(02-02-2018 01:03 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-02-2018 11:34 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  WAC 16 did not fail because 16 is an inherently bad number. WAC 16 failed because it prevented schools that desired to play each other annually from doing so and those schools soon figured out they could make more money on a per team basis as an 8 team league than 16. So why aren't the power conferences shrinking to a better number? Because they can make more larger.

The other thing about the WAC, though, is that when it split up, it didn't split along geographic lines. A few schools with more leverage than the others dictated the split by choosing a few others to go with them and telling those schools, if you don't say yes right away, we'll just pick someone else and leave you behind.

So yeah, the WAC was an unstable 16, but if any future super-sized conference splits up, it will split the same way. Those with the most leverage will control the split and others will end up holding the bag. For example, if the Big Ten ever grows larger and many become dissatisfied with it, any split would be controlled by what Ohio State and Michigan want to do, not by some collective decision in which everyone gets an equal say.

Great point. Any size conference works and can be stable so long as it's profitable and the league structure keeps traditional rivals playing.

I struggle with why the WAC didn't see the flaw in their 16 team model. They knew full well that the Utah schools and New Mexico would be cut off from Wyoming, AFA, and Wyoming and yet they did it anyway.