Article link

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...-era-ended

Article basically states that with the GOR, realignment is over.

(02-14-2014 12:53 PM)Terps_N_Phoenix Wrote:  Article link

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...-era-ended

Article basically states that with the GOR, realignment is over.

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id...e-national

Then Delany says stuff like:

"We have 30 percent of the population, 15 percent of the territory, but we're not constrained to that. We have a national look."

And along with the New York office, makes it seem like B1G might have something more in mind.

So I have a few questions, is this Swofford and ESPN just saying this to promote the perception of stability? I think with ACC and Big 12 GOR's in place that movement is done for now. Unless there is the master coordinated plan to kill one or both of the conferences and have them disband, therefore nullifying the GOR. Delany may want UVA/UNC or OK/KU but I would be surprised if it happened within the next 5 maybe 10 years (I don't remember exactly when the GOR's are up). Long term plans are good but Swofford is a shifty/smart guy and the Carolina mafia with the two VA schools seem to really want to stay together. I'm not discounting Delany but there are so many moving parts in this. Also, something to consider is the part that Slive will play. You know he wants some of those same schools.

(02-14-2014 02:05 PM)Terps_N_Phoenix Wrote:  So I have a few questions, is this Swofford and ESPN just saying this to promote the perception of stability? I think with ACC and Big 12 GOR's in place that movement is done for now.

In the unlikely event that Maryland wins big in their lawsuit against the ACC, who knows.

In 5 years or so all eyes will be on Texas.

Movement prior to that would likely require a coordinated effort, likely involving the (entire) Big 12.

(02-14-2014 02:05 PM)Terps_N_Phoenix Wrote:  So I have a few questions, is this Swofford and ESPN just saying this to promote the perception of stability? I think with ACC and Big 12 GOR's in place that movement is done for now. Unless there is the master coordinated plan to kill one or both of the conferences and have them disband, therefore nullifying the GOR. Delany may want UVA/UNC or OK/KU but I would be surprised if it happened within the next 5 maybe 10 years (I don't remember exactly when the GOR's are up). Long term plans are good but Swofford is a shifty/smart guy and the Carolina mafia with the two VA schools seem to really want to stay together. I'm not discounting Delany but there are so many moving parts in this. Also, something to consider is the part that Slive will play. You know he wants some of those same schools.

We talk about this all the time on the SEC board... ESPN likely wants the SEC and ACC to collaborate, not eat each other up. A better move than the ACC would be a coordinated effort to disband the Big 12's GOR. It would take 8 of the 10 schools to agree to it. Texas is an ESPN product, so they are not going to the PAC. There are a lot of scenarios that would make it happen, and the only school that I could see the Big 10 taking from the Big 12 without any hesitation from either side is Kansas. The Big 10 would probably rather have UVA or UNC than Kansas, but that is not a bad addition by any means, especially if it means the CFP and other major conference payouts reduce from 1/5 share to 1/4 share.

About the ACC... could the SEC and Big 10 team up to get 11 of the 14 full members to nullify their GOR? Possibly, but, again, ESPN's relationship with the SEC will prevent it. The SEC and Big 10 could easily get to 20 teams each with schools that both would highly value, and it would only take a few compromises. I'm leaving Notre Dame out of this... who in the world knows what they would do:

Big 10 - Syracuse, Boston College, UVA or VT, UNC, Duke, Pitt or accepting Vandy (rumored to have a longstanding open invite if they ever want it).

SEC - FSU, Clemson, NC State, UVA or VT, Georgia Tech, Pitt if you don't take them, Louisville or Miami if Vandy moved (which I think would be a win/win/win for all involved)

Louisville or Miami and Wake Forest are probably on the outside looking in. Miami or Louisville would instantly have a home in the Big 12 if it broke this way.

(02-14-2014 03:35 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(02-14-2014 02:05 PM)Terps_N_Phoenix Wrote:  So I have a few questions, is this Swofford and ESPN just saying this to promote the perception of stability? I think with ACC and Big 12 GOR's in place that movement is done for now.

In the unlikely event that Maryland wins big in their lawsuit against the ACC, who knows.

In 5 years or so all eyes will be on Texas.

Movement prior to that would likely require a coordinated effort, likely involving the (entire) Big 12.

Looks like you posted while I was writing... totally agree.

Sounds a lot like Kevin Bacon screaming "all is well" during the closing scenes of Animal House. Look all of them (the commissioners) said at their last meeting that things were over for at least two years. Why? They have to settle structure of conference issues with the NCAA, or breakaway, or get a well defined definition of autonomy before any further action can happen. But 2 years is also a form of double talk. Almost every conference has a two year buffer of prior notification before a move. And once the contracts are set the networks will be much more open to brokering out the odd conference because they won't be facing the pressure to overvalue additions during the contract negotiations. For that reason I find the joint announcement by ESPN and the ACC to be particularly self serving. Of course the Maryland suit needs to be settled prior to 2016 for the Big 10's purposes and should it cast doubt upon the legality of the ACC's actions then of course schools like Virginia might again come into question. But if the Big 10 has already signed a new contract then they would not realize the full value of a subsequent addition until the expiration of their contract. And furthermore if they re up with ESPN then they might get favorable treatment with properties currently within the ESPN lineup. So forestalling realignment until after the next contract with the Big 10 is signed gives ESPN total leverage over Big 10 expansion as all of the ACC, Kansas and Texas are ESPN property.

Once that issue is decided then ESPN will know where they need to place Kansas and Texas to get the most value for their money. If the Big 10 inks with FOX they won't see any of those properties and then a Big 12 dissolution sends likely 8 teams to the SEC and ACC. If the Big 10 inks with ESPN for a term of lengthy duration (15 years or more) then Kansas and Texas might be available to the Big 10.

Should the ACC survive, and I think they will if they get a network, or some kind of similar revenue enhancement, then 8 teams may have to be parsed between the ACC, SEC and Big 10. Does that mean we go larger than 16? It depends and once again 2 years might make a difference in knowing for sure. Wake and B.C. have already expressed reservations over having to pay stipends. Let's say hypothetically that one or two of them decide not to push on to the upper tier. Now we have 8 slots between the SEC, ACC, and Big 10 to get the dissolution done. Who may or may not drop out of which conference also determines to some degree where teams get placed.

Face it guys the Big 12 has the last valuable property for acquisition before things get set in stone for a while. ESPN and to some extent FOX don't want to lay those cards down until they have all of the information available to them so that they can maximize the situation. If the ACC added two Big 12 teams right now and the SEC did the same and in two years Wake or B.C. called uncle it would screw up the valuation of the entire conference after the contracts are in force because targets of equal value or market likely won't be available. Once the parsing of the Big 12 occurs (and should it occur) everyone's contract will be renegotiated within limits. That's why placement of schools is so critical to both the networks and the conferences. So yeah ESPN wants a stall in this process.

Now what we need to do is to clear up matters with the NCAA, implement the new rules, and give the new permissions, and see who wants to ante up to the big table. If some bow out great. Now we can deal fair hands.

We have all seen this before. Doesn't mean he is wrong, but more often than not these kind of statements are kind of a pseudo opposite talk. This is how they publically pass the word to folks that something is about to happen by saying its not about to happen. That way the masses don't get all worked up and stop things from happening with social media.

(02-14-2014 06:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Sounds a lot like Kevin Bacon screaming "all is well" during the closing scenes of Animal House.

I LOL'd at that. Love the image.

(02-14-2014 03:35 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(02-14-2014 02:05 PM)Terps_N_Phoenix Wrote:  So I have a few questions, is this Swofford and ESPN just saying this to promote the perception of stability? I think with ACC and Big 12 GOR's in place that movement is done for now.

In the unlikely event that Maryland wins big in their lawsuit against the ACC, who knows.

In 5 years or so all eyes will be on Texas.

Movement prior to that would likely require a coordinated effort, likely involving the (entire) Big 12.

I think the case will be settled for far less than the ACC is asking, but even a Maryland win won't really change the realignment landscape. The GORs have a different legal basis and it's solid. The exception would be a conference dissolution or something along that order which causes ESPN to exercise some contractual right to terminate the conference's media deal. If the conference media deal terminates, then the GOR terminates as well.

I also agree that the Big 12 is in the cross hairs next time around, more so than the ACC, in part because its media deal expires first.

(02-15-2014 01:41 AM)CintiFan Wrote:  

(02-14-2014 03:35 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(02-14-2014 02:05 PM)Terps_N_Phoenix Wrote:  So I have a few questions, is this Swofford and ESPN just saying this to promote the perception of stability? I think with ACC and Big 12 GOR's in place that movement is done for now.

In the unlikely event that Maryland wins big in their lawsuit against the ACC, who knows.

In 5 years or so all eyes will be on Texas.

Movement prior to that would likely require a coordinated effort, likely involving the (entire) Big 12.

I think the case will be settled for far less than the ACC is asking, but even a Maryland win won't really change the realignment landscape. The GORs have a different legal basis and it's solid. The exception would be a conference dissolution or something along that order which causes ESPN to exercise some contractual right to terminate the conference's media deal. If the conference media deal terminates, then the GOR terminates as well.

I also agree that the Big 12 is in the cross hairs next time around, more so than the ACC, in part because its media deal expires first.

Also in part due to it's geographical location. Also in part to the fact that Texas would like to participate in more sports than the Big 12 sponsors. Also in part, mainly, due to the new rules about what autonomy entails and what that will allow.

The major reason why it will be the Big 12 and not the ACC is ACC basketball and what that means to ESPN.

I actually do have to agree with the article. The grant of rights are a lot firmer than the exit penalties and even if there is some room for movement there, none of the conference with them is going to want to challenge them and reduce the value of their own GoR.

The only way I see any movement between power conference until the grant of rights near expiration if we talk about outright mergers between conferences as opposed to raids (if we ever get something like the 4x16, the only way I actually see it happening is the 5 power conferences merge into a single entity).

Edit:

1. Important note: The Maryland case does not involve a grant of rights issue. Maryland left before the ACC schools agreed to a grant of rights (and a grant of rights does require 100% participation to take effect unlike an exit fee which is more debatable).

2. I really think the power of ESPN and FOX here is a bit overstated and misses one fundamental thing. They don't want realignment and really haven't from the start imo.

All the last round of realignment did was mean they ended up paying more money for essentially the same teams (bump ups in contracts for the raiding conferences while often paying exactly the same to the raided conferences; in the case of the Big 12, they paid the same amount even though it was fewer games to choose from, no CCG, and with several fewer marquee members and markets). For now, ESPN and Fox are already paying for the games they want from the Big 12/ACC. Moving those teams from the Big 12/ACC to other conferences means they'd still be paying the Big 12/ACC something and paying the other conferences more too. That's a lose/lose for them and why they have been open to paying more if grant of rights are signed (as it's seen a locking things in place better).

(02-15-2014 10:21 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I actually do have to agree with the article. The grant of rights are a lot firmer than the exit penalties and even if there is some room for movement there, none of the conference with them is going to want to challenge them and reduce the value of their own GoR.

The only way I see any movement between power conference until the grant of rights near expiration if we talk about outright mergers between conferences as opposed to raids (if we ever get something like the 4x16 people love to talk about, that's the only way I actually see it happening, it will never happen simply by individual conference raids imo).

Edit:

1. Important note: The Maryland case does not involve a grant of rights issue. Maryland left before the ACC schools agreed to a grant of rights (and a grant of rights does require 100% participation to take effect unlike an exit fee which is more debatable).

2. I really think the power of ESPN and FOX here is a bit overstated and misses one fundamental thing. They don't want realignment and really haven't from the start imo.

All the last round of realignment did was mean they ended up paying more money for essentially the same teams (bump ups in contracts for the raiding conferences while often paying exactly the same to the raided conferences; in the case of the Big 12, they paid the same amount even though it was fewer games to choose from, no CCG, and with several fewer marquee members and markets). For now, ESPN and Fox are already paying for the games they want from the Big 12/ACC. Moving those teams from the Big 12/ACC to other conferences means they'd still be paying the Big 12/ACC something and paying the other conferences more too. That's a lose/lose for them and why they have been open to paying more if grant of rights are signed (as it's seen a locking things in place better).

I don't think any raids will occur. The networks and conference commissioners will get together and broker out the wholesale parsing of the Big 12 if anything happens. The nice thing for everyone is if this happens we won't know a thing about it until it is done, if it hasn't already been tacitly agreed to and therefore that is why realignment is over. The changes in rules governing structures of conferences is also key because it could allow for enough deviation from what we conceive of as the norm to permit some tricky maneuvers in realignment without having to move in pairs necessarily. Although I do think they will still strive for symmetry.

I think we are a decade off from a major possibility (although I still wouldn't be on it) of things changing a lot more though. The teams in the top conferences like the current structure and you are going to need almost unanimous support for major structural changes at the top. I guess that if we ever get a simple 4x16 (or 4xwhatever) playoff after the CCGs, this is how I see it happening:

1. Massive debt/funding problems at schools well beyond what we see now. This probably coincides with a major economic downturn and much reduced TV value. (Note: I actually do think this is likely in the next decade).

2. The commissioners of the 5 power conferences talk and agree to a merger for football. All 5 conferences join into one giant mega-league for football alone. Notre Dame and BYU at this point can come along if they want and reluctantly do (note: this is the only way I see Notre Dame joining a football conference in the next 20 years).

3. The 66 or teams are divided into 4 football conferences (16-18 members). None of these would necessarily be the same as the current conferences, although it might be possible to maintain some of them (they won't want 3 geographical conferences though and 1 conference with teams all over the country so I think they would only kind of follow current conferences).

4. For football, 8 conference games are decided as universal allowing at least 4 free games to protect broken up rivalries.

5. The champion of the league consisting of most of the Big Ten would play champion of the league that would have most/all of the PAC-12 in the Rose Bowl for the semi-final. Other semi-final would be Sugar Bowl.

5. In basketball and other sports, existing conferences continue.

This would be a huge paradime shift and I wouldn't bet on it happening. That said, if we ever do get a simple 4x16/17/18, then I think that's how it happens. Otherwise, I don't see any system where the Group of 5 are excluded and Notre Dame cannot play in as an independent.

(02-15-2014 11:20 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I think we are a decade off from a major possibility (although I still wouldn't be on it) of things changing a lot more though. The teams in the top conferences like the current structure and you are going to need almost unanimous support for major structural changes at the top. I guess that if we ever get a simple 4x16 (or 4xwhatever) playoff after the CCGs, this is how I see it happening:

1. Massive debt/funding problems at schools well beyond what we see now. This probably coincides with a major economic downturn and much reduced TV value. (Note: I actually do think this is likely in the next decade).

2. The commissioners of the 5 power conferences talk and agree to a merger for football. All 5 conferences join into one giant mega-league for football alone. Notre Dame and BYU at this point can come along if they want and reluctantly do (note: this is the only way I see Notre Dame joining a football conference in the next 20 years).

3. The 66 or teams are divided into 4 football conferences (16-18 members). None of these would necessarily be the same as the current conferences, although it might be possible to maintain some of them (they won't want 3 geographical conferences though and 1 conference with teams all over the country so I think they would only kind of follow current conferences).

4. For football, 8 conference games are decided as universal allowing at least 4 free games to protect broken up rivalries.

5. The champion of the league consisting of most of the Big Ten would play champion of the league that would have most/all of the PAC-12 in the Rose Bowl for the semi-final. Other semi-final would be Sugar Bowl.

5. In basketball and other sports, existing conferences continue.

This would be a huge paradime shift and I wouldn't bet on it happening. That said, if we ever do get a simple 4x16/17/18, then I think that's how it happens. Otherwise, I don't see any system where the Group of 5 are excluded and Notre Dame cannot play in as an independent.

And I think that there are too many good reasons to go ahead and divide them out. If finishes the matter now and allows all teams to get a slight bump. It unmuddies the waters for the networks, it ends renegotiations for the foreseeable future, it gets the fans settled back in, and it supplies the conferences with networks, and it now appears that there will be 4, with the content and markets they need.

The Irish keep independence but get an in to the playoffs through the ACC. Perhaps B.Y.U. could do the same out West, we'll see?

But I do agree with you, as I always have, that we are nowhere near the bottom on this economy and that the world has much less patience today for permitting any nation to place their trade (and therefore their currency) in jeopardy by permitting the US to continue to run unprecedented debts up without a currency adjustment.

So I did a quick search and found that the Big 12 GOR runs through the 2024-2025 school year. The ACC GOR goes through 2026-2027. So that would pretty much kill just about any movement for the next 5 years. The question then becomes 1) when do prospective conference start speaking with schools with "soon to expire" GOR (or have they not stopped since the current cycle we are in?) ; 2) When does the Big 12 and ACC start working on getting the new GOR in place knowing that other conference may try to poach schools? ; 3) signing the GOR would indicate (to me anyway) that the school is currently happy with their current conference, does that change for anyone?

(02-15-2014 08:43 PM)Terps_N_Phoenix Wrote:  So I did a quick search and found that the Big 12 GOR runs through the 2024-2025 school year. The ACC GOR goes through 2026-2027. So that would pretty much kill just about any movement for the next 5 years. The question then becomes 1) when do prospective conference start speaking with schools with "soon to expire" GOR (or have they not stopped since the current cycle we are in?) ; 2) When does the Big 12 and ACC start working on getting the new GOR in place knowing that other conference may try to poach schools? ; 3) signing the GOR would indicate (to me anyway) that the school is currently happy with their current conference, does that change for anyone?

I'm not sure it means that no further realignment occurs. I think it means that it is far more likely that if there is more movement prior to 2024 that it will likely be brokered by ESPN in house if movement is between the SEC or ACC, and in cooperation with FOX if it is pertaining to the Big 12. If FOX and ESPN can agree upon an equitable split of Big 12 property that supersedes conference interference then we might well see 8 of their schools find homes, enough to dissolve the Big 12 and end their GOR. You could see something wild like Oklahoma and Connecticut to the Big 10, Iowa State and Kansas to the SEC, West Virginia and Cincinnati to the ACC, and Texas, Kansas State, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State to the PAC. Or you might see something much more involved that only ESPN and FOX might work out like: Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa State, Connecticut to the Big 10, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, N.C. State and Virginia Tech to the SEC, Texas (all but football), T.C.U., Baylor, Texas Tech, and West Virginia, Cincinnati and another (Rice, Tulane, Temple?) to the ACC. These networks control the value of the conference media values and can essentially pay around the problems. And if all of the Big 12 teams are taken care of and the only swap of teams is between the SEC and ACC then ESPN can essentially cover it all. The PAC is independently owned and may not choose to take anyone if Texas and Oklahoma are accounted for. In the case of Iowa State as long as the network pays for their inclusion what would the Big 10 have to complain about.

That dissolves the Big 12 and grows the Big 10, SEC, and ACC to 18 full members each with the ACC having the bonus of N.D. and Texas as a partial.

I'm not saying these things will happen, or that they should, but that something like this could all be handled at the network level with the acceptance of the conference commissioners involved.

(02-15-2014 11:41 AM)JRsec Wrote:  And I think that there are too many good reasons to go ahead and divide them out. If finishes the matter now and allows all teams to get a slight bump. It unmuddies the waters for the networks, it ends renegotiations for the foreseeable future, it gets the fans settled back in, and it supplies the conferences with networks, and it now appears that there will be 4, with the content and markets they need.

The Irish keep independence but get an in to the playoffs through the ACC. Perhaps B.Y.U. could do the same out West, we'll see?

But I do agree with you, as I always have, that we are nowhere near the bottom on this economy and that the world has much less patience today for permitting any nation to place their trade (and therefore their currency) in jeopardy by permitting the US to continue to run unprecedented debts up without a currency adjustment.

Always appreciate your posts JRsec. I guess here is why I don't think anything like that is near by:

1. I think the grant of rights have actually unmuddied the waters already. I don't think ESPN/FOX or the conferences themselves are any longer really worried about realignment for the next decade (and think they are all happy about it). If we see a team leave over a grant of rights I'll change my tune, but we haven't seen that yet and I don't think we will. From the presidents standpoint, realignment is done for awhile which means they don't have to think or worry about it.

2. If you are talking about breaking up the Big 12 with the grant of rights at this point in time, you have to get the schools in it to agree to it. That's difficult or maybe even impossible even if you get every member of it a safe landing spot, but let's add in:

a) Texas choose the Big 12 over several alternatives already. It would prefer an intact Big 12 with regional rivals and with a Longhorn Network deal that pays them well (and that would not mesh with the conference networks others have set up).

b) Whomever gets Texas would agree in a heartbeat to take them, but there's no guarantee about the rest of the members. Let's remember the PAC-12 actually voted down Oklahoma and Oklahoma State a few years ago. I don't see any of the Big Ten/SEC/ACC/PAC-12 wanting TCU, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Baylor, or West Virginia at the moment unless it's part of a package deal with Texas/Oklahoma.

So the only way I see it consolidation actually happening is with direct mergers of all the conferences into one entity and that's just too big a jump for me to believe the presidents would be willing to consider at this point in time.

(02-15-2014 09:38 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(02-15-2014 11:41 AM)JRsec Wrote:  And I think that there are too many good reasons to go ahead and divide them out. If finishes the matter now and allows all teams to get a slight bump. It unmuddies the waters for the networks, it ends renegotiations for the foreseeable future, it gets the fans settled back in, and it supplies the conferences with networks, and it now appears that there will be 4, with the content and markets they need.

The Irish keep independence but get an in to the playoffs through the ACC. Perhaps B.Y.U. could do the same out West, we'll see?

But I do agree with you, as I always have, that we are nowhere near the bottom on this economy and that the world has much less patience today for permitting any nation to place their trade (and therefore their currency) in jeopardy by permitting the US to continue to run unprecedented debts up without a currency adjustment.

Always appreciate your posts JRsec. I guess here is why I don't think anything like that is near by:

1. I think the grant of rights have actually unmuddied the waters already. I don't think ESPN/FOX or the conferences themselves are any longer really worried about realignment for the next decade (and think they are all happy about it). If we see a team leave over a grant of rights I'll change my tune, but we haven't seen that yet and I don't think we will. From the presidents standpoint, realignment is done for awhile which means they don't have to think or worry about it.

2. If you are talking about breaking up the Big 12 with the grant of rights at this point in time, you have to get the schools in it to agree to it. That's difficult or maybe even impossible even if you get every member of it a safe landing spot, but let's add in:

a) Texas choose the Big 12 over several alternatives already. It would prefer an intact Big 12 with regional rivals and with a Longhorn Network deal that pays them well (and that would not mesh with the conference networks others have set up).

b) Whomever gets Texas would agree in a heartbeat to take them, but there's no guarantee about the rest of the members. Let's remember the PAC-12 actually voted down Oklahoma and Oklahoma State a few years ago. I don't see any of the Big Ten/SEC/ACC/PAC-12 wanting TCU, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Baylor, or West Virginia at the moment unless it's part of a package deal with Texas/Oklahoma.

So the only way I see it consolidation actually happening is with direct mergers of all the conferences into one entity and that's just too big a jump for me to believe the presidents would be willing to consider at this point in time.

Let's assume that you are correct. Consolidation into one "League" is what could well happen with a breakaway. I don't think that will be possible within the NCAA. But if there were to be a breakaway then consolidation for leverage would take place IMO, however "conferences" would exist more to maintain regional distinctions and a sense of rivalry and easy fan identification, but the designations would not affect any of the schools with regards to earnings. Everyone's base would be the same. Absorbing the Big 12 at that juncture for structure purposes would not be that big of an issue. Everyone gains, nobody loses, Iowa State, Kansas and Kansas State play within their natural region, West Virginia as well. Everyone has access to the playoffs and the structures are similar enough to be fair. I think we're headed to that sooner or later because of the economy and that the structural symmetry and certainty of the path to the playoffs are what the networks would desire to maintain interest and fan involvement for advertising's sake.

I could certainly see the Big 10 and SEC waiting until about 2022 before pushing to see who could land Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas and allowing the expiration of the media rights to just leave the rest of them to fend for themselves. But, I don't think politics will be out of it at that point and I do think that Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and Kansas State will be an issue for the first three. Brokering manages that angle much more effectively as those paying the bills are making the deals and the inclusion of little brother is much easier to accomplish under such circumstances.

By 2022, I agree this might be possible (although only under the right circumstances). I think going to one league structurally would be very difficult though and, while I think there could be monetary advantages, I think the practical problems are well beyond what the schools would consider at this time.

The biggest thing is simply that this requires the most powerful conferences to agree to become less powerful. The conferences right now are set to make very different amounts of money. The Big Ten (after its new contract) and SEC (with the SEC Network) along with likely Texas and Notre Dame are going to be making a lot more than money in the medium term than the ACC, PAC-12, or other Big 12 members (not that their contracts are bad, just not as high). They also get a lot more national exposure.

Joining a national type league actually helps the bottom conferences more than top conferences. The Big Ten and SEC members might get a slight bump (although might not) while the ACC, PAC-12, and Big 12 erase all differences in TV revenue. Agreeing to the structure of a national league right now would mean the strongest two conferences would be gaining the least and I just don't see Slive and Delany pushing us there.