Confernce Realignment Chaos is Here!!!!!! (maybe ... probabbly not) (Rumor Texas and OK reach out to SEC about joining)

Donate To GopherHole
Since this thread is mostly for fun anyway ... here is a very far-fetched scenario:

- somehow (hand waiving here), the state of Oklahoma is able to block OU from going to the SEC unless they also invite Okla State
- but the SEC does not want to go over 16
- they make a deal: they agree to release Missouri to pair with Kansas and go to the Big Ten, at no penalty, to make room for Okla State


Like I said, far-fetched.
 



stocker08 said:
1. Teams are already making wacky trips as it is. If the USC/UCLA rumors are true for the Big Ten....then you are already looking at a completely cross-country conference. Which I am against. Keeping things somewhat contained could battle that. Pac-12 grabs a few Big 12 teams. SEC is going to have a pick of a number of teams. The Big Ten could absolutely grow to 20 within our own geographical area.
2. Not really about viewership. It's about money.....and the more spread out the conferences are in....the more TV markets that they hit.
3. Divisions are already unbalanced. SEC West quite a bit stronger than East. Big Ten East quite a bit stronger than the West.
4. Many teams already have little chance. But breaking divisions down into five teams may actually give some of the smaller programs a better chance at a bit of success.
5. Maybe. I don't see how the scheduling couldn't be figured out.
6. I think more games definitely would benefit G5. Especially if those games were semi-final and championship games against the strongest teams in their conference. A chance to play against a team that is good to bolster the resume.

I don't know where the claim "leagues have kept conference sizes around where they have" comes from. It's a pretty clear fact that leagues have been expanding over time. And once again we are talking expansion. SEC is on the verge of expanding to 16. Big Ten appears to not be too far behind. Added three teams in ten years and are looking to do it again.

I'm not trying to advocate for 20 team super conferences. I don't like the idea. But I am talking about how it could work....because it looks to be the way things are moving.
Click to expand...
1. it's a difference of opinion but I can see ADs balking at having to do this across all sports. If it's just football, yes I can see it working. And I'm talking about the G5 schools particularly who you're saying they should push to that.
2. Viewership leads to money via TV eyes. Just being "in a market" doesn't make you money if eyes aren't on the screens or buying your TV package deals.
3. the difficulty in that they're "stacked" now is that the conferences are smaller. you're now going to have 4+ teams making the exact same argument. they can't all get in in that same way. Instead of being able to claim their at worst the 3rd best, now you can claim the 5th best if you aren't even making the last 4. It just is going to get real difficult to justify to the CFP committee in my eyes
4. it's going to be in the best interest of these conferences to spread their power teams if you're going that small. the small fish will continue there, their viewership will continue to stagnate. you're pushing things into more and more regional sports all the time.
5. agree not saying they can't do it, it's just a nightmare
6. the concept may be there, but it hasn't helped in practice. It has seemed the committee cares if you beat P5 teams, not beat up on your brethren, as is evidenced by the CFP rankings for G5 teams with high win totals still not sniffing the postseason.

Leagues have been between 8-16. There seems to be a sweetspot there from the 10-14 range that gives you enough viewership, top teams, easy voting, etc. Getting up to 20 that becomes more and more difficult over time to keep everyone happy. conferences have ebbed and flowed up and down and will continue to do so. that's why keeping the "bottom 4-8" in in a 20 team conference gets harder.
 

upnorthkid said:
1. it's a difference of opinion but I can see ADs balking at having to do this across all sports. If it's just football, yes I can see it working. And I'm talking about the G5 schools particularly who you're saying they should push to that.
2. Viewership leads to money via TV eyes. Just being "in a market" doesn't make you money if eyes aren't on the screens or buying your TV package deals.
3. the difficulty in that they're "stacked" now is that the conferences are smaller. you're now going to have 4+ teams making the exact same argument. they can't all get in in that same way. Instead of being able to claim their at worst the 3rd best, now you can claim the 5th best if you aren't even making the last 4. It just is going to get real difficult to justify to the CFP committee in my eyes
4. it's going to be in the best interest of these conferences to spread their power teams if you're going that small. the small fish will continue there, their viewership will continue to stagnate. you're pushing things into more and more regional sports all the time.
5. agree not saying they can't do it, it's just a nightmare
6. the concept may be there, but it hasn't helped in practice. It has seemed the committee cares if you beat P5 teams, not beat up on your brethren, as is evidenced by the CFP rankings for G5 teams with high win totals still not sniffing the postseason.

Leagues have been between 8-16. There seems to be a sweetspot there from the 10-14 range that gives you enough viewership, top teams, easy voting, etc. Getting up to 20 that becomes more and more difficult over time to keep everyone happy. conferences have ebbed and flowed up and down and will continue to do so. that's why keeping the "bottom 4-8" in in a 20 team conference gets harder.
Click to expand...

1. It wouldn't surprise me to see schools do this specifically for their largest revenue sport, football. Makes some extra distance feasible.
2. The key is to get into those sports packages. I have BTN....but do you think I give a damn about watching sporting events (that aren't football or basketball) for other teams? Of course not. Gives me access to watch the sporting events for the Gophers. We wouldn't need a TAMU or UCLA to watch Gophers wrestling.
3. There's always been the haves and the have nots in big time college sports. Always. Top teams are still going to reign supreme. Adding a few others isn't going to change that. Again....breaking teams into divisions of four might actually give some of the perpetually bad teams a chance to win something every once in a while.
4. Same as four. Even with a "power" team in the mix in each division....their down years will give a chance for someone else. Much better chance when only three others are competing.
5. Scheduling would get tougher with more games. But a four team playoff would hardly be a yearly event for more than the top teams.
6. Again....that still may hold true. But if these G5 teams play out their regular schedule.....a four team playoff could give them opportunities against other ranked G5 teams. The NCAA isn't expanding the playoffs to keep G5s on the outside looking in. It's to give the ones that look good an opportunity without keeping out a contender. And the fact is that teams outside the top 5 or 6 don't really have a realistic chance at this point in time. The committee would be far more likely to sneak a couple into the bottom of the playoffs if the results proved that they deserved a shot.

Leagues have been getting larger for a while. The SEC and the Big Ten have been the most stable by far.....and they are looking to expand to 16. It's the way things are trending in the NCAA. Whether or not they'll push to 20 is yet to be seen. But the B10 was at eleven up until 2011. In ten years we expanded to 14....and there's already talk of going to 16. There's zero evidence that conferences have "kept conference sizes around where they have".
 


howeda7 said:
At a certain point it's just dumb. You're basically back to two ten team conferences at that point. You'd be better off just forming a pact to negotiate a joint media rights contract a la the old CFA.
Click to expand...
I suspect that’s the endgame for the Big and Pac
 

Some guy said:
I suspect that’s the endgame for the Big and Pac
Click to expand...
What I don’t get about that is why the B1G would do it. It’s not the B1G’s fault that the Pac 12 has royally goofed up media rights negotiations. The B1G doesn’t need any help in that area, so why do the Pac 12 a favor worth potentially hundreds of millions of dollars without getting something in return?
 

MplsGopher said:
Wishful thinking.
Click to expand...
I’m a shareholder in Disney, I don’t wish for ESPN’s contracts to have fallen short of expected revenue. They just have. And football isn’t the problem. The issue is that ESPN effectively pays for a lot of content that absolutely nobody cares about. Content that it doesn’t broadcast, and no one streams.

MplsGopher said:
And that's not at all how NIL works. Not at all. Sounds like more wishful thinking.
Click to expand...
ESPN (and other media rights holders) sells advertising bought out of many of the same pools of marketing dollars that athletes and their thousands of agents will be hitting-up. This pie may grow some, and it may not be 100% overlap. The SEC seems to be the most eager to claim they’ll make their athletes rich through NIL deals. If I’m an ESPN rep selling advertising for I’m sensing some new competition has entered my territory.
MplsGopher said:
That's a "small" fraction of households?
Click to expand...
Yes. It covers a small fraction of the USA. ESPN will still need several other media rights deals to hold the attention cable companies and their customers that pay $200+. SEC fan wetting their pants over SEC football is great, but it only goes so far in that equation.

I just think that Texas will, once again negotiate a fantastic deal for themselves. And I don’t think a deal with the SEC is at all the best that they can do, equally splitting revenue with Mississippi State and Vanderbilt.
 

bizzle22 said:
What I don’t get about that is why the B1G would do it. It’s not the B1G’s fault that the Pac 12 has royally goofed up media rights negotiations. The B1G doesn’t need any help in that area, so why do the Pac 12 a favor worth potentially hundreds of millions of dollars without getting something in return?
Click to expand...
If the Pac 12 agreed to all pac 12 teams playing 3 games non conference against the big ten in a 5 year period and the big ten all agreed to 2 in a 6 year period (or whatever they do to make the numbers work and the big ten network had that much more tier 3 content from more inventory…the big ten tv deal is worth more and the pac 12 tv deal is worth more)

I don’t think big ten does it unless there is some sort of large non conference scheduling agreement in football and basketball.
 



I don't imagine any big ten school will leave the conference until they could stay in the research alliance but play in a different conference. The research alliance makes the schools way more money than athletics. The OSU president would not leave the big ten conference in athletics of it meant leaving the research conference.

I'm sure they could work something out, but then it would be up to the conference to approve and I doubt in the current environment the conference would make the exception. Maybe a decade or so from now the landscape will have changed.
 

Goldmember said:
I’m a shareholder in Disney, I don’t wish for ESPN’s contracts to have fallen short of expected revenue. They just have. And football isn’t the problem. The issue is that ESPN effectively pays for a lot of content that absolutely nobody cares about. Content that it doesn’t broadcast, and no one streams.


ESPN (and other media rights holders) sells advertising bought out of many of the same pools of marketing dollars that athletes and their thousands of agents will be hitting-up. This pie may grow some, and it may not be 100% overlap. The SEC seems to be the most eager to claim they’ll make their athletes rich through NIL deals. If I’m an ESPN rep selling advertising for I’m sensing some new competition has entered my territory.

Yes. It covers a small fraction of the USA. ESPN will still need several other media rights deals to hold the attention cable companies and their customers that pay $200+. SEC fan wetting their pants over SEC football is great, but it only goes so far in that equation.

I just think that Texas will, once again negotiate a fantastic deal for themselves. And I don’t think a deal with the SEC is at all the best that they can do, equally splitting revenue with Mississippi State and Vanderbilt.
Click to expand...

Those advertising dollars that ESPN is fighting for are not out of the same pool that are going to be going to individual athletes. ESPN is a national network. If national brands want to cut their national exposure short in order to pay regional athletes.....then I'd bet they have a lot of morons running the show.

Nah....athletes are going to be reeling in much more from local sources.
 

It would be dumb for any SEC school to vote yes on this. Not one existing school would benefit from it.

It's very likely that any playoff expansion will cap a conference at X entries. Adding Texas and Oklahoma puts two more big sharks in the tank to dilute everyone else. Including Alabama. Either they both join the SEC and suck, or they take big pieces of a finite wins pie from everyone else.

The SEC is already the best football conference in the eyes of most. While I think that's debatable, they don't really need a reputation buff.

Texas is already in the SEC media footprint, and adding Oklahoma isn't significant in that regard.

They will dilute every other school's shared revenue 14.3%

They will have to re-do all the schedules and Alabama might not get to schedule Chattanooga any more.

It will probably bump the ratings on CBS afternoons some and make for a few more fancy hype games for ESPN. That's really all the incumbents get for making their lives a lot harder.
 
Last edited:

fmlizard said:
It would be dumb for any SEC school to vote yes on this. Not one existing school would benefit from it.

It's very likely that any playoff expansion will cap a conference at X entries. Adding Texas and Oklahoma puts two more big sharks in the tank to dilute everyone else. Including Alabama. Either they both join the SEC and suck, or they take big pieces of a finite wins pie from everyone else.

The SEC is already the best football conference in the eyes of most. While I think that's debatable, they don't really need a reputation buff.

Texas is already in the SEC media footprint, and adding Oklahoma isn't significant in that regard.

They will dilute every other school's shared revenue 14.3%

They will have to re-do all the schedules and Alabama might not get to schedule Chattanooga any more.

It will probably bump the ratings on CBS afternoons some and make for a few more fancy hype games for ESPN. That's really all the incumbents get for making their lives a lot harder.
Click to expand...
Yeah I’m not sure this is as big of a win for the SEC they think it is. It likely does make them more money by 5-10%
But, the conferences not named the SEC should push for more objective criteria for playoff entrance. Now they are more likely to.

the soccer “Superleague” is a really good idea until they realize that their own fans don’t like it and half the big boys lose games every time they play each other.

If they go to 9 or 10 conference games the math that made them appear superior will no longer be there.


In response the big ten should cut rutgers and Maryland and go to an 8 game conference schedule. Move Purdue to the east.
 




forever a gopher said:
This is a pretty reasonable take. Texas did the Longhorn network, trying to double-dip TV revenue, and obviously some schools balked and left. Of course, ironically, this lead to a weaker B12 conference, which means less long term money and stability for Texas. But hey, short term gains are great!

Think about the remaining B12 schools- if you’re OSU, TCU, etc., are you willing to give TX/OU a larger piece of the pie (thereby making things no longer equal among member schools), or let them leave and be at the mercy of other conferences letting you in? What P5 conference is taking a school like OSU?

To me, the best move for TX/OU is to try and make the B12 bigger and better, not leaving for the SEC. Who are the best programs out there not in P5 to poach? BYU, Cincy, UCF? I find it unlikely that TX/OU compete year in and year out in the SEC enough to keep their fan bases happy.

TAMU has been reasonably successful, so maybe I’m being proven wrong, but I just don’t see the long term play
Click to expand...
 

Money is everything right, we can all pretty much agree on that. There is another problem for Texas football and that is the home schedule every year. They always play OU in Dallas, so you get scheduling that includes ISU, KSU, OSU, Kansas, TCU, Baylor or TT every year. Sorry, but this is just a disaster for Texas fans when you consider what an SEC schedule would like every year, ATM, LSU, Alabama...etc.

Texas is going to the SEC, barring something crazy.

I would be in favor of adding USC, UCLA etc. Would be great away games and the potential of SoCal in November sounds delightful. Spring sports could start their seasons out on the coast.

Let's do the BIG.....Lets get out in front of this and come smelling like ROSES
 



theTurning said:
LETS GO
Click to expand...
The South pod would be a joke in football and the north would be tough. Just keep 2 divisions and move Pudue east. You play 2 cross-over games /year. Or add a 10th game.
 

So now Bigger 10 is tweeting they are hearing Penn State wants to go to ACC? Should I be worried about the B1G?
 





If it really is “all about the money” the Blue Blood schools would form a super conference and toss the middling and also-ranks into the the scrap heap/relegated pile. The big boys are subsidizing the little sisters of the poor currently, with tv revenue, post-season and perhaps even gate revenue sharing AFAIK. The calculations necessary to to buy out conference and TV contract obligations could be interesting if put on a a spreadsheet over a long enough time period. As always, beware what you wish for.
 


@GopherOhana "more like 20? rumors include OSU, UM, Clemson and FSU"

Those don't even qualify as rumors. That's just stirring the pot to get Twitter followers. Zero chance.
 

Goldmember said:
I’m a shareholder in Disney
Click to expand...
Congrats on your common shares. So, you know the same as what the public knows.

Goldmember said:
And football isn’t the problem.
Click to expand...
Sure, and hence why they will pay a premium for guaranteed viewership content, like SEC college football (and the NFL).

Goldmember said:
If I’m an ESPN rep selling advertising for I’m sensing some new competition has entered my territory.
Click to expand...
LOL. That is silly

Goldmember said:
It covers a small fraction of the USA.
Click to expand...
Another silly statement. "Small" would be like <= 10%. Just with Texas, Florida, and Georgia, it's already more than that.

Goldmember said:
And I don’t think a deal with the SEC is at all the best that they can do, equally splitting revenue with Mississippi State and Vanderbilt.
Click to expand...
What would be better?

And how are you able to figure that out, but they can't, and aren't doing that? The LHN hasn't worked.
 

Schnauzer said:
So now Bigger 10 is tweeting they are hearing Penn State wants to go to ACC? Should I be worried about the B1G?
Click to expand...
I would be shocked.

Can't imagine the actual school would like athletics disconnecting them from all that grant money....
 

fmlizard said:
It would be dumb for any SEC school to vote yes on this. Not one existing school would benefit from it.
Click to expand...
fmlizard said:
Texas is already in the SEC media footprint, and adding Oklahoma isn't significant in that regard.

They will dilute every other school's shared revenue 14.3%
Click to expand...
You really think they can't figure this out, and are just doing it for S's and G's?

Come on ... it's not at all that simple. They're doing it because it's going to get them a nice boost in money, or else they would not be doing it.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom