Big Ten and other Conference Expansion

[PlanetFrnd]

Given the past overtures of the Pac-12 and UT, I don't see the Pac-12 expanding further for anyone other than some combination of UT, OU and two others (maybe KU and OSU? ..... no idea). Agreed that BYU will not get the nod. I used to think 4 16-team superconferences might be the end game... now, looking at what's left in the conferences, I can more easily see a situation in which the expanded B1G, a 16-team SEC and a Pac-16 with 4 of the better Big-12 schools are the only survivors.

 

[Hodgepodge]

The PAC-12 expanding to Texas is the only thing that makes economic sense for them. Expanding to another state in their footprint doesn't add money for PAC-12 Network carriage fees (something they're struggling with getting cable/satellite providers to carry as it is). Boise, New Mexico, Idaho, or Hawaii don't add enough eyeballs. Oklahoma or Kansas by themselves might boost PTN revenues enough to make them worthwhile, but they are tied to Okie State and KSU, respectively, which would just cuts the pie into more pieces and would likely cut the per school take.

Only Texas could increase the carriage fees by enough to not only make it worthwhile, but overcome the Oklahoma/OSU dilemma. Without Texas, PAC-12 expansion simply doesn't make sense.

Of course, there are other variables as well, including the poor academics at both Oklahoma schools and the fact that the Big XII have signed a grant of rights through 2025. Any chance at Texas and the other schools would have to wait until at least then.

 

[PlanetFrnd]

The PAC-12 expanding to Texas is the only thing that makes economic sense for them. Expanding to another state in their footprint doesn't add money for PAC-12 Network carriage fees (something they're struggling with getting cable/satellite providers to carry as it is). Boise, New Mexico, Idaho, or Hawaii don't add enough eyeballs. Oklahoma or Kansas by themselves might boost PTN revenues enough to make them worthwhile, but they are tied to Okie State and KSU, respectively, which would just cuts the pie into more pieces and would likely cut the per school take.

Only Texas could increase the carriage fees by enough to not only make it worthwhile, but overcome the Oklahoma/OSU dilemma. Without Texas, PAC-12 expansion simply doesn't make sense.

Of course, there are other variables as well, including the poor academics at both Oklahoma schools and the fact that the Big XII have signed a grant of rights through 2025. Any chance at Texas and the other schools would have to wait until at least then.

I can envision a situation in which KU and OU and their "state" counterparts are allowed to split so long as each has a home - e.g. one to the Pac, the other to the SEC or B1G

 

[Hodgepodge]

I can envision a situation in which KU and OU and their "state" counterparts are allowed to split so long as each has a home - e.g. one to the Pac, the other to the SEC or B1G

It would take a > 16-team B1G or SEC for that to happen, because I see no way either conference prefers those states over Virginia and North Carolina. Plus, only Kansas would be considered by the B1G because of academics, so that would leave the SEC as the only landing spots for KSU and Okie State. Considering the small populations of those states and the fact that those two schools are little brothers I can't imagine the SEC being too thrilled with taking them.

 

[exhawg]

Given the past overtures of the Pac-12 and UT, I don't see the Pac-12 expanding further for anyone other than some combination of UT, OU and two others (maybe KU and OSU? ..... no idea). Agreed that BYU will not get the nod. I used to think 4 16-team superconferences might be the end game... now, looking at what's left in the conferences, I can more easily see a situation in which the expanded B1G, a 16-team SEC and a Pac-16 with 4 of the better Big-12 schools are the only survivors.

I like the 3 superconference idea, but they would need a 4 or 8 team playoff from everyone else and then have the winner of that play the SEC in a bowl along with the Rose Bowl to find out who gets to play in the NC game. I'm sure the SEC would demand that their 2nd and/or 3rd best teams get to play in that play-in tourney as well.

 

[Dryden]

Isn't the reason that the B1G is going from 12 teams to 14 teams is that each team's piece of the pie (i.e. annual share of the conference's TV revenue) will be significantly larger?

Just sayin': If each B1G team gets $35M and each PAC12 team gets $20M annually from TV revenue there is a competitive imbalance on what the school's athletic department can afford to do (unless the difference is made up elsewhere).

I think the issue at hand is that the B1G already has its own all-sports cable network in place, and it has been successful for five years. After that, the untapped markets to the east, west and south are demographic goldmines that add eyeballs (and alum of existing B1G schools) at figures that have the effect of more than doubling the subscriber % with the addition of just two schools.

Four new potential markets in NY, Phily, Baltimore, and DC are 12% of all TVs.
The four exising largest markets in Chicago, Detroit, Indi, and Cleveland are only 7.5% by comparison.

The Top 10 TV markets represent 30% of TV households. This is a play to lock-up 3 of the top 4, and 5 of the top 11 (Detroit is #11). In essence, > 1/3 of the entire US.

The Penn State scandal has the potential to seriously damage marketability in the east, so Rutgers and Maryland being fast tracked may have been done to absorb that too should PSU become non-competitive over the coming decade.

The PAC-12, on the other hand, already owns everything from Seattle to LA, and east to Boulder and Tucson, so there isn't anywhere for them to expand that doesn't make the slices of the pie smaller for everybody else, aside from one place they can go: Texas.

 

[LitlBuck]

Don't know if this has been posted or even if it is old news.

The Atlantic Coast Conference's presidents and chancellors have voted unanimously to add Louisville as the replacement for Maryland, a person familiar with the situation said this morning.

The person said that ACC leaders also considered Connecticut and Cincinnati during the past week before choosing to add the Cardinals from the Big East. The person spoke to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity because the ACC has not publicly discussed future expansion plans.

The vote came during a conference call of ACC presidents and chancellors, the person said.

It's unclear exactly when Louisville will join the ACC. The Cardinals will be the seventh Big East school to leave for the ACC in the past decade.

more
Dispatch

 

[PlanetFrnd]

It would take a > 16-team B1G or SEC for that to happen, because I see no way either conference prefers those states over Virginia and North Carolina. Plus, only Kansas would be considered by the B1G because of academics, so that would leave the SEC as the only landing spots for KSU and Okie State. Considering the small populations of those states and the fact that those two schools are little brothers I can't imagine the SEC being too thrilled with taking them.

I don't think Slive or Delaney would consider any of the left behinds to be their problem(s)... when faced with a potentially $30MM or $40MM annual payday after the dust settles on expansion or sticking with the other big school in your small state on principal, I'm not sure the regents, trustees, presidents and/or ADs will be that steadfast either.

I like the 3 superconference idea, but they would need a 4 or 8 team playoff from everyone else and then have the winner of that play the SEC in a bowl along with the Rose Bowl to find out who gets to play in the NC game. I'm sure the SEC would demand that their 2nd and/or 3rd best teams get to play in that play-in tourney as well.

If you are part of the 3 (or even 4) super conferences, who cares about "everyone else"?

 

[exhawg]

I don't think Slive or Delaney would consider any of the left behinds to be their problem(s)... when faced with a potentially $30MM or $40MM annual payday after the dust settles on expansion or sticking with the other big school in your small state on principal, I'm not sure the regents, trustees, presidents and/or ADs will be that steadfast either.



If you are part of the 3 (or even 4) super conferences, who cares about "everyone else"?

It's more of you need 4 teams in order to have a 4 team playoff. If there are 4 superconferences 64 teams have a shot everyone else can do whatever they want.

 

[Dryden]

It's more of you need 4 teams in order to have a 4 team playoff. If there are 4 superconferences 64 teams have a shot everyone else can do whatever they want.

No, because if you take your ball and tell everyone else to pound dirt you're back before a congressional inquiry explaining why you can't play nice with other people. There has to be an at-large.

The trick is how do you tilt the playing field in such a way that the at-large's have no realistic shot to compete?

Pool all the money amongst select teams. 48 > 64.

 

[Hodgepodge]

I don't think Slive or Delaney would consider any of the left behinds to be their problem(s)... when faced with a potentially $30MM or $40MM annual payday after the dust settles on expansion or sticking with the other big school in your small state on principal, I'm not sure the regents, trustees, presidents and/or ADs will be that steadfast either.

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.

 

[Hodgepodge]

No, because if you take your ball and tell everyone else to pound dirt you're back before a congressional inquiry explaining why you can't play nice with other people. There has to be an at-large.

The trick is how do you tilt the playing field in such a way that the at-large's have no realistic shot to compete?

Pool all the money amongst select teams. 48 > 64.

If these conferences decided to break off from the NCAA, would that still be the case? I'm admittedly ignorant on what exactly constitutes "antitrust" in a situation like this. For example, if these conferences broke away from the NCAA, could Boise State or some other undefeated team still left in the NCAA sue this new entity because they weren't given a chance to compete for a national title? Or would they have no standing because they could still compete for the NCAA national title (which admittedly would be as big as the D I-AA/FCS national championship is now)?

 

[Dryden]

If these conferences decided to break off from the NCAA, would that still be the case? I'm admittedly ignorant on what exactly constitutes "antitrust" in a situation like this. For example, if these conferences broke away from the NCAA, could Boise State or some other undefeated team still left in the NCAA sue this new entity because they weren't given a chance to compete for a national title? Or would they have no standing because they could still compete for the NCAA national title (which admittedly would be as big as the D I-AA/FCS national championship is now)?

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

Congress is 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.

 

[Hodgepodge]

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

Congress is 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.

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.

 

[PlanetFrnd]

The 64 schools would have a case - nothing is keeping the remaining 60-or so schools from playing games, creating a tournament, signing TV contracts, etc.