Big Ten and other Conference Expansion

[PlanetFrnd]

I was just responding to your suggestion that OU/OkSU and KU/KSU could be split if each had a good landing spot. That's true in theory, but since I can't imagine a scenario where either the B1G or SEC would want KSU or OkSU it doesn't work so well in practice. Maybe the SEC might be interested if they went beyond 16 teams, but even then I'm not sure they would add enough eyeballs to justify them.

The reason why it is difficult to separate those schools is mostly political. In the case OkSU, they have a lot of political power because T. Boone Pickens is such a powerful alum/booster, and they could easily get the legislature and governor to scuttle any deal that allows OU to leave the BigXII while leaving them behind. KSU and Kansas lack the all-powerful alum/booster, but the legislature and governor would make things difficult for either to leave if the other didn't have a landing spot. If politics didn't play a role, I'd totally agree with you that the programs would definitely be separable because of the lure of more money.

This same reason is why B1G expansion may run into trouble in Virginia and North Carolina if the SEC doesn't want to expand. Splitting VA and VPI and UNC and NCSU is easy if the B1G wants a pair of them and the SEC wants the other pair, but becomes politically difficult if the SEC wants to stand pat. Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers were easy gets because they don't have this problem.

Don't disagree with what you're saying at all. Just saying I wouldn't expect all parties - especially politicians - to remain strong in the face of money. Especially in an all-or-nothing scenario, like either KU gets in without KSU (for example) or the state of Kansas gets locked out.

 

[Dryden]

Middle Tennessee and FAU are leaving the Sun Belt and headed for Conference USA. Game. Changer.

 

[Dryden]

So, with that logic, could Boise State sue (or get their senators involved) the AAU for not allowing them to join? I realize that isn't all that important in terms of being popular politically, but it is still a group of schools that excludes others because they don't feel they measure up. Granted, the AAU doesn't confer any direct, obvious benefits for a particular school like CA$H would, but it still only allows schools to join if they've met certain criteria. Theoretically, couldn't CA$H be set up that way, with criteria that would make it nearly impossible for teams like Boise State to ever join?

Anyway, I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand the dynamics.

Understood.

I think your question is non analogous though because AAU membership can be fluid. Whether it moves at a glacial pace or not isn't relevant because the possibility of membership change at least exists, provided an invitee meets certain criteria.

A 4x16/64-team superleague implies there is some sort of predetermined criteria for 'the chosen ones' and that membership is fixed, particularly if this group decides to exit the NCAA and start something new. In doing so, they don't expect any movement in membership.

Of course, if the 64 most wealthy Div I FBS schools leave the NCAA, that organization likely collapses in their absence.

The idea of 4 super conferences for football sounds good in theory, it just doesn't seem to be very realistic given all the implications. There is also the Notre Dame and Texas problem. Notre Dame doesn't want to share their national TV appeal and fan base, and Texas doesn't want to share with a league that isn't Texas-centric.

 

[Hodgepodge]

I think your question is non analogous though because AAU membership can be fluid. Whether it moves at a glacial pace or not isn't relevant because the possibility of membership change at least exists, provided an invitee meets certain criteria.

CA$H could be fluid as well. If a program drops below a certain threshold, they could be ousted and another team from the NCAA could be brought in. For that matter, leagues could add programs and get above 16 schools if need be. It would still be them choosing the haves and have nots, but it wouldn't be done capriciously, but rather based on quantitative ctiteria.

Of course, if the 64 most wealthy Div I FBS schools leave the NCAA, that organization likely collapses in their absence.

I doubt the NCAA would collapse. There would still be hundreds of teams left. The NAIA survives just fine despite not having any big-name schools.

There is also the Notre Dame and Texas problem. Notre Dame doesn't want to share their national TV appeal and fan base, and Texas doesn't want to share with a league that isn't Texas-centric.

My supposition would be that they would be part of such a breakaway governing entity. Given the option of remaining in the NCAA and altering their views on conference structure, I imagine they'd choose CA$H.

I'm not actually in favor of an entity like CA$H, by the way. As flawed as it is, the NCAA still works.

 

[PlanetFrnd]

I doubt the NCAA would collapse. There would still be hundreds of teams left. The NAIA survives just fine despite not having any big-name schools.

Is the NCAA even supposed to be the multi-billion corporation/quasi government agency that it has become?

 

[Hodgepodge]

Is the NCAA even supposed to be the multi-billion corporation/quasi government agency that it has become?

That's tough to answer. Certainly it was not meant to be that way when it was first founded, but things are far more different now. Money, of course, is what is different now. If it isn't the NCAA, it will be something else. With cuts in state funding, increasingly competitive grant applications, and growing TV money for athletics, colleges are becoming less idealistic and more predatory merely to survive. That's the way of the future, and the NCAA is just one (frankly minor) piece of that.

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

Let's say 64 teams form four conferences and withdraw from the NCAA to form a new organization called the CA$H.

A few Congressmen are going to want to know why Boise St can't join the CA$H. It cannot be 64 static teams that never changes -- that's a pipe dream. Also, these aren't teams that we can just move around and realign like pro sports franchises, despite the fact they're honestly just feeders and function as semi-pro sports franchises. There are going to be 70 or 80 other universities with passionate alumni, many of them congressmen, senators, and so on that demand to be in.

Lavell Edwards and Orrin Hatch complained until they got what they wanted once already. Changing the rules doesn't make all that stuff go away.

We cannot lock them out of games. We can lock them out of all the TV money.

When it comes right down to it, the states that get left out don't have the political clout to make anything happen. The only wildcard is if Harry Reid decides to go to the mattresses for Slot Machine Aggy and Slot Machine Aggy with Skiing. But what can they really do? There is no anti-trust issue.

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

So, with that logic, could Boise State sue (or get their senators involved) the AAU for not allowing them to join? I realize that isn't all that important in terms of being popular politically, but it is still a group of schools that excludes others because they don't feel they measure up. Granted, the AAU doesn't confer any direct, obvious benefits for a particular school like CA$H would, but it still only allows schools to join if they've met certain criteria. Theoretically, couldn't CA$H be set up that way, with criteria that would make it nearly impossible for teams like Boise State to ever join?

Anyway, I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand the dynamics.

Boise (and the other have-nots) have nothing to sue about. They are--and always have been--free to leave and set up competing leagues, television contracts/networks and playoffs and bowls. Nobody is stopping them or interfering with their right to do so.

The only anti-trust issue would be if the Haves were to use our economic influence and market muscle to interfere with their plans: i.e. force stadiums not to do business with them or have networks blackball them. That would be collusion and anti-trust. The fact that they have a product nobody wants is not an anti-trust issue. Anti-trust legislation was never meant to be a guarantee against market rejection.

 

[Woody1968]

When it comes right down to it, the states that get left out don't have the political clout to make anything happen. The only wildcard is if Harry Reid decides to go to the mattresses for Slot Machine Aggy and Slot Machine Aggy with Skiing. But what can they really do? There is no anti-trust issue.

UNLV and Nevada... LOLZ

 

[Fungo Squiggly]

When it comes right down to it, the states that get left out don't have the political clout to make anything happen. The only wildcard is if Harry Reid decides to go to the mattresses for Slot Machine Aggy and Slot Machine Aggy with Skiing. But what can they really do? There is no anti-trust issue.

UNLV and Nevada... LOLZ

No kidding. Those might be my favorites yet.

 

[Woody1968]

WV Hillbilly is now reporting that the B1G is pursuing Boston College... :tinfoil:

 

[PlanetFrnd]

WV Hillbilly is now reporting that the B1G is pursuing Boston College... :tinfoil:

DO. NOT. WANT.

 

[BigWoof31]

WV Hillbilly is now reporting that the B1G is pursuing Boston College... :tinfoil:

Expanding television viewership into a region that absolutely hates college football.
It's almost too perfect....

Bonus: Increase in Massholes - but not the ones that travel to big games.

 

[jlb1705]

WV Hillbilly is now reporting that the B1G is pursuing Boston College... :tinfoil:

 

[Bleed S & G]

Dude looks like Billy Mitchell: