...and at the risk of major backlash for posting this, just remember, I'm only the messenger (and if it's somewhere previously, I also apologize):

From our old pal MHver3 on Twitter (hopefully it's OK to link this...please inform me otherwise):

LINK...

In general, the rumor is that Slive is about to make a 'power' move, to create a 'true superconference'...the only thing I could figure is... SEC merge with Big12 or ACC... THAT would be a major deal...

I have though that eventually you might see that happen. B1G/PAC merger with maybe a few ACC or B12 schools and a SEC/ACC/B12 merger. Champs play for the title. Consolidation means more leverage in negotiations with the networks since their are few providers of premium college sports content available. Eventually those 2 might merge as well for monopoly power ala the NFL.

That would no longer resemble "college football", would it?

Merge B1G & PAC, ACC & SEC, B12 & MWC into three super conferences and then merge the Belt, MAC, CUSA and AAC into a fourth. All four champs go to a four team seeded playoff. At that point, each super conference could have a 4 team championship too to determine the champ. That could actually be fun. The conference playoffs would be almost as exciting as the finals.

(03-25-2014 11:28 PM)monarx Wrote:  Merge B1G & PAC, ACC & SEC, B12 & MWC into three super conferences and then merge the Belt, MAC, CUSA and AAC into a fourth. All four champs go to a four team seeded tournament. At that point, each super conference could have a 4 team playoff too to determine the champ. That could actually be fun. The conference playoffs would be almost as exciting as the finals.

He said he's talking about a 3 conference merger in his tweets. It would have to be SEC, ACC, B12 total 38 teams. That leaves B1G & PAC12 if they merge 26 teams unless they merge with the AAC then they have 2 super conferences of 38 team each total of 76 for Div 4!

(03-25-2014 11:02 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  I have though that eventually you might see that happen. B1G/PAC merger with maybe a few ACC or B12 schools and a SEC/ACC/B12 merger. Champs play for the title. Consolidation means more leverage in negotiations with the networks since their are few providers of premium college sports content available. Eventually those 2 might merge as well for monopoly power ala the NFL.

"IF", and I use that word cautiously, something like that transpired what it would mean is the prelude to withdrawal from the NCAA. Let's say that it wasn't an exclusive move. If the SEC, the four Texas Big 12 school and two Oklahoma schools joined that would make 20. If the 11 Southern schools of the ACC joined along with West Virginia then you have 32 in a league. If the two Kansas schools and Iowa State joined the Big 10 you stand at 17. Add Pittsburgh, Boston College, and Syracuse and you are at 20. Now add the 12 PAC schools and you stand at 32.

If Notre Dame wants in they would bump someone in this scenario. But if you added B.Y.U., Connecticut and Cincinnati you would have 36.

If the South wanted to add four more they could add U.C.F., U.S.F., E.C.U., and Houston. If they wanted to emphasize academics then two of them could be Tulane and Rice. But either way if such a move happens I think it means a breakaway.

With 32 you would have 2 conferences within a League with a total of 8 four team divisions and multiple variations for scheduling. The internal playoff would yield a team that would play the Big 10 champion and that would be it. The BTN and SECN become the delivery systems for all and the revenue would probably be similar if not the same for everyone.

(03-25-2014 11:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 11:02 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  I have though that eventually you might see that happen. B1G/PAC merger with maybe a few ACC or B12 schools and a SEC/ACC/B12 merger. Champs play for the title. Consolidation means more leverage in negotiations with the networks since their are few providers of premium college sports content available. Eventually those 2 might merge as well for monopoly power ala the NFL.

"IF", and I use that word cautiously, something like that transpired what it would mean is the prelude to withdrawal from the NCAA. Let's say that it wasn't an exclusive move. If the SEC, the four Texas Big 12 school and two Oklahoma schools joined that would make 20. If the 11 Southern schools of the ACC joined along with West Virginia then you have 32 in a league. If the two Kansas schools and Iowa State joined the Big 10 you stand at 17. Add Pittsburgh, Boston College, and Syracuse and you are at 20. Now add the 12 PAC schools and you stand at 32.

If Notre Dame wants in they would bump someone in this scenario. But if you added B.Y.U., Connecticut and Cincinnati you would have 36.

If the South wanted to add four more they could add U.C.F., U.S.F., E.C.U., and Houston. If they wanted to emphasize academics then two of them could be Tulane and Rice. But either way if such a move happens I think it means a breakaway.

With 32 you would have 2 conferences within a League with a total of 8 four team divisions and multiple variations for scheduling. The internal playoff would yield a team that would play the Big 10 champion and that would be it. The BTN and SECN become the delivery systems for all and the revenue would probably be similar if not the same for everyone.

For the bulk of NCAA history what did conferences do?
-Hired officials
-Provided a framework for scheduling.
-Set academic standards for the membership
-Set limits on the amount of aid to be offered.
-Investigated and punished rules violations.
-Created or managed post-season opportunities for the league.

Several of the earliest conferences were too large to play a round robin schedule and crowned a champion who did not play everyone and did not play a title game.

There is no reason a conference cannot be very large and manage most of its own needs. The only significant reason for a national organization is rules standardization both playing rules and rules for aid and national competition and if you don't play outside your group, those purposes are not needed.

i envision something along the lines where we see 3 distinct conferences emerge of 20-28 teams per conference. they won't play round robin but would follow a NFL style scheduling format.

I think the P5 all end up together in some form. Whether they retain their historic conference names and call it a new division or just join into a large "conference" to circumvent NCAA rules.

I think this is much ado about nothing and things are going to stay pretty much the way they are for the next several years.

The last big round of realignment took place because the networks were willing to spend an unprecedented amount of money for college football broadcasting rights and schools scrambled to jump to whatever conference could offer the most cash. For things to come unhinged again, there needs to be another big dollar injection into the system that fuels further realignment. Where will that windfall come from? Which network is ready to further bid up already-inflated rights fees? What's the economic model to support the investment? I just don't see it.

(03-26-2014 12:30 AM)4x4hokies Wrote:  I think the P5 all end up together in some form. Whether they retain their historic conference names and call it a new division or just join into a large "conference" to circumvent NCAA rules.

I do think they will come together as well, but will have to maintain at least two separate structures for legal reasons but will function essentially as one unit. They'll keep conference names for brand identification and as a regional rallying point even if those names essentially are tagged to sets of divisions within larger structures.

I disagree with Hawaiian Mongoose's point however about needing another cash infusion to get it done for a couple of reasons. First, from an overhead perspective, since we are entering an era of conference networks, I strongly suspect that in order to get the market penetration that floats all boats that if ESPN or FOX has to build these networks it will be much easier to staff and facilitate 1 large centrally run edifice for the South, and one for the North/West if possible. The PACN needs Eastern distribution to really hit its stride and perhaps a merger with the BTN is just the ticket. If not it is still easier to run 3 than it is to run 5.

As for the cash infusion, one of the last untapped cash sources for the schools is the revenue they loose to the NCAA through the basketball tournament. In fact the 80 million a year that the NCAA rat holes in endowments that support its corporate structure would be a nice windfall for most of the schools of the P5. While I agree that the last of the large increases for TV revenue may have already transpired (with this last round of negotiations and the one the Big 10 is about to renew) the broader capitalization of basketball and the coming monetizing of baseball, along with the elimination of redundant bureaucratic structures and overhead expenses will find the schools yet a couple of more ways to push their numbers. And this will require consolidation of the structures and separation from the NCAA.

(03-26-2014 12:30 AM)4x4hokies Wrote:  I think the P5 all end up together in some form. Whether they retain their historic conference names and call it a new division or just join into a large "conference" to circumvent NCAA rules.

I see nothing to indicate the conferences would share TV revenue. The Big 10 and SEC believe they have long term advantages and are not willingly going to give that up.

(03-25-2014 10:54 PM)GreenFreakUAB Wrote:  ...and at the risk of major backlash for posting this, just remember, I'm only the messenger (and if it's somewhere previously, I also apologize):

From our old pal MHver3 on Twitter (hopefully it's OK to link this...please inform me otherwise):

LINK...

In general, the rumor is that Slive is about to make a 'power' move, to create a 'true superconference'...the only thing I could figure is... SEC merge with Big12 or ACC... THAT would be a major deal...

Isn't MHver3 the Dude's second cousin (twice removed)?

(03-26-2014 07:26 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 10:54 PM)GreenFreakUAB Wrote:  ...and at the risk of major backlash for posting this, just remember, I'm only the messenger (and if it's somewhere previously, I also apologize):

From our old pal MHver3 on Twitter (hopefully it's OK to link this...please inform me otherwise):

LINK...

In general, the rumor is that Slive is about to make a 'power' move, to create a 'true superconference'...the only thing I could figure is... SEC merge with Big12 or ACC... THAT would be a major deal...

Isn't MHver3 the Dude's second cousin (twice removed)?

If he is, they had a spat and aren't talking to each other any more (MHVer3 has a sense of humor-any issues would be on the Dude's side).

(03-26-2014 04:07 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  For things to come unhinged again, there needs to be another big dollar injection into the system that fuels further realignment.

Wouldn't a break-away from the NCAA be the big dollar injection? If this new division owns the rights to all their sports revenue including the basketball tourney instead of pumping that money thru the NCAA which is then distributed to each school, wouldn't that be a big windfall?

Football maybe the engine that drives the bus, but basketball is the wheels that makes the bus go round & round. And without the mid-majors in March Madness many people would not feel the merged conferences are the only national champions. That would make it feel like NBA & ABA champions. it would also open the door for the mid-majors to go with one network and the majors go with another network, giving each party equal exposure and equal legitimacy.

I think people overestimate the value of the mid-majors. Dayton isn't going to get the best ratings in the sweet 16. We've got 12 P5 schools, 2 AAC (1 a future P5), 1 MWC and Dayton. Ratings would probably be better if Dayton was replaced by Ohio ST. or Syracuse.

Underdogs don't have to be mid-majors. Jim Valvano's NCSU was an underdog. Iowa St. or Baylor or UConn or Tennessee or San Diego St. could play the role this year.

(03-26-2014 08:33 AM)Rabonchild Wrote:  Football maybe the engine that drives the bus, but basketball is the wheels that makes the bus go round & round. And without the mid-majors in March Madness many people would not feel the merged conferences are the only national champions. That would make it feel like NBA & ABA champions. it would also open the door for the mid-majors to go with one network and the majors go with another network, giving each party equal exposure and equal legitimacy.

If Connecticut gets added to the P5, which is pretty much a guarantee if the top tier expands again even by a few, then every champion of the last 25 years will be from a P5 conference. UNLV in 1990 was the last non P5 school to do it.

Yes, there are non P5's that rise up and make a great run, but it is rarely the same school for more than a 2-3 year stretch, and many schools do it once a decade or generation when the stars perfectly align and they have 5 solid seniors in the rotation and then sink back to mediocrity once they have to try it again.

I see both sides because I come from a familial tradition and rooting interest for Kentucky (P5), but my alma mater is Lipscomb (definitely not a P5). Getting into the tournament one of these days will be a huge highlight for my alma mater, but I also understand why Kentucky and many other P5's that subsidize my school's NCAA benefits feel like a breakaway is in their best interest. If the top tier does break away, the NCAA will still keep churning, and MSQ or Indianapolis will probably become the new home for the Final Four. It will still be more popular than the existing NIT, and I assume they would have the tournament in whatever window during the week is not taken by a P5 tournament. It would still get huge ratings, which means good payouts. Plus, with the P5 gone, more schools have a chance to advance, which will increase the pot more evenly instead of the money going to the handful of non P5 schools/conferences that make a deep run each year.

(03-26-2014 08:33 AM)Rabonchild Wrote:  Football maybe the engine that drives the bus, but basketball is the wheels that makes the bus go round & round. And without the mid-majors in March Madness many people would not feel the merged conferences are the only national champions. That would make it feel like NBA & ABA champions. it would also open the door for the mid-majors to go with one network and the majors go with another network, giving each party equal exposure and equal legitimacy.

And the ABA fell apart. I agree the tourney with the midmajors is beneficial but if the P5 split away and took the AAC and MWC it would still prosper and the other tourney would be the NIT.