I don't think we'll see anything dramatic happen until after March Madness, but it's almost certain that great instability and very little outflowing information means that something is brewing behind the scenes.

What exactly?

We debate various ideas and scenarios on a board like this, but we have to made inferences and deductions. We don't always have hard facts to make predictions on.

Some hard facts we do have...

1. The ACC contract isn't ideal for the league. It's not just the pay rate, but the length of the deal is crippling. Now, that's not specifically ESPN's problem as some have pointed out, but it will be ESPN's problem if the ACC programs fall so far behind revenue wise that they can't compete nationally. That alone will devalue the current ACC contract(regardless of how good of a bargain it might be) and would be an impetus for change.

2. The Power 5 has in some ways contracted to a Power 2. The SEC and Big Ten have some massive contracts now and this seems to have created a gravity well. Much like bodies floating around Jupiter, sooner or later, everyone else is pulled into or destroyed by those league's spheres of influence. Jack Swarbrick basically said as much which is doubly interesting seeing as how Notre Dame is one of a very select number of schools that theoretically shouldn't have to worry about that.

3. The PAC is in trouble. Their new contract isn't going to be what they hoped for. Even if it's in the same ballpark as that of the Big 12(and that alone is debatable), it won't be what they envisioned before USC and UCLA left. They're embroiled in a financial dispute with Comcast and several schools have publicly shopped themselves. It's not good. Doesn't necessarily mean the league is going to fall apart within a year, but there's some significant internal issues. The Big 12 experienced much the same after Texas A&M, Missouri, Nebraska, and Colorado left. They didn't collapse, but the endemic weakness eventually led to Texas and Oklahoma departing. The league still didn't collapse, but the Big 12 had a lot of options to shore up its holes. The PAC has very few. Just about the only one you could count on to really repair any damage done is to add San Diego State. Outside of that, they would have to travel far outside their region to get anyone halfway valuable. Perhaps most unfortunately, this is all happening on the eve of getting a new contract. Basically, this is the last thing they needed.

4. The Big Ten has a nice new contract, but they no longer have the aid or sympathy of ESPN. That doesn't mean the Mouse is out to get them, but it means ESPN has no motivation to assist the Big Ten in any strategic endeavor.

-So all in all, something will have to change in the near term, but I'm not sure what.

(01-31-2023 11:09 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  2. The Power 5 has in some ways contracted to a Power 2.
...
-So all in all, something will have to change in the near term, but I'm not sure what.

Eventually, https://www.archives.gov/milestone-docum...-trust-act .

(01-31-2023 11:09 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I don't think we'll see anything dramatic happen until after March Madness, but it's almost certain that great instability and very little outflowing information means that something is brewing behind the scenes.

What exactly?

We debate various ideas and scenarios on a board like this, but we have to made inferences and deductions. We don't always have hard facts to make predictions on.

Some hard facts we do have...

1. The ACC contract isn't ideal for the league. It's not just the pay rate, but the length of the deal is crippling. Now, that's not specifically ESPN's problem as some have pointed out, but it will be ESPN's problem if the ACC programs fall so far behind revenue wise that they can't compete nationally. That alone will devalue the current ACC contract(regardless of how good of a bargain it might be) and would be an impetus for change.

2. The Power 5 has in some ways contracted to a Power 2. The SEC and Big Ten have some massive contracts now and this seems to have created a gravity well. Much like bodies floating around Jupiter, sooner or later, everyone else is pulled into or destroyed by those league's spheres of influence. Jack Swarbrick basically said as much which is doubly interesting seeing as how Notre Dame is one of a very select number of schools that theoretically shouldn't have to worry about that.

3. The PAC is in trouble. Their new contract isn't going to be what they hoped for. Even if it's in the same ballpark as that of the Big 12(and that alone is debatable), it won't be what they envisioned before USC and UCLA left. They're embroiled in a financial dispute with Comcast and several schools have publicly shopped themselves. It's not good. Doesn't necessarily mean the league is going to fall apart within a year, but there's some significant internal issues. The Big 12 experienced much the same after Texas A&M, Missouri, Nebraska, and Colorado left. They didn't collapse, but the endemic weakness eventually led to Texas and Oklahoma departing. The league still didn't collapse, but the Big 12 had a lot of options to shore up its holes. The PAC has very few. Just about the only one you could count on to really repair any damage done is to add San Diego State. Outside of that, they would have to travel far outside their region to get anyone halfway valuable. Perhaps most unfortunately, this is all happening on the eve of getting a new contract. Basically, this is the last thing they needed.

4. The Big Ten has a nice new contract, but they no longer have the aid or sympathy of ESPN. That doesn't mean the Mouse is out to get them, but it means ESPN has no motivation to assist the Big Ten in any strategic endeavor.

-So all in all, something will have to change in the near term, but I'm not sure what.

Your #1, #3, and #4 would be addressed if ESPN moves some of the Pac schools to the ACC and increases the payout. That would be the answer to Fox/B10.

Your #2 would be addressed by 2035 at the latest.

(02-01-2023 10:32 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 11:09 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I don't think we'll see anything dramatic happen until after March Madness, but it's almost certain that great instability and very little outflowing information means that something is brewing behind the scenes.

What exactly?

We debate various ideas and scenarios on a board like this, but we have to made inferences and deductions. We don't always have hard facts to make predictions on.

Some hard facts we do have...

1. The ACC contract isn't ideal for the league. It's not just the pay rate, but the length of the deal is crippling. Now, that's not specifically ESPN's problem as some have pointed out, but it will be ESPN's problem if the ACC programs fall so far behind revenue wise that they can't compete nationally. That alone will devalue the current ACC contract(regardless of how good of a bargain it might be) and would be an impetus for change.

2. The Power 5 has in some ways contracted to a Power 2. The SEC and Big Ten have some massive contracts now and this seems to have created a gravity well. Much like bodies floating around Jupiter, sooner or later, everyone else is pulled into or destroyed by those league's spheres of influence. Jack Swarbrick basically said as much which is doubly interesting seeing as how Notre Dame is one of a very select number of schools that theoretically shouldn't have to worry about that.

3. The PAC is in trouble. Their new contract isn't going to be what they hoped for. Even if it's in the same ballpark as that of the Big 12(and that alone is debatable), it won't be what they envisioned before USC and UCLA left. They're embroiled in a financial dispute with Comcast and several schools have publicly shopped themselves. It's not good. Doesn't necessarily mean the league is going to fall apart within a year, but there's some significant internal issues. The Big 12 experienced much the same after Texas A&M, Missouri, Nebraska, and Colorado left. They didn't collapse, but the endemic weakness eventually led to Texas and Oklahoma departing. The league still didn't collapse, but the Big 12 had a lot of options to shore up its holes. The PAC has very few. Just about the only one you could count on to really repair any damage done is to add San Diego State. Outside of that, they would have to travel far outside their region to get anyone halfway valuable. Perhaps most unfortunately, this is all happening on the eve of getting a new contract. Basically, this is the last thing they needed.

4. The Big Ten has a nice new contract, but they no longer have the aid or sympathy of ESPN. That doesn't mean the Mouse is out to get them, but it means ESPN has no motivation to assist the Big Ten in any strategic endeavor.

-So all in all, something will have to change in the near term, but I'm not sure what.

Your #1, #3, and #4 would be addressed if ESPN moves some of the Pac schools to the ACC and increases the payout. That would be the answer to Fox/B10.

Your #2 would be addressed by 2035 at the latest.

If the B1G sits at 16, I could see the ACC growing to 18 with California, Oregon, Stanford, and Washington. The XII would expand to 16 with Arizona, Arizona St, Colorado, and Utah. The MWC would get to 14 with Oregon St and Washington St.

(02-01-2023 10:44 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(02-01-2023 10:32 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 11:09 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I don't think we'll see anything dramatic happen until after March Madness, but it's almost certain that great instability and very little outflowing information means that something is brewing behind the scenes.

What exactly?

We debate various ideas and scenarios on a board like this, but we have to made inferences and deductions. We don't always have hard facts to make predictions on.

Some hard facts we do have...

1. The ACC contract isn't ideal for the league. It's not just the pay rate, but the length of the deal is crippling. Now, that's not specifically ESPN's problem as some have pointed out, but it will be ESPN's problem if the ACC programs fall so far behind revenue wise that they can't compete nationally. That alone will devalue the current ACC contract(regardless of how good of a bargain it might be) and would be an impetus for change.

2. The Power 5 has in some ways contracted to a Power 2. The SEC and Big Ten have some massive contracts now and this seems to have created a gravity well. Much like bodies floating around Jupiter, sooner or later, everyone else is pulled into or destroyed by those league's spheres of influence. Jack Swarbrick basically said as much which is doubly interesting seeing as how Notre Dame is one of a very select number of schools that theoretically shouldn't have to worry about that.

3. The PAC is in trouble. Their new contract isn't going to be what they hoped for. Even if it's in the same ballpark as that of the Big 12(and that alone is debatable), it won't be what they envisioned before USC and UCLA left. They're embroiled in a financial dispute with Comcast and several schools have publicly shopped themselves. It's not good. Doesn't necessarily mean the league is going to fall apart within a year, but there's some significant internal issues. The Big 12 experienced much the same after Texas A&M, Missouri, Nebraska, and Colorado left. They didn't collapse, but the endemic weakness eventually led to Texas and Oklahoma departing. The league still didn't collapse, but the Big 12 had a lot of options to shore up its holes. The PAC has very few. Just about the only one you could count on to really repair any damage done is to add San Diego State. Outside of that, they would have to travel far outside their region to get anyone halfway valuable. Perhaps most unfortunately, this is all happening on the eve of getting a new contract. Basically, this is the last thing they needed.

4. The Big Ten has a nice new contract, but they no longer have the aid or sympathy of ESPN. That doesn't mean the Mouse is out to get them, but it means ESPN has no motivation to assist the Big Ten in any strategic endeavor.

-So all in all, something will have to change in the near term, but I'm not sure what.

Your #1, #3, and #4 would be addressed if ESPN moves some of the Pac schools to the ACC and increases the payout. That would be the answer to Fox/B10.

Your #2 would be addressed by 2035 at the latest.

If the B1G sits at 16, I could see the ACC growing to 18 with California, Oregon, Stanford, and Washington. The XII would expand to 16 with Arizona, Arizona St, Colorado, and Utah. The MWC would get to 14 with Oregon St and Washington St.

After raking UCLA over the coals about travel, I highly doubt that Cal will turn around and join the ACC.

(02-01-2023 10:44 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(02-01-2023 10:32 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(01-31-2023 11:09 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I don't think we'll see anything dramatic happen until after March Madness, but it's almost certain that great instability and very little outflowing information means that something is brewing behind the scenes.

What exactly?

We debate various ideas and scenarios on a board like this, but we have to made inferences and deductions. We don't always have hard facts to make predictions on.

Some hard facts we do have...

1. The ACC contract isn't ideal for the league. It's not just the pay rate, but the length of the deal is crippling. Now, that's not specifically ESPN's problem as some have pointed out, but it will be ESPN's problem if the ACC programs fall so far behind revenue wise that they can't compete nationally. That alone will devalue the current ACC contract(regardless of how good of a bargain it might be) and would be an impetus for change.

2. The Power 5 has in some ways contracted to a Power 2. The SEC and Big Ten have some massive contracts now and this seems to have created a gravity well. Much like bodies floating around Jupiter, sooner or later, everyone else is pulled into or destroyed by those league's spheres of influence. Jack Swarbrick basically said as much which is doubly interesting seeing as how Notre Dame is one of a very select number of schools that theoretically shouldn't have to worry about that.

3. The PAC is in trouble. Their new contract isn't going to be what they hoped for. Even if it's in the same ballpark as that of the Big 12(and that alone is debatable), it won't be what they envisioned before USC and UCLA left. They're embroiled in a financial dispute with Comcast and several schools have publicly shopped themselves. It's not good. Doesn't necessarily mean the league is going to fall apart within a year, but there's some significant internal issues. The Big 12 experienced much the same after Texas A&M, Missouri, Nebraska, and Colorado left. They didn't collapse, but the endemic weakness eventually led to Texas and Oklahoma departing. The league still didn't collapse, but the Big 12 had a lot of options to shore up its holes. The PAC has very few. Just about the only one you could count on to really repair any damage done is to add San Diego State. Outside of that, they would have to travel far outside their region to get anyone halfway valuable. Perhaps most unfortunately, this is all happening on the eve of getting a new contract. Basically, this is the last thing they needed.

4. The Big Ten has a nice new contract, but they no longer have the aid or sympathy of ESPN. That doesn't mean the Mouse is out to get them, but it means ESPN has no motivation to assist the Big Ten in any strategic endeavor.

-So all in all, something will have to change in the near term, but I'm not sure what.

Your #1, #3, and #4 would be addressed if ESPN moves some of the Pac schools to the ACC and increases the payout. That would be the answer to Fox/B10.

Your #2 would be addressed by 2035 at the latest.

If the B1G sits at 16, I could see the ACC growing to 18 with California, Oregon, Stanford, and Washington. The XII would expand to 16 with Arizona, Arizona St, Colorado, and Utah. The MWC would get to 14 with Oregon St and Washington St.

I would be tremendously surprised if PAC 12 schools wind up in an opposite coast conference of schools.

The demand to get into the SEC and Big 10 will likely result in both of those conferences moving to 20. One of two scenarios then plays out for the Big 12 and ACC. One has all of the relatively equal value schools pooling into the Big 12, or the ACC and Big 12 each adding equal value schools to get to 16.

I favor 20 schools each for the Big 10 and SEC in the 4-conference scenario. Oregon/or Stanford and Washington to the Big 10, perhaps with Kansas and Notre Dame, or Kansas and Stanford/or Oregon. The SEC adding markets with North Carolina, Virginia (possibly Va. Tech), F.S.U. and Clemson for content.

If unequal revenue sharing based upon a school's actual value to the conference comes into being, then accommodating schools which add something to the conference but not necessarily to the bottom line will be possible to 24. That's where a Miami, Georgia Tech, Duke, or second Virginia school come into play for the SEC and where Utah, Arizona, Colorado and the second of Stanford/Oregon come into play in a bigger way.

In that world where the SEC and Big 10 move to 24 each there will only be one remaining conference likely also of 24.

I see 20 as probably the next logical place for the Big 10 and SEC, and it would represent the biggest increase in membership for a P conference in a single realignment cycle since the 2004-2005 ACC expansion.

I see the same types of players involved as JR does, with one addition: Miami

A FL presence would be great for the Big 10

Near AAU academics

Miami has weak ties to the ACC old guard and are less encumbered when it comes to making a big move.

(02-04-2023 07:21 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I see 20 as probably the next logical place for the Big 10 and SEC, and it would represent the biggest increase in membership for a P conference in a single realignment cycle since the 2004-2005 ACC expansion.

I see the same types of players involved as JR does, with one addition: Miami

A FL presence would be great for the Big 10

Near AAU academics

Miami has weak ties to the ACC old guard and are less encumbered when it comes to making a big move.

No P5 conference has operated with 16 yet.
The SEC and B1G haven't ever expanded with multiple schools of the same caliber at the same time before.
If we ever get to 20 teams in a conference it will be A) several years down the road and B) short lived.

(02-04-2023 09:13 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-04-2023 07:21 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I see 20 as probably the next logical place for the Big 10 and SEC, and it would represent the biggest increase in membership for a P conference in a single realignment cycle since the 2004-2005 ACC expansion.

I see the same types of players involved as JR does, with one addition: Miami

A FL presence would be great for the Big 10

Near AAU academics

Miami has weak ties to the ACC old guard and are less encumbered when it comes to making a big move.

No P5 conference has operated with 16 yet.
The SEC and B1G haven't ever expanded with multiple schools of the same caliber at the same time before.
If we ever get to 20 teams in a conference it will be A) several years down the road and B) short lived.

A saw and a 60's sage: Necessity is the mother of invention. "Oh the times, they are a changing!"

(02-04-2023 09:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-04-2023 09:13 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-04-2023 07:21 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I see 20 as probably the next logical place for the Big 10 and SEC, and it would represent the biggest increase in membership for a P conference in a single realignment cycle since the 2004-2005 ACC expansion.

I see the same types of players involved as JR does, with one addition: Miami

A FL presence would be great for the Big 10

Near AAU academics

Miami has weak ties to the ACC old guard and are less encumbered when it comes to making a big move.

No P5 conference has operated with 16 yet.
The SEC and B1G haven't ever expanded with multiple schools of the same caliber at the same time before.
If we ever get to 20 teams in a conference it will be A) several years down the road and B) short lived.

A saw and a 60's sage: Necessity is the mother of invention. "Oh the times, they are a changing!"

Yeah, but that guy couldn't sing worth a rip.

(02-07-2023 03:20 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-04-2023 09:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-04-2023 09:13 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-04-2023 07:21 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I see 20 as probably the next logical place for the Big 10 and SEC, and it would represent the biggest increase in membership for a P conference in a single realignment cycle since the 2004-2005 ACC expansion.

I see the same types of players involved as JR does, with one addition: Miami

A FL presence would be great for the Big 10

Near AAU academics

Miami has weak ties to the ACC old guard and are less encumbered when it comes to making a big move.

No P5 conference has operated with 16 yet.
The SEC and B1G haven't ever expanded with multiple schools of the same caliber at the same time before.
If we ever get to 20 teams in a conference it will be A) several years down the road and B) short lived.

A saw and a 60's sage: Necessity is the mother of invention. "Oh the times, they are a changing!"

Yeah, but that guy couldn't sing worth a rip.

Nope but he was Joan Baez's main squeeze for a while. Besides, he was stuck inside of Mobile with the Memphis blues again!

The next tectonic shift could easily have multiple teams involved beyond just two.

(02-07-2023 03:20 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-04-2023 09:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-04-2023 09:13 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-04-2023 07:21 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I see 20 as probably the next logical place for the Big 10 and SEC, and it would represent the biggest increase in membership for a P conference in a single realignment cycle since the 2004-2005 ACC expansion.

I see the same types of players involved as JR does, with one addition: Miami

A FL presence would be great for the Big 10

Near AAU academics

Miami has weak ties to the ACC old guard and are less encumbered when it comes to making a big move.

No P5 conference has operated with 16 yet.
The SEC and B1G haven't ever expanded with multiple schools of the same caliber at the same time before.
If we ever get to 20 teams in a conference it will be A) several years down the road and B) short lived.

A saw and a 60's sage: Necessity is the mother of invention. "Oh the times, they are a changing!"

Yeah, but that guy couldn't sing worth a rip.

Neither could Zappa.

(02-04-2023 09:13 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-04-2023 07:21 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I see 20 as probably the next logical place for the Big 10 and SEC, and it would represent the biggest increase in membership for a P conference in a single realignment cycle since the 2004-2005 ACC expansion.

I see the same types of players involved as JR does, with one addition: Miami

A FL presence would be great for the Big 10

Near AAU academics

Miami has weak ties to the ACC old guard and are less encumbered when it comes to making a big move.

No P5 conference has operated with 16 yet.
The SEC and B1G haven't ever expanded with multiple schools of the same caliber at the same time before.
If we ever get to 20 teams in a conference it will be A) several years down the road and B) short lived.

^^^
This bears repeating over and over again.

(02-08-2023 05:48 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-04-2023 09:13 PM)XLance Wrote:  No P5 conference has operated with 16 yet.
The SEC and B1G haven't ever expanded with multiple schools of the same caliber at the same time before.
If we ever get to 20 teams in a conference it will be A) several years down the road and B) short lived.

^^^
This bears repeating over and over again.

Doesn't it feel good to quote yourself? : )

bolded - I dunno. Could be. Or not. Got a coin we can flip?

(02-08-2023 08:42 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(02-08-2023 05:48 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-04-2023 09:13 PM)XLance Wrote:  No P5 conference has operated with 16 yet.
The SEC and B1G haven't ever expanded with multiple schools of the same caliber at the same time before.
If we ever get to 20 teams in a conference it will be A) several years down the road and B) short lived.

^^^
This bears repeating over and over again.

Doesn't it feel good to quote yourself? : )

bolded - I dunno. Could be. Or not. Got a coin we can flip?

The 8 member and 10 member conference system was not designed to maximize markets and existed when the NCAA had a chokehold on college football broadcasts, and was created when people traveled by train to cover games at a distance.

The initial model for college football telecasts post OU?UGa vs the NCAA was cable subscription based. This killed the SWC, impaired the Big 8, and forced the ACC to expand. The proactive conferences were the Big 10 and SEC. Hmm? "The one who gets there firstest with the mostest generally wins" is an old quote which certainly seems to apply.

Why consolidation? Streaming will damage payouts as Frank and so many have noted here. Consolidation enhances collective bargaining, and consolidation into the top brands efficiently addresses a variety of factors which enhance larger payouts.

Until these conditions are altered by some future technology the day of the Super Conference, perhaps even leagues, is upon us.

The sixteen member conference was born out of the concept of maximizing market strength when it was conceived in the 70's. The WAC used it but was so disparate geographically, and paid so little, it fell apart.

That doesn't even relate to the Big 10 and SEC which are very geographically compact at the core, but distant at the perimeter in the case of the SEC, or now has fly over as the case for the Big 10. And both are quite well paid.

I see nothing other than profit, as Slive once said, which limits the size of conferences moving forward. And since we live in an era of expensive travel, but of high payouts, and since what is wasteful are redundant systems, the elimination of multiple conferences with multiple physical plants in high dollar commercial property areas, with redundant staffing, and each with its own set of officials, etc, is essential., I see no trend which will take us back to the "good old days" of 7, 8, and 10 member conferences.

Future divisions will be the small conference, and each school will earn more having to support only one set of offices and one set of staffing and sharing all overhead with more schools.

Therefore X, predicting that all conferences of over 16 will blow up like the old WAC is like saying plastic explosives are less stable than early dynamite, when exactly the opposite is true. Old dynamite is volatile, plastic explosives are harmless until you intentionally add a fuse (intentionality). What I'm telling you is that moving forward, especially as the popularity of the sport declines, bigger is better, safer, and more profitable, and when it does blow up it will be because we, in an orderly fashion, find smaller to be more profitable, and we intentionally break apart to capitalize upon it.

(02-08-2023 11:59 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-08-2023 08:42 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(02-08-2023 05:48 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-04-2023 09:13 PM)XLance Wrote:  No P5 conference has operated with 16 yet.
The SEC and B1G haven't ever expanded with multiple schools of the same caliber at the same time before.
If we ever get to 20 teams in a conference it will be A) several years down the road and B) short lived.

^^^
This bears repeating over and over again.

Doesn't it feel good to quote yourself? : )

bolded - I dunno. Could be. Or not. Got a coin we can flip?

The 8 member and 10 member conference system was not designed to maximize markets and existed when the NCAA had a chokehold on college football broadcasts, and was created when people traveled by train to cover games at a distance.

The initial model for college football telecasts post OU?UGa vs the NCAA was cable subscription based. This killed the SWC, impaired the Big 8, and forced the ACC to expand. The proactive conferences were the Big 10 and SEC. Hmm? "The one who gets there firstest with the mostest generally wins" is an old quote which certainly seems to apply.

Why consolidation? Streaming will damage payouts as Frank and so many have noted here. Consolidation enhances collective bargaining, and consolidation into the top brands efficiently addresses a variety of factors which enhance larger payouts.

Until these conditions are altered by some future technology the day of the Super Conference, perhaps even leagues, is upon us.

The sixteen member conference was born out of the concept of maximizing market strength when it was conceived in the 70's. The WAC used it but was so disparate geographically, and paid so little, it fell apart.

That doesn't even relate to the Big 10 and SEC which are very geographically compact at the core, but distant at the perimeter in the case of the SEC, or now has fly over as the case for the Big 10. And both are quite well paid.

I see nothing other than profit, as Slive once said, which limits the size of conferences moving forward. And since we live in an era of expensive travel, but of high payouts, and since what is wasteful are redundant systems, the elimination of multiple conferences with multiple physical plants in high dollar commercial property areas, with redundant staffing, and each with its own set of officials, etc, is essential., I see no trend which will take us back to the "good old days" of 7, 8, and 10 member conferences.

Future divisions will be the small conference, and each school will earn more having to support only one set of offices and one set of staffing and sharing all overhead with more schools.

Therefore X, predicting that all conferences of over 16 will blow up like the old WAC is like saying plastic explosives are less stable than early dynamite, when exactly the opposite is true. Old dynamite is volatile, plastic explosives are harmless until you intentionally add a fuse (intentionality). What I'm telling you is that moving forward, especially as the popularity of the sport declines, bigger is better, safer, and more profitable, and when it does blow up it will be because we, in an orderly fashion, find smaller to be more profitable, and we intentionally break apart to capitalize upon it.

Its human nature JR. The more people you put together, the more different opinions you have. There's science on the most effective group sizes and its not 16. As you get bigger, you get more and more divergent. More cliques.

Economics may hold it together, but 16 and more is a fragile system.
Economics could also split it apart as the more valuable programs split off as the MWC did. With unequal revenue sharing, you get jealousy. Not conducive to staying together in the long run.

And ego prevents effective consolidation. Big 10 and SEC working together on a TV contract? It would be massive. Big 12 and Pac 12 should have done a combined TV contract. Didn't even get seriously considered even though they had pretty similarly structured TV contracts and similar ending dates.

Are we going to 18 or 20 in the Big 10 and SEC? Probably. But don't look for stability like the Big 10 and SEC have had in the past.

(02-08-2023 01:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-08-2023 11:59 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-08-2023 08:42 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(02-08-2023 05:48 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-04-2023 09:13 PM)XLance Wrote:  No P5 conference has operated with 16 yet.
The SEC and B1G haven't ever expanded with multiple schools of the same caliber at the same time before.
If we ever get to 20 teams in a conference it will be A) several years down the road and B) short lived.

^^^
This bears repeating over and over again.

Doesn't it feel good to quote yourself? : )

bolded - I dunno. Could be. Or not. Got a coin we can flip?

The 8 member and 10 member conference system was not designed to maximize markets and existed when the NCAA had a chokehold on college football broadcasts, and was created when people traveled by train to cover games at a distance.

The initial model for college football telecasts post OU?UGa vs the NCAA was cable subscription based. This killed the SWC, impaired the Big 8, and forced the ACC to expand. The proactive conferences were the Big 10 and SEC. Hmm? "The one who gets there firstest with the mostest generally wins" is an old quote which certainly seems to apply.

Why consolidation? Streaming will damage payouts as Frank and so many have noted here. Consolidation enhances collective bargaining, and consolidation into the top brands efficiently addresses a variety of factors which enhance larger payouts.

Until these conditions are altered by some future technology the day of the Super Conference, perhaps even leagues, is upon us.

The sixteen member conference was born out of the concept of maximizing market strength when it was conceived in the 70's. The WAC used it but was so disparate geographically, and paid so little, it fell apart.

That doesn't even relate to the Big 10 and SEC which are very geographically compact at the core, but distant at the perimeter in the case of the SEC, or now has fly over as the case for the Big 10. And both are quite well paid.

I see nothing other than profit, as Slive once said, which limits the size of conferences moving forward. And since we live in an era of expensive travel, but of high payouts, and since what is wasteful are redundant systems, the elimination of multiple conferences with multiple physical plants in high dollar commercial property areas, with redundant staffing, and each with its own set of officials, etc, is essential., I see no trend which will take us back to the "good old days" of 7, 8, and 10 member conferences.

Future divisions will be the small conference, and each school will earn more having to support only one set of offices and one set of staffing and sharing all overhead with more schools.

Therefore X, predicting that all conferences of over 16 will blow up like the old WAC is like saying plastic explosives are less stable than early dynamite, when exactly the opposite is true. Old dynamite is volatile, plastic explosives are harmless until you intentionally add a fuse (intentionality). What I'm telling you is that moving forward, especially as the popularity of the sport declines, bigger is better, safer, and more profitable, and when it does blow up it will be because we, in an orderly fashion, find smaller to be more profitable, and we intentionally break apart to capitalize upon it.

Its human nature JR. The more people you put together, the more different opinions you have. There's science on the most effective group sizes and its not 16. As you get bigger, you get more and more divergent. More cliques.

Economics may hold it together, but 16 and more is a fragile system.
Economics could also split it apart as the more valuable programs split off as the MWC did. With unequal revenue sharing, you get jealousy. Not conducive to staying together in the long run.

And ego prevents effective consolidation. Big 10 and SEC working together on a TV contract? It would be massive. Big 12 and Pac 12 should have done a combined TV contract. Didn't even get seriously considered even though they had pretty similarly structured TV contracts and similar ending dates.

Are we going to 18 or 20 in the Big 10 and SEC? Probably. But don't look for stability like the Big 10 and SEC have had in the past.

You miss my methodology Bullet, and I agree with what you are saying. Institutions don't have personalities beyond their presidents and largest donors, and that's enough to do damage. But they all react to outside stimuli similarly. And when threatened by an outside force, like people, they unify. When things are normal the differences come out. I hold no illusions as to permanency in any of it. Right now, the external threat level is sufficient to necessitate consolidation. When it isn't of course they'll break apart. But the fear of that cannot and should not prevent the unity they need now. And when smaller groupings with shared goals becomes possible in a time of low stressors of course they will splinter off, and they should.

I'm not afraid of change. What pisses me off are pea brained imbeciles who will not adapt to survive because "That's not how we do it" and "We've never done that before" and "It can't work!"

Adapt, Innovate, and Overcome! It's worked for the Marines for over a century, it works in business, and it works here. Super Conferences are merely the tool needed to overcome the next obstacle. I expect we will see smart conferences utilize streaming to self-contain their whole marketing approach at some point and eliminate the "Carrier". We aren't there yet, mostly because those in control refuse to look at the potential. Kudos to Delaney as he was well ahead on that one. He just didn't have streaming to make it easier. When the technology becomes less cost prohibitive we could see each school market their own and have scheduling groups instead of conferences.

My point is in adapting you do what is necessary for the current challenges you face. At no point is any of it a gestalt. All of life is a process of recognition and adaptation. What is not natural, is expecting no change.

(02-08-2023 01:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-08-2023 01:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-08-2023 11:59 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-08-2023 08:42 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(02-08-2023 05:48 AM)XLance Wrote:  ^^^
This bears repeating over and over again.

Doesn't it feel good to quote yourself? : )

bolded - I dunno. Could be. Or not. Got a coin we can flip?

The 8 member and 10 member conference system was not designed to maximize markets and existed when the NCAA had a chokehold on college football broadcasts, and was created when people traveled by train to cover games at a distance.

The initial model for college football telecasts post OU?UGa vs the NCAA was cable subscription based. This killed the SWC, impaired the Big 8, and forced the ACC to expand. The proactive conferences were the Big 10 and SEC. Hmm? "The one who gets there firstest with the mostest generally wins" is an old quote which certainly seems to apply.

Why consolidation? Streaming will damage payouts as Frank and so many have noted here. Consolidation enhances collective bargaining, and consolidation into the top brands efficiently addresses a variety of factors which enhance larger payouts.

Until these conditions are altered by some future technology the day of the Super Conference, perhaps even leagues, is upon us.

The sixteen member conference was born out of the concept of maximizing market strength when it was conceived in the 70's. The WAC used it but was so disparate geographically, and paid so little, it fell apart.

That doesn't even relate to the Big 10 and SEC which are very geographically compact at the core, but distant at the perimeter in the case of the SEC, or now has fly over as the case for the Big 10. And both are quite well paid.

I see nothing other than profit, as Slive once said, which limits the size of conferences moving forward. And since we live in an era of expensive travel, but of high payouts, and since what is wasteful are redundant systems, the elimination of multiple conferences with multiple physical plants in high dollar commercial property areas, with redundant staffing, and each with its own set of officials, etc, is essential., I see no trend which will take us back to the "good old days" of 7, 8, and 10 member conferences.

Future divisions will be the small conference, and each school will earn more having to support only one set of offices and one set of staffing and sharing all overhead with more schools.

Therefore X, predicting that all conferences of over 16 will blow up like the old WAC is like saying plastic explosives are less stable than early dynamite, when exactly the opposite is true. Old dynamite is volatile, plastic explosives are harmless until you intentionally add a fuse (intentionality). What I'm telling you is that moving forward, especially as the popularity of the sport declines, bigger is better, safer, and more profitable, and when it does blow up it will be because we, in an orderly fashion, find smaller to be more profitable, and we intentionally break apart to capitalize upon it.

Its human nature JR. The more people you put together, the more different opinions you have. There's science on the most effective group sizes and its not 16. As you get bigger, you get more and more divergent. More cliques.

Economics may hold it together, but 16 and more is a fragile system.
Economics could also split it apart as the more valuable programs split off as the MWC did. With unequal revenue sharing, you get jealousy. Not conducive to staying together in the long run.

And ego prevents effective consolidation. Big 10 and SEC working together on a TV contract? It would be massive. Big 12 and Pac 12 should have done a combined TV contract. Didn't even get seriously considered even though they had pretty similarly structured TV contracts and similar ending dates.

Are we going to 18 or 20 in the Big 10 and SEC? Probably. But don't look for stability like the Big 10 and SEC have had in the past.

You miss my methodology Bullet, and I agree with what you are saying. Institutions don't have personalities beyond their presidents and largest donors, and that's enough to do damage. But they all react to outside stimuli similarly. And when threatened by an outside force, like people, they unify. When things are normal the differences come out. I hold no illusions as to permanency in any of it. Right now, the external threat level is sufficient to necessitate consolidation. When it isn't of course they'll break apart. But the fear of that cannot and should not prevent the unity they need now. And when smaller groupings with shared goals becomes possible in a time of low stressors of course they will splinter off, and they should.

I'm not afraid of change. What pisses me off are pea brained imbeciles who will not adapt to survive because "That's not how we do it" and "We've never done that before" and "It can't work!"

Adapt, Innovate, and Overcome! It's worked for the Marines for over a century, it works in business, and it works here. Super Conferences are merely the tool needed to overcome the next obstacle. I expect we will see smart conferences utilize streaming to self-contain their whole marketing approach at some point and eliminate the "Carrier". We aren't there yet, mostly because those in control refuse to look at the potential. Kudos to Delaney as he was well ahead on that one. He just didn't have streaming to make it easier. When the technology becomes less cost prohibitive we could see each school market their own and have scheduling groups instead of conferences.

My point is in adapting you do what is necessary for the current challenges you face. At no point is any of it a gestalt. All of life is a process of recognition and adaptation. What is not natural, is expecting no change.

If you look at wall street, investors talk about those who deal with the "facts on the ground". The ones who tend to make money don't invest based upon what they wish is true, but based upon what is true.

and when those facts change, you change too, or get left behind.

yes, I'm oversimplifying, and yes there is a facet of long term strategy, as well as leading change through action. (and remembering that inaction is itself an action.)

But in general yes.

And looking at conferences, the amount of sitting on one's hands when opportunity is knocking, is just amazing to me.

Yes there are times when it may be a good idea to let an opportunity pass. But some of these that we are seeing are some really guilty opportunities.

(02-08-2023 04:48 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(02-08-2023 01:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-08-2023 01:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-08-2023 11:59 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-08-2023 08:42 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  Doesn't it feel good to quote yourself? : )

bolded - I dunno. Could be. Or not. Got a coin we can flip?

The 8 member and 10 member conference system was not designed to maximize markets and existed when the NCAA had a chokehold on college football broadcasts, and was created when people traveled by train to cover games at a distance.

The initial model for college football telecasts post OU?UGa vs the NCAA was cable subscription based. This killed the SWC, impaired the Big 8, and forced the ACC to expand. The proactive conferences were the Big 10 and SEC. Hmm? "The one who gets there firstest with the mostest generally wins" is an old quote which certainly seems to apply.

Why consolidation? Streaming will damage payouts as Frank and so many have noted here. Consolidation enhances collective bargaining, and consolidation into the top brands efficiently addresses a variety of factors which enhance larger payouts.

Until these conditions are altered by some future technology the day of the Super Conference, perhaps even leagues, is upon us.

The sixteen member conference was born out of the concept of maximizing market strength when it was conceived in the 70's. The WAC used it but was so disparate geographically, and paid so little, it fell apart.

That doesn't even relate to the Big 10 and SEC which are very geographically compact at the core, but distant at the perimeter in the case of the SEC, or now has fly over as the case for the Big 10. And both are quite well paid.

I see nothing other than profit, as Slive once said, which limits the size of conferences moving forward. And since we live in an era of expensive travel, but of high payouts, and since what is wasteful are redundant systems, the elimination of multiple conferences with multiple physical plants in high dollar commercial property areas, with redundant staffing, and each with its own set of officials, etc, is essential., I see no trend which will take us back to the "good old days" of 7, 8, and 10 member conferences.

Future divisions will be the small conference, and each school will earn more having to support only one set of offices and one set of staffing and sharing all overhead with more schools.

Therefore X, predicting that all conferences of over 16 will blow up like the old WAC is like saying plastic explosives are less stable than early dynamite, when exactly the opposite is true. Old dynamite is volatile, plastic explosives are harmless until you intentionally add a fuse (intentionality). What I'm telling you is that moving forward, especially as the popularity of the sport declines, bigger is better, safer, and more profitable, and when it does blow up it will be because we, in an orderly fashion, find smaller to be more profitable, and we intentionally break apart to capitalize upon it.

Its human nature JR. The more people you put together, the more different opinions you have. There's science on the most effective group sizes and its not 16. As you get bigger, you get more and more divergent. More cliques.

Economics may hold it together, but 16 and more is a fragile system.
Economics could also split it apart as the more valuable programs split off as the MWC did. With unequal revenue sharing, you get jealousy. Not conducive to staying together in the long run.

And ego prevents effective consolidation. Big 10 and SEC working together on a TV contract? It would be massive. Big 12 and Pac 12 should have done a combined TV contract. Didn't even get seriously considered even though they had pretty similarly structured TV contracts and similar ending dates.

Are we going to 18 or 20 in the Big 10 and SEC? Probably. But don't look for stability like the Big 10 and SEC have had in the past.

You miss my methodology Bullet, and I agree with what you are saying. Institutions don't have personalities beyond their presidents and largest donors, and that's enough to do damage. But they all react to outside stimuli similarly. And when threatened by an outside force, like people, they unify. When things are normal the differences come out. I hold no illusions as to permanency in any of it. Right now, the external threat level is sufficient to necessitate consolidation. When it isn't of course they'll break apart. But the fear of that cannot and should not prevent the unity they need now. And when smaller groupings with shared goals becomes possible in a time of low stressors of course they will splinter off, and they should.

I'm not afraid of change. What pisses me off are pea brained imbeciles who will not adapt to survive because "That's not how we do it" and "We've never done that before" and "It can't work!"

Adapt, Innovate, and Overcome! It's worked for the Marines for over a century, it works in business, and it works here. Super Conferences are merely the tool needed to overcome the next obstacle. I expect we will see smart conferences utilize streaming to self-contain their whole marketing approach at some point and eliminate the "Carrier". We aren't there yet, mostly because those in control refuse to look at the potential. Kudos to Delaney as he was well ahead on that one. He just didn't have streaming to make it easier. When the technology becomes less cost prohibitive we could see each school market their own and have scheduling groups instead of conferences.

My point is in adapting you do what is necessary for the current challenges you face. At no point is any of it a gestalt. All of life is a process of recognition and adaptation. What is not natural, is expecting no change.

If you look at wall street, investors talk about those who deal with the "facts on the ground". The ones who tend to make money don't invest based upon what they wish is true, but based upon what is true.

and when those facts change, you change too, or get left behind.

yes, I'm oversimplifying, and yes there is a facet of long term strategy, as well as leading change through action. (and remembering that inaction is itself an action.)

But in general yes.

And looking at conferences, the amount of sitting on one's hands when opportunity is knocking, is just amazing to me.

Yes there are times when it may be a good idea to let an opportunity pass. But some of these that we are seeing are some really guilty opportunities.

You know, and we all know the old maxim, "Those who can do, those who cannot teach." This is not about competency. It is about the ability to make decisions with what you know to be true. Some thrive on meeting challenges with informed decisions and innovation, and some fear failure and choose instead to simply impart what they learned.

So those who can make a decision do. Those who cannot teach. The delaying of making critical decisions, especially time sensitive ones, is endemic in education, where whole bureaucracies are created to slow change.

Heck, why do we have commissioners? So the presidents have a buffer between the decisions and themselves.

(02-08-2023 05:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-08-2023 04:48 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(02-08-2023 01:23 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-08-2023 01:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-08-2023 11:59 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The 8 member and 10 member conference system was not designed to maximize markets and existed when the NCAA had a chokehold on college football broadcasts, and was created when people traveled by train to cover games at a distance.

The initial model for college football telecasts post OU?UGa vs the NCAA was cable subscription based. This killed the SWC, impaired the Big 8, and forced the ACC to expand. The proactive conferences were the Big 10 and SEC. Hmm? "The one who gets there firstest with the mostest generally wins" is an old quote which certainly seems to apply.

Why consolidation? Streaming will damage payouts as Frank and so many have noted here. Consolidation enhances collective bargaining, and consolidation into the top brands efficiently addresses a variety of factors which enhance larger payouts.

Until these conditions are altered by some future technology the day of the Super Conference, perhaps even leagues, is upon us.

The sixteen member conference was born out of the concept of maximizing market strength when it was conceived in the 70's. The WAC used it but was so disparate geographically, and paid so little, it fell apart.

That doesn't even relate to the Big 10 and SEC which are very geographically compact at the core, but distant at the perimeter in the case of the SEC, or now has fly over as the case for the Big 10. And both are quite well paid.

I see nothing other than profit, as Slive once said, which limits the size of conferences moving forward. And since we live in an era of expensive travel, but of high payouts, and since what is wasteful are redundant systems, the elimination of multiple conferences with multiple physical plants in high dollar commercial property areas, with redundant staffing, and each with its own set of officials, etc, is essential., I see no trend which will take us back to the "good old days" of 7, 8, and 10 member conferences.

Future divisions will be the small conference, and each school will earn more having to support only one set of offices and one set of staffing and sharing all overhead with more schools.

Therefore X, predicting that all conferences of over 16 will blow up like the old WAC is like saying plastic explosives are less stable than early dynamite, when exactly the opposite is true. Old dynamite is volatile, plastic explosives are harmless until you intentionally add a fuse (intentionality). What I'm telling you is that moving forward, especially as the popularity of the sport declines, bigger is better, safer, and more profitable, and when it does blow up it will be because we, in an orderly fashion, find smaller to be more profitable, and we intentionally break apart to capitalize upon it.

Its human nature JR. The more people you put together, the more different opinions you have. There's science on the most effective group sizes and its not 16. As you get bigger, you get more and more divergent. More cliques.

Economics may hold it together, but 16 and more is a fragile system.
Economics could also split it apart as the more valuable programs split off as the MWC did. With unequal revenue sharing, you get jealousy. Not conducive to staying together in the long run.

And ego prevents effective consolidation. Big 10 and SEC working together on a TV contract? It would be massive. Big 12 and Pac 12 should have done a combined TV contract. Didn't even get seriously considered even though they had pretty similarly structured TV contracts and similar ending dates.

Are we going to 18 or 20 in the Big 10 and SEC? Probably. But don't look for stability like the Big 10 and SEC have had in the past.

You miss my methodology Bullet, and I agree with what you are saying. Institutions don't have personalities beyond their presidents and largest donors, and that's enough to do damage. But they all react to outside stimuli similarly. And when threatened by an outside force, like people, they unify. When things are normal the differences come out. I hold no illusions as to permanency in any of it. Right now, the external threat level is sufficient to necessitate consolidation. When it isn't of course they'll break apart. But the fear of that cannot and should not prevent the unity they need now. And when smaller groupings with shared goals becomes possible in a time of low stressors of course they will splinter off, and they should.

I'm not afraid of change. What pisses me off are pea brained imbeciles who will not adapt to survive because "That's not how we do it" and "We've never done that before" and "It can't work!"

Adapt, Innovate, and Overcome! It's worked for the Marines for over a century, it works in business, and it works here. Super Conferences are merely the tool needed to overcome the next obstacle. I expect we will see smart conferences utilize streaming to self-contain their whole marketing approach at some point and eliminate the "Carrier". We aren't there yet, mostly because those in control refuse to look at the potential. Kudos to Delaney as he was well ahead on that one. He just didn't have streaming to make it easier. When the technology becomes less cost prohibitive we could see each school market their own and have scheduling groups instead of conferences.

My point is in adapting you do what is necessary for the current challenges you face. At no point is any of it a gestalt. All of life is a process of recognition and adaptation. What is not natural, is expecting no change.

If you look at wall street, investors talk about those who deal with the "facts on the ground". The ones who tend to make money don't invest based upon what they wish is true, but based upon what is true.

and when those facts change, you change too, or get left behind.

yes, I'm oversimplifying, and yes there is a facet of long term strategy, as well as leading change through action. (and remembering that inaction is itself an action.)

But in general yes.

And looking at conferences, the amount of sitting on one's hands when opportunity is knocking, is just amazing to me.

Yes there are times when it may be a good idea to let an opportunity pass. But some of these that we are seeing are some really guilty opportunities.

You know, and we all know the old maxim, "Those who can do, those who cannot teach." This is not about competency. It is about the ability to make decisions with what you know to be true. Some thrive on meeting challenges with informed decisions and innovation, and some fear failure and choose instead to simply impart what they learned.

So those who can make a decision do. Those who cannot teach. The delaying of making critical decisions, especially time sensitive ones, is endemic in education, where whole bureaucracies are created to slow change.

Heck, why do we have commissioners? So the presidents have a buffer between the decisions and themselves.

Never thought about this that way (while noting that, of course, that's a gross over-generalization), but you know, that does seem a fair point.