Is Homogeneity Of Membership Good Or Bad?

[sciencejay]

You're absolutely right, Warrior. The Big East is more stable today than it was 10 years ago. Just to be clear, stability is not the issue for me, long term earning power is.

I don't see West Virginia, or UConn, or Kansas, or any other football school coming to the Big East. Those days are over. If the Big 12 implodes, the remnants will likely form a new all sports conference with the best of the American. At least, that's how I see it.

I agree. I wonder, would it be a better option for the remnants of the Big XII to join up with the AAC as opposed to try and carry on as some semblance of the Big XII and add it's own members outside of the AAC? If the two were to join, I think that even what are perceived as lower tier Big XII programs would be a substantial improvement in both football and basketball over much of the AAC and would elevate the status of the AAC in both football and basketball, but thats assuming that some of the better AAC programs are not poached themselves (UCONN, Cincinnati). But even then, as Golden Warrior brought up below, would that league be considered on the level of a power conference and receive the according TV deals and so on? Still, I think that might be the best chance for the remnants of the Big XII as opposed to going independent in football.

I agree with you, Bill. But, let's look at the possibility of three schools being left behind in the Big 12: Iowa State, Kansas State and Baylor (as an example). Those three, coupled with BYU/Colorado State/Houston/SMU/Tulsa/Memphis/Cincinnati/UCF/USF still isn't getting a Big 12 deal. I find it hard that this group evens gets a substantial bump from the current AAC deal. Would it be more financially viable, then, for certain football programs to go independent (BYU, ISU, KSU, BU, UConn, Temple, Cincinnati, BYU, UMass) and have a defacto "Independent" scheduling agreement? Those schools then would park Olympics in more regional-based conferences, thus saving money on travel and other expenses.

FBS Independence, today - IMHO, is a death-sentence for a football program. However, there was a point in time where many successful football programs were independents. If there was a collaborative decision from a handful of schools to go that route (thus keeping all TV revenue for themselves regionally for any football games), it *could* end up being a better financial decision for these types of schools, rather than being in a national G5 conference where you are sending your teams all over the place in hopes of getting a lottery ticket out.

Again, I'm not saying this will happen, but I do think more athletic programs need to have alternative methods of success for FBS football, rather than - especially for AAC/G5 schools - hoping for the best and praying against the worst.

Some people speculate that it is only a matter of time before ND is no longer an independent. If that were to happen, it would be a further indictment over remaining independent in football in today's landscape, and going into the future. But things could change.

I'm going to go out on a line and suggest/predict that the number of universities fielding FBS-level football will decrease dramatically over the next 30-ish years. I see KU as the classic example. During the last round of realignment, there was talk of going to four, 16-team superconferences. When looking at who might end up where in those scenarios, KU, KSt and Iowa St were left out--maybe end up in the MWC. Amazing that that might have been the destiny of the school that partially owns the invention of college hoops and remains a legitimate blue blood to this date. Their athletic department spends waaayyy more on football than bball, but their FB is a dumpster fire--no one goes to their games, the stadium is crappy and small, etc. The state of KS has had budget difficulties for a long time. So say a major conference realignment event occurs, and KU gets left out. Now they are looking at AAC/MWC level revenues for football, and no decent conference to park their premier sport. I think at some point, the state legislature may decide to save $25M/year (or whatever) and bag football. I'm not saying it happens today, but the business model of many major university athletic programs is based upon FBS-level football revenues, and as we've seen with UConn and others, if you aren't in an F5 conference and getting good TV money to cover your football/other athletic dept expenses, you are hemorrhaging money.

If it goes to 4 16-team conferences, I bet those break off from the NCAA (or form a new, top-level "division") and leave the rest out of the top money deals (however those media rights deals may look ten years from now and beyond). This is what I fear the most in terms of the future of the BEast. We are hoops-only (which I love), but that may not earn us a seat at the table if/when another major shift happens.

Maybe we should rename this thread "The future of the BEast" to represent where the conversation has been going. I love the ideas and discussion about whether to expand or not (and if so, when), the future make up of media rights deals (and the amount of money contained in them), etc. I truly see things shaking up big time, and sooner (next 10 years) rather than later.

[NJRedman]

Some people speculate that it is only a matter of time before ND is no longer an independent. If that were to happen, it would be a further indictment over remaining independent in football in today's landscape, and going into the future. But things could change.

The key aspect for Notre Dame is that they will remain an independent until doing so prevents them from officially competing for a national championship. To date, it hasn't. With Notre Dame's unique scheduling (USC, Stanford, Navy, 5 ACC teams, and the occasional Michigan, Michigan State, and Shamrock Series), if they go 11-1, 10-2 or even 12-0, they would absolutely be a near-lock (depending on the season) for a CFP playoff birth. They have a national following, and are the only school to have its own TV contract for NBC. With the ACC, they will remain an independent for the long-term future.

Today, the knock against being independent is the bowl-tie ins. However, anyone with common knowledge about NCAA Bowl games is that there is an overabundance of meaningless bowl games, many fans do not attend said bowl games, and - for the future - we will see more and more star college players stop playing in these weak bowl games in order to protect their future NFL careers. Too many meaningless and uninteresting teams make bowl games. Unfortunately, because of the money involved, meaningless bowl games are part of the game today. However, if advertisers see a lose in profit or revenue because of the changing landscape, the format may possibly change (which I think it will).

Make no mistake - UConn, UC and USF were kicked out of the power conference group in 2011. By 2020, the number of schools could very well increase dramatically (between the eventually destruction of the Big 12, and the remainder of the teams in the G5/AAC). At that point, you could see what could be described as a "unionization" of G5 schools arranging a de-facto football independent structure, thus protecting their Olympic sports from costly travel (and extremely weak interest from students/fans/boosters going half-way across the country for bad matchups).

Not really. They were never originally part of the power structure (UConn was in BBall but not FB). The only team part of the original BCS power group that is no longer part of the power structure is Temple. While those 3 teams mentioned above aren't part of the power structure 3 schools are now part of the power structure (TCU, Utah and Louisville).

In 1998 the first year of the BCS the 6 power conferences membership were shaped like this.

SEC-12
Pac-10
ACC-9
Big East-8
Big XII-12
Big Ten-11
Notre Dame

Thats 63 schools.

In 2017 the power conference membership is shaped like this.

SEC-14
Pac-12
ACC-14
B1G-14
Big XII-10
Notre Dame

Thats 65 schools.

If the Big XII breaks up most of their schools will find themselves in a power conference or in the power structure. Texas could go indy but would be part of the power structure. OU, Texas Tech, KU, TCU, OSU and WVU are attractive options for at least one power conference. KSU, ISU and Baylor are the ones who could be in danger of finding themselves on the outside looking in. Though like the last shake up while a team who was part of the power structure might get left out you could also see a former non-power conference team get a call up. Houston could be that team next time. Baylor seems radioactive and Houston sits in a big market. Could the Pac be interested in them along with a group of other schools if they are picking at the carcass of the Big XII after the SEC and B1G are done?

[_lh]

Texas and Oklahoma will have multiple options for big time conference affiliation if and when the B12 breaks up. The other 8, not so much. OSU will hope politics will prevent OU joining any new conference without OSU, so OSU might be safe too but the other 7 would be screwed.

Why would the B10 want Kansas or Iowa St.?

Why would the PAC want any of the 7?

Why would the SEC want anyone besides Texas, OU and OSU?

I don't see those three conferences being generous and just taking B12 teams because they used to be in a P5 league.

I would imagine that the 7-8 that don't leave will look to add 5 to 6 teams to keep the B12 alive. Houston, BYU, UCONN, Memphis and UC make sense from a football perspective.

New Big 12:

Kansas
Kansas St.
Iowa St.
Baylor
TCU
WVU
Texas Tech
Houston
BYU
UCONN
Memphis
UC

Pretty good conference. Not as good as the B12 but better than the AAC. Not a P5 but way closer to a P6 than the AAC ever will be.

[NJRedman]

Texas and Oklahoma will have multiple options for big time conference affiliation if and when the B12 breaks up. The other 8, not so much. OSU will hope politics will prevent OU joining any new conference without OSU, so OSU might be safe too but the other 7 would be screwed.

Why would the B10 want Kansas or Iowa St.?

Why would the PAC want any of the 7?

Why would the SEC want anyone besides Texas, OU and OSU?

I don't see those three conferences being generous and just taking B12 teams because they used to be in a P5 league.

I would imagine that the 7-8 that don't leave will look to add 5 to 6 teams to keep the B12 alive. Houston, BYU, UCONN, Memphis and UC make sense from a football perspective.

New Big 12:

Kansas
Kansas St.
Iowa St.
Baylor
TCU
WVU
Texas Tech
Houston
BYU
UCO
Memphis
UC

Pretty good conference. Not as good as the B12 but better than the AAC. Not a P5 but way closer to a P6 than the AAC ever will be.

All of those questions are easily answered. Outside of OU and UT this is why those conferences would want the following schools.

SEC-TCU and WVU. TCU brings them the Dallas/Fort Worth market along with A&M they hold the two biggest cities in Texas. WVU is like every other SEC school. They have good FB and good BBall with a loyal fan base that travels well.

B1G-KU. Why would they want KU? As a bridge to OU and also a blue blood bball program which owns it's state.

Pac-12 - Tech, TCU, OSU. Easy, if the other conferences are growing to 16 they need to keep up and expanding into Texas/Oklahoma makes the most sense for them. The Pac-12 already offered OSU and Tech as part of their Pac-16 plan a few years back. If the SEC and B1G are at 16 and the ACC is at 15 the Pac will expand to get the best they can.

[GoldenWarrior11]

Redman, this is the corner you run into with your hypothesis:

PAC-12 is not accepting any religious-based institution. That's a no to BYU, Baylor or TCU. The B1G would absolutely be interested in Kansas, but not Iowa State (they already have Iowa, and Iowa doesn't bring enough viewership eyeballs). Other than Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas, they won't have any interest in any of those other schools. The SEC could definitely look at West Virginia and TCU, but they would much rather have Oklahoma/Texas. They won't add those two just to make everything balance out for other conferences. The ACC had a chance to get West Virginia in 2011, and they didn't even pursue them. I would think that Cincinnati would have a better chance because of the market and access to Ohio.

I do think that Oklahoma State is valuable enough by itself to be picked up by other conferences. It doesn't necessarily have to be paired with Oklahoma, but it would like to be. Baylor is toxic and will absolutely be left behind. Kansas State really doesn't bring anything of value, and Snyder is retiring soon.

Typing this out makes me very glad we are no longer a prisoner to college football anymore. Sheesh. You can go crazy about these things. I don't think there is any realistic scenario where all 10 members are gobbled up by the other 4. It just doesn't fit nicely, and the conferences aren't going to be handing out life rafts to those in need.

And the old Big East was a BCS conference. Our contract gave us access to the Orange Bowl. We were on par with the other power conferences in terms of accessibility. This is one of the reasons the ACC raided the Big East (in order to eliminate one potential competitor in football).

[_lh]

Texas and Oklahoma will have multiple options for big time conference affiliation if and when the B12 breaks up. The other 8, not so much. OSU will hope politics will prevent OU joining any new conference without OSU, so OSU might be safe too but the other 7 would be screwed.

Why would the B10 want Kansas or Iowa St.?

Why would the PAC want any of the 7?

Why would the SEC want anyone besides Texas, OU and OSU?

I don't see those three conferences being generous and just taking B12 teams because they used to be in a P5 league.

I would imagine that the 7-8 that don't leave will look to add 5 to 6 teams to keep the B12 alive. Houston, BYU, UCONN, Memphis and UC make sense from a football perspective.

New Big 12:

Kansas
Kansas St.
Iowa St.
Baylor
TCU
WVU
Texas Tech
Houston
BYU
UCO
Memphis
UC

Pretty good conference. Not as good as the B12 but better than the AAC. Not a P5 but way closer to a P6 than the AAC ever will be.

All of those questions are easily answered. Outside of OU and UT this is why those conferences would want the following schools.

SEC-TCU and WVU. TCU brings them the Dallas/Fort Worth market along with A&M they hold the two biggest cities in Texas. WVU is like every other SEC school. They have good FB and good BBall with a loyal fan base that travels well.

B1G-KU. Why would they want KU? As a bridge to OU and also a blue blood bball program which owns it's state.

Pac-12 - Tech, TCU, OSU. Easy, if the other conferences are growing to 16 they need to keep up and expanding into Texas/Oklahoma makes the most sense for them. The Pac-12 already offered OSU and Tech as part of their Pac-16 plan a few years back. If the SEC and B1G are at 16 and the ACC is at 15 the Pac will expand to get the best they can.

Warrior did well in answering you above but it is not easily answered.

If TCU and WVU to the SEC make so much sense why are'nt both in the SEC now?

If the B10 wanted KU, the B10 would take KU. They don't want and never will want KU. The B10 is not a charity.

I see no real motivation for the PAC to add anyone other than Texas and Texas Tech, if the two are a package deal.

The new B12 as I laid out won't be that bad of a conference once those from the current B12 with options, use them. P5 Conferences not currently with 16 teams don't need to have 16 teams, so don't expect the conferences that don't get Texas or OU to expand just to get to 16.

[NJRedman]

Redman, this is the corner you run into with your hypothesis:

PAC-12 is not accepting any religious-based institution. That's a no to BYU, Baylor or TCU. The B1G would absolutely be interested in Kansas, but not Iowa State (they already have Iowa, and Iowa doesn't bring enough viewership eyeballs). Other than Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas, they won't have any interest in any of those other schools. The SEC could definitely look at West Virginia and TCU, but they would much rather have Oklahoma/Texas. They won't add those two just to make everything balance out for other conferences. The ACC had a chance to get West Virginia in 2011, and they didn't even pursue them. I would think that Cincinnati would have a better chance because of the market and access to Ohio.

I do think that Oklahoma State is valuable enough by itself to be picked up by other conferences. It doesn't necessarily have to be paired with Oklahoma, but it would like to be. Baylor is toxic and will absolutely be left behind. Kansas State really doesn't bring anything of value, and Snyder is retiring soon.

Typing this out makes me very glad we are no longer a prisoner to college football anymore. Sheesh. You can go crazy about these things. I don't think there is any realistic scenario where all 10 members are gobbled up by the other 4. It just doesn't fit nicely, and the conferences aren't going to be handing out life rafts to those in need.

And the old Big East was a BCS conference. Our contract gave us access to the Orange Bowl. We were on par with the other power conferences in terms of accessibility. This is one of the reasons the ACC raided the Big East (in order to eliminate one potential competitor in football).

They never said they wouldn't take a religious based school, they just wont take BYU because that school have zero cultural fit with the rest of the conference. They wouldn't take Baylor but I don't think TCU falls into that category. They are closer to us who are Catholic really in name only. I'm not catholic and i had muslim and hindu frat brothers. Even if they wouldn't take those two schools (which I never included BYU or Baylor in whom the Pac would be interested) the SEC would still be interested in TCU and the Pac would still be interested in Tech, OSU and KU. KSU MIGHT get a look as a substitute for KU if they have other attractive pieces in place.

The ACC didn't take Cincy in 2011 either. WVU is a bigger better brand than Cincy. WVU is now and has always been part of the CFB power. Great traveling fan base and a program who has shown up on the big stage.

[NJRedman]

Texas and Oklahoma will have multiple options for big time conference affiliation if and when the B12 breaks up. The other 8, not so much. OSU will hope politics will prevent OU joining any new conference without OSU, so OSU might be safe too but the other 7 would be screwed.

Why would the B10 want Kansas or Iowa St.?

Why would the PAC want any of the 7?

Why would the SEC want anyone besides Texas, OU and OSU?

I don't see those three conferences being generous and just taking B12 teams because they used to be in a P5 league.

I would imagine that the 7-8 that don't leave will look to add 5 to 6 teams to keep the B12 alive. Houston, BYU, UCONN, Memphis and UC make sense from a football perspective.

New Big 12:

Kansas
Kansas St.
Iowa St.
Baylor
TCU
WVU
Texas Tech
Houston
BYU
UCO
Memphis
UC

Pretty good conference. Not as good as the B12 but better than the AAC. Not a P5 but way closer to a P6 than the AAC ever will be.

All of those questions are easily answered. Outside of OU and UT this is why those conferences would want the following schools.

SEC-TCU and WVU. TCU brings them the Dallas/Fort Worth market along with A&M they hold the two biggest cities in Texas. WVU is like every other SEC school. They have good FB and good BBall with a loyal fan base that travels well.

B1G-KU. Why would they want KU? As a bridge to OU and also a blue blood bball program which owns it's state.

Pac-12 - Tech, TCU, OSU. Easy, if the other conferences are growing to 16 they need to keep up and expanding into Texas/Oklahoma makes the most sense for them. The Pac-12 already offered OSU and Tech as part of their Pac-16 plan a few years back. If the SEC and B1G are at 16 and the ACC is at 15 the Pac will expand to get the best they can.

Warrior did well in answering you above but it is not easily answered.

If TCU and WVU to the SEC make so much sense why are'nt both in the SEC now?

If the B10 wanted KU, the B10 would take KU. They don't want and never will want KU. The B10 is not a charity.

I see no real motivation for the PAC to add anyone other than Texas and Texas Tech, if the two are a package deal.

The new B12 as I laid out won't be that bad of a conference once those from the current B12 with options, use them. P5 Conferences not currently with 16 teams don't need to have 16 teams, so don't expect the conferences that don't get Texas or OU to expand just to get to 16.

No offense but thats a really stupid way of looking at realignment. Go back 10 years and say that about Maryland, Rutgers, Nebraska, Utah, TCU, Colorado, WVU, Syracuse, Pitt etc etc etc.

The Pac-12 already tried adding Texas, Tech, OU, OSU, A&M and Colorado. So it seems they are cool with adding more than just Texas and Tech.

This whole post is just silly.

[_lh]

It's not stupid at all. Those schools don't make senses for those conferences to add. Any of the other big conferences would love to have Texas and OU. The others simply are not that attractive by themselves or as a group without either Texas or OU. If they were those conferences would have taken them by now.

What is stupid is thinking the PAC will take B12 leftovers just to get to 16 members or the SEC taking two school with one of them not being either OU or Texas from the current B12.

[NJRedman]

It's not stupid at all. Those schools don't make senses for those conferences to add. Any of the other big conferences would love to have Texas and OU. The others simply are not that attractive by themselves or as a group without either Texas or OU. If they were those conferences would have taken them by now.

What is stupid is thinking the PAC will take B12 leftovers just to get to 16 members or the SEC taking two school with one of them not being either OU or Texas from the current B12.

I bet you said the same thing about WVU, Rutgers and Missouri too right? The Pac can take Big XII left overs or MWC schools. The SEC taking two schools who one helps them lock up the two large cities in Texas. If they can't get Texas why not lock up Dallas?

So by your logic if a team isn;t in a conference today they will never be in that conference because they would already be in that conference. Yup. Makes total sense and is totally rational looking back at the last 20-25 years of college sports.