd be a good addition to the Big 12 just to see the competition between the Huskies and Jayhawks, Sooners, et al.

Ol' Geno would likely rule that conference like he has the AAC and just like they did when the Big East was in its prime.

Logistically? A different story ...
 
Back
Top Bottom