Conference Realignment (Again)

[carlspacklerrocks]

This article - it's long but pretty interesting - says there will be a lot more of it and some surprise schools joining the Big 10. Also makes some crazy predictions about things like last place schools being demoted to the midmajors while their conference champions move up every year.

Okay, so it's kinda out there, but a good offseason read.

http://www.thechaosindex.com/cest-l...-to-change-a-whole-lot-more-than-you-realize/

 

[AreYouNUTS]

yawn

 

[ScarletDave]

It can't work that way because players are recruited to colleges, not bought and sold like the pros. And changing conferences only for football? Or all sports? You can't have all your teams in different conferences. And a new schedule each year too much effects the budget and travel.

 

[rulaw87]

The name of the author is Captain Chaos. 'Nuff said.

 

[anon_ivydyf0amkzay]

As AreYouNUTS said...yawn!

 

[Upstream]

Things he got right:

• There will be more conference realignment
• Markets and market appeal matter (as Rutgers fans know)

Things that are wrong or just off-the-cuff ranting:

• Everything else

 

[Scarlet Shack]

That article was two minutes off my life I will never have back...

 

[Knight Shift]

The name of the author is Captain Chaos. 'Nuff said.

The name of the OP?

 

[Abro1975]

The guy is right about TV Market Size being the biggest determining factor of realignment, which is why RU is in the Big10. Probably will be the biggest reason UCF winds up in the Big12, Orlando being a big TV market, in a growing area, rich w football recruiting talent, And in America's number 1 destination city (Disney, Universal etc)

Relegation is just silly.

 

[anon_ivydyf0amkzay]

The last round of the realignment showed that unless you are a team named Texas, ND, OU and maybe (just maybe) KU, due to its basketball pedigree, that your options are limited. There are teams that want in (UH, Cincy, Uconn, UCF, USF) and there are teams that don't want to be left out in the "cold" (Baylor, TCU, and pretty much everyone in the b12 except for TX/OU) who will likely band together to fight their burnt orange overlord.

Any and all conference changes will stem from how uncomfortable the nutless bovines get with their regional conference set up...period. If teams like Vandy are suddenly making more $$ they will attempt something big! They are the only ones with enough clout to get it going. However ou and the 8 other servants react will dictate how it all goes down.

Can't see why conferences like the B1G, SEC and PAC need to rock the boat. Cable and the tv landscape is changing...and the new norm is still taking shape.

I think what we have will be so for a long while...maybe a generation.

My wish for my two schools:

RU: to develop into a national power or at the very least competitive in all sports and a completely new infrastructure. RUs future and potential is staggering to contemplate...beat State Penn in everything...stadium expansion...fence off NJ fandom...which inexplicably has been hard to do.

A&M: Facilities are already mind-blowing...what A&M needs to do is to remain in a conference apart from TX and other B12 schools...what the former president clearly saw (when others would not) is that separation and distinction was needed...if you remain in that large orange shadow, you'll never distinguish yourself...they are too big a brand. Pres Loftin was brilliant!! 4 years in A&M has thrived in the SEC, the move has been MORE successful than most thought it'd be.

 

[cubuffsdoug]

I do like this statement:

I can’t dig up the data to tell you the most popular teams in Houston (which I just guessed about), but the most popular teams in the New York market after Rutgers? Try Notre Dame, Penn State, Connecticut, and Michigan.

 

[ecojew]

RU: to develop into a national power or at the very least competitive in all sports and a completely new infrastructure. RUs future and potential is staggering to contemplate...beat State Penn in everything...stadium expansion...fence off NJ fandom...which inexplicably has been hard to do.

I agree very much with your comments on how A&M moving to the SEC was a brilliant move that produced immediate results. As for RU, the idea of fencing "off NJ fandom...which inexplicably has been hard to do" is, in my mind at least, not so inexplicable. I've always felt that the absence of any in-state network TV stations has been a major factor in our inability to cultivate the fan base. I've lived in Columbus (O) + Syracuse, both years ago, and saw how local affiliates of the national network can focus so much more attention on what the home university teams are doing. On most days the sports report would have several minutes about them, followed by quick rundown of NBA, NHL, MLB scores. In NJ, nearly everyone gets their sports TV reporting from out-of-state sources in NYC and Philadelphia, and the priorities are just the opposite. So, while those stations may well have a feature about our games AFTER they've been played, they are doing anything to boost ticket sales all week long PRIOR to the games. Rutgers fans have always had to be more resourceful in finding ways to get information about our teams.

For some reason, NJ's congressional delegation has never, to my knowledge, tried to get this situation changed by pressuring the FCC to grant network affiliate licenses for this state.

The negativity of much of the in-state print media is also a factor. Somehow, they've never figured out that their revenues would go up if they actually started reporting on their in-state programs in a more positive way to get people excited about them.

You are evidently from the Houston area. I was at the Texas Bowl and saw the excellent job done by the Houston Chronicle(?) about the game for a couple of days prior to and the day after the game. I specifically recall an article about the economic impact that the game was having, an estimated $30 million being pumped into the Houston economy by the two fan bases. It was all a very positive view of the event, even though no Texas team was involved.

 

[satnom]

I do like this statement:

This was not the case 20, 15, or 10 years ago and RUs place as the questionably most popular college football program in the NYC market to the actual or even perceived most popular college football program in NYC is a huge jump in and of itself. The space for RU growth is tremendous.

Another thing that caught my eye from this run-on sentence of an article is that as cable companies lose subscriber dough (cord cutting) they will be changing the rules (tv contracts) for the P5 conferences to keep cutting the big checks. One stipulation being to play more out of conference P5 schools by cutting out G5 and 1AA opponents and/or adding a game. The gap between P5 schools and everyone else will only get wider.

GO RU

 

[Panthergrowl13]

Speculation

However, the point about market share is valid and that is where the Big 12 Conference Schools are vulnerable.

Population of Kansas is only 2.9 million and has 2 Big 12 Schools: Kansas and KSU
Population of Oklahoma is only 3.8 million and has 2 Big 12 Schools: Oklahoma and OSU
Population of Iowa is only 3.1 million and has 1 Big 12 and 1 B1G School: ISU and Iowa
Population of West Virginia is only 1.85 million and has 1 Big 12 School: WVU

That's 6 Big 12 Schools having a collective population base of only 10 million (splitting Iowa population), compared to large states such as Pennsylvania with a population of 12.8 million.

Then you have the 2 small private Big 12 Texas schools TCU and Baylor (Texas and Texas a&m carry most of Texas).

If population and market share are important then the Big12 is in trouble if Texas leaves.

The LHN has cost ESPN about $48 million in loses so far.

Oklahoma leaving could also destabilize the Conference

HAIL TO PITT!!!!

 

[Bamm Bamm Rubble]

Houston would be a great fit in the ACC. The ACC want to start a Network theyll need to go west to uncharted territories.

The B12 needs to go coast to coast. Their influence needs to stretch from San Diego California to Orlando Florida. Tornado Alley isn't going to pay the bills as far as the Big 12 Network goes. If The B12 adds schools in Cal and Floridas losing The Longhorns to The B1G wont hurt as much.

 

[MADHAT1]

Conference realignment will happen, when is anyone's guess, but one of these things will happen:
1a) The ACC will get raided and raid another conference
2a) The Big 12 will lose members and replace them from another conference.
3) The B1G,PAC and SEC will become 16 school conferences by raiding the ACC & Big 12 .
1b & 2b= 4) The ACC and Big 12 merge into a 20 team conference, setting UP the next round of conference expansion for when the PAC,B1G and SEC expand to a 20 school conference .
5) None of the above, but speculation about realignment will go on ( and on and on and on)[winking]

 

[Panthergrowl13]

Conference realignment will happen, when is anyone's guess, but one of these things will happen:
1a) The ACC will get raided and raid another conference
2a) The Big 12 will lose members and replace them from another conference.
3) The B1G,PAC and SEC will become 16 school conferences by raiding the ACC & Big 12 .
1b & 2b= 4) The ACC and Big 12 merge into a 20 team conference, setting UP the next round of conference expansion for when the PAC,B1G and SEC expand to a 20 school conference .
5) None of the above, but speculation about realignment will go on ( and on and on and on)[winking]

As the article speculates, I think eventually you will have 4 Conferences (SEC,ACC,B1G and PAC) composed of 16 teams each broken up into 2- 8 team devisions (Notre Dame and BYU will have to pick a Conference).

The Pac 12 (expandingg to 16 schools) out of necessity will have to go WEST taking 3 or 4 schools from the Big 12 Conference. I think Texas, eventually without the LHN will leave the Big 12 to go to the B1G or ACC (Notre Dame will go to the B1G or ACC). The B1G and SEC will require 2 schools each to reach 16 members).

If required the ACC may have to take maybe 2 teams (WVU and one more) from the Big 12 Conference.

The Big 12 Conference (as happened to the Big East) will no longer exist.

HAIL TO PITT!!!!

 

[ScarletDave]

What's funny is people always say "I wish RU was competitive in all sports" well - that proves right there that the only sports you (and most) really pay attention to are FB and MBB, which last year were our worst sports (other than volleyball). We really have one of the best overall athletic programs in the country right now.

GREAT sports:
1) Men's Soccer (#23, lost in NCAA to #5 Akron)
2) Women's Soccer (#3, lost Final Four to #1 PSU)
3) Wrestling (#10, one of 3 teams to send all players to NCAA)
4) Mens LAX (#25 about to move up, at 8-2 and 1st in B1G)
5) Track & Field (have won our only 3 B1G championships, have #1 long jumper in the world)

GOOD sports:
1) Womens Bball went to the NIT, just won it 2 years ago (the only NC you can win since UConn gets the other one), was ranked top 15 last year
2) Gymnastics
3) Rowing

OK sports:
Baseball & Softball (both around a little below .500, still getting used to the B1G

BAD sports:
MBB (new coach, see what happens)
Volleyball (needs major work)
and that leaves football, which is not BAD, heck bowls in 9 of 11 years. Just had 1 bad year, not irreversible.

So, my point, is go out and support the other sports teams and celebrate our good athletes, and root for the ones struggling a little to rise!

 

[oldtimer67]

I have 3 big problems with what is talked about in the article (fantastic, in the true meaning of the word) and the comments in this thread. This will be a very long post which I am breaking up into more than one post. If you don't want to read it don't.

1) it is popular to talk about why we will end up with four 16 team conferences. Nobody wants to talk about why that won't happen. First there is the PAC12. That is 12 as in NOT 14. And not 16 either. This is a conference that is geographically homogenous, except for Colorado, with all other schools west of the Rockies. Although they do have some weak sisters, they are committed to a strong academic foundation, and will not sacrifice that for expansion. This conference has only major state universities and 2 of the top 3 private schools in FB and MBB performance. They will never consider SDSU, BSU, PSU or anyone else of that ilk. Even when there was talk of taking Texas and Oklahoma, there was a major rift among conference presidents/chancellors that probably would have prevented it from happening. The PAC12 is extremely happy with what they have now and it is very unlikely to change. They also love their affiliation with the Rose Bowl and the B10 conference. They are 2 conferences that have very much in common in regard to their academic and athletic outlooks.

The BIG 10. This conference is also very committed academically. You can bet that when they expand it will be with two AAU members, or one AAU member and ND. The BIG is also unlikely to go west or southwest. The only real qualifier there is Texas and that would be way to big a sacrifice for the horns. The only realistic expansion for the BIG is the ACC neighbors to Maryland. The BIG is also unlikely to take another private school so that rules out Duke. When you apply their stated rule of only expanding into contiguous states you get Virginia and North Carolina. But, both of these schools have ties to other state schools in the same conference and barring a complete collapse of the ACC (not impossible) they are not going anywhere. The BIG will continue to be happy at 14, while continuing to court ND, but only as a full member.

The SEC also has nowhere to go. Already fighting its reputation as a semi-pro conference and poor academic reputation, they cannot in any way cut loose Vanderbilt. All the schools regularly mentioned as possible additions are in existing markets (FSU, Clemson), or in very small markets (Big12 schools). The clear exception is Texas, But, again, UT is unlikely to make the sacrifices in money to join another conference.

The Big12 and ACC are at the mercy of what the other 3 P5 conferences do as well as what they do to each other. The Big12 probably needs to go to at least 12 (why stop there?). Although the new playoff rule makes this less likely. The question is, if they expand, where do they go. With apologies to our former brethren, Cincinnati and UConn add almost nothing. They are not major universities in size, market or academic reputation. Their fate was sealed with the new playoff rule. What is left is staying in their footprint to take Houston and probably SMU, or going to the southeast to raid the ACC. The latter is probably prohibited by the ACC's grant of rights rule. Too bad for Houston that they don't have a better partner than SMU.

Finally, the best argument against expansion is dilution. Any school added to any of these conferences will have to produce ADDITIONAL revenue for the league at least equal to the share they will receive. Other than adding ACC schools to the BIG or Big12, I don't see any realistic possibilities for this to happen.

 

[AntiG]

^ Oklahoma and FSU aren't AAU but they also aren't slackers academically as institutions. Its very possible to see the B1G loosening their standards a bit to bring in to of the biggest franchise players in college football today. Not only to get into Florida, but to destabilize the B12 and potentially work out something with Texas.

 

[srru86]

This was not the case 20, 15, or 10 years ago and RUs place as the questionably most popular college football program in the NYC market to the actual or even perceived most popular college football program in NYC is a huge jump in and of itself. The space for RU growth is tremendous.

You're Welcome.

 

[oldtimer67]

I have 3 big problems with what is talked about in the article (fantastic, in the true meaning of the word) and the comments in this thread. This will be a very long post which I am breaking up into more than one post. If you don't want to read it don't.

2) Cord cutting, while it is starting to happen, has been exaggerated as to its near term effects on sports, and pretty much everything else, too. There are several reasons for this:

I. To a great extent, cord cutting is a generational thing. It will be, has been, adopted largely by younger people. A lot of this adoption has been driven by movie viewers and features not available on the cord/satellite systems. In other words, a lot of the "internet" based providers have built their growth not on challenging the current content providers, but by providing new or different content.
ii. The third party content providers (ESPN, Showtime, Broadcast Networks, etc.) have solutions of their own, too, and the discussion of them should be separated from those who deliver content (cable and satellite). 3rd party providers can continue to control content by buying EXCLUSIVE rights to that content. RAYCOM was recently shut out of ACC content (after decades) by the ACC contract with ESPN. The BTN and SECNET are examples where the conferences sell as much of their content as they can to the 3rd parties or networks and keep the rights to the rest for themselves. Currently, no one, cord or not, can broadcast any ACC sporting event without buying it from ESPN.
iii. The current cord/satellite providers have defensive measures of their own. As mentioned above, they can also buy exclusive rights to sporting events from conferences, and they can partner with conferences to produce and provide content from their conference networks (BIGFox & SEC/ESPN). A good example of this is what cable providers are doing with baseball, where each team has the rights to its own games. If you are not aware of it, 2 years ago, Time-Warner Cable paid the Dodgers 8+ Billion (with a B) dollars for the exclusive rights to their broadcasts for 25 years. No one, cord or not, can broadcast Dodger games (with the exception of the MLB contract with Fox) without buying the games from TWC. Other cable providers, mostly COMCAST, have done the same thing with other teams.
iv. Unbundling needs to be included in this conversation as well. The biggest effect of cord cutting is supposed to be unbundling, where you can buy just the content you want. The examples are usually all the unwatched channels from your cable system, or 5 ESPN channels when you only watch one. The truth is all those unwatched channels are just fluff on your channel guide. They don't cost your cable provider very much, and if they were unbundled, it would either result in the loss of all that content (to everyone), or it would be bundled for $5 or $10 per month. As far as getting rid of extra ESPN channels, ESPN is unlikely to let that happen. Like Showtime and HBO, you will either get all the channels or none. Same thing is likely to happen with the networks. You get all of what CBS produces or you get none, etc. The net result is that because content providers (whose costs will not go down) control their content, can create their own bundles, and set their own prices, the prices of popular content will increase to offset the likely small loss in the number of buyers.
v. Another argument in the article is that each school owns its own content and will choose to be their own producer and seller of that content, the result being major changes in conferences, etc. The facts are that this has already happened, but the schools are too smart to become content producers and marketers themselves. Where does this fit into their mission as an academic institution? In most cases they have turned this process over to their CONFERENCES, who are better equipped to perform these functions, and have much better marketing leverage by BUNDLING the content of all their members. The major exception is Texas, (and ND for FB) but even in those cases they contracted with third parties for the production and marketing of their content. The result is that instead of being a catalyst for the demise or major restructuring of conferences, it is just the opposite, a strong cohesive force to hold the conferences together and provide the substantial financial benefit of their content to the schools without the schools getting into that business.

 

[oldtimer67]

I have 3 big problems with what is talked about in the article (fantastic, in the true meaning of the word) and the comments in this thread. This will be a very long post which I am breaking up into more than one post. If you don't want to read it don't.

3) Another premise of the article is that reduced revenues to conferences and hence schools will have the effect of separating the "semi-pro" schools from the academically oriented schools. First of all, I don't see a reduction in revenue to the major conferences. If anything the increase in the number of providers will drive the demand for MORE content and the competition will drive up or at least maintain the price. Our first opportunity to observe this will be the new Big10 contract due next year. So far, I have not seen anyone disagreeing with the conference estimates of the largest conference TV contract in history.

But just to play the game let's look at it as if the author is right and conference TV revenues do drop. Do we get his predicted split between those schools who emphasize athletics and those who emphasize academics. NO. NO. NO.

I. the perception that there is a split between schools on this basis is just that, a perception, not reality. I do not believe that there is one university that would openly say they place athletics over academics. If I am right about that, the whole premise goes up in smoke.

ii. Say I am wrong about I. I am certain that the entire PAC12 and Big10 conferences would maintain their integrity on the side of academics. What about other conferences. If the author is correct in his premise, the ACC, SEC and Big12 would likely be fractured. Each conference has major academic institutions and others that strive to be, with some others who are the only candidates for the semi-pro league. At best, you would end up with enough of the latter for a small conference that could play each other and be shunned by the other conferences.

iii. A lot of the talk such as this is driven by the talk of "paying" college athletes. This is going to happen in the form of the stipends that we have all heard about. This is not the earth shattering change that has been claimed. This is basically just an update to the NCAA scholarship rules, to allow an athletic scholarship to also cover the out of pocket expenses of athletes. We have seen numbers from $3000 to $5000 per year depending on institution. There are actually rules for how this is to be calculated, including cost of living, but as we have seen there is still room for some creativity on the part of schools. What is lost in the details, is that the stipends will apply to all athletes in all sports, men and women. The overall costs to all FBS schools will be high and will have some consequences, possibly including the dropping of some sports, converting some sports to club teams, or even some schools dropping down to FCS. But, at least it is approximately equal across all of FBS. Will it put financial pressure on some schools? Probably. They will have tough decisions to make, including those mentioned above. Perhaps there will be a conference, or two, that elect not to participate in the stipend program.

In conclusion (I know finally) let me say that I do not see any major near term changes such as are talked about in the article. None of the reasons the author cites I see as having the effects he predicts. One reason he gives that I have not addressed is the loss of TV viewership of this year's college playoff games. As he correctly pointed out the major cause of this was the insane decision to schedule the semi-finals for NY Eve. Other major factors were that the final competitors were not only from the southeast, with no major TV markets, but were also just miles apart, and the fact that Ohio State had a bad loss to MSU that kept them out of the playoff. I look at it like it was the perfect storm, or the worst that could happen to the current playoff system. This should not be, and will not be, the catalyst for any major changes to that system, other than hopefully injecting some sanity in the scheduling thereof.

 

[Nosoj]

Most of that article has zero chance of happening. Going down the list:

Step 1: It’s money that matters.

To a point. There's also political considerations (as I'll get to in a minute) and stability. Nebraska didn't leave the Big 12 for money (or ONLY for money), they left because the Big 12 is a meth shack built on a fault line and Texas is conference poison.

Step 2: In the media, market size = money.

Step 3: The college “market” curveball.

I don't know where the cable or industry market is going to be in the future. But if current trends hold, markets won't matter nearly as much as brands. ESPN, BTN, etc. will be selling over the top subscriptions and need brands to get people to purchase and tune in.

First prediction: three levels of Division I football.

Possible, maybe even likely depending on how and when the next realignment happens. If we do somehow end up with 4 conference of 16 teams I'd say this is likely to happen.

Second prediction: surprise winners and losers.

Washington State and Oregon State left out? Nope. Kentucky football and Vanderbilt? Nope. Indiana and Purdue? Nope. Wake Forest and NC State? Nope.

San Diego State, UNLV, Boise State or Fresno State in the Pac-12? Nope. Cincinnati, Memphis, Temple or Houston in the B1G? Nope. UConn in the B1G? Long shot, but I won't say never on that. USF and UCF in? Maybe, under the right circumstances.

The Big 12 is a bit of a crap shoot. Anyone except Texas and Oklahoma could probably be left out there if the cards don't break their way. Though there's going to be a LOT of political pressure to make sure programs like Tech, and the State Trio (Oklahoma, Iowa and Kansas) have a P5 landing spot.

Third and fourth predictions: here comes relegation…with a regional twist.

If this happens I'll cut off both my legs and eat them. Yeah, the Big Ten wants to get Purdue out so they can make way for Kent State. Please.

Fifth prediction: the playoff and further conference consolidation.

Possible, depending on who blinks first. Though I still think it's a long shot. The Pac-12 is landlocked unless Texas heads west and takes along 3 of their best friends, likely Tech, Okie and Okie State. If they go someplace else, or say put, the Pac-12 is at 12. Period.

Also, this is an interesting bowl to use to make his point:

The rest of the bowl games not only continue as they are now, but picture a non-playoff Rose Bowl featuring the Pac-12 and Big 10 runners-up. This year, that would have been USC and Iowa – still a pretty good game that looks like a traditional Rose Bowl.

As opposed to Stanford and Iowa which is...not a traditional Pac-12-B1G Rose Bowl somehow?