12-14-2013, 02:15 PM
I. The January Meeting
Before any future realignment can be discussed seriously the schools need to know a few things:
1. Will there be an upper division or breakaway?
If there is, either accompanied by the ability to create their own rules, or structure, then multiple divisions become possible. This is crucial since adding more teams complicates a structure where divisions are limited to just two. At 14 you can still have, however unwieldy, two divisions. At 16 it means you seldom play schools from the other division. The "pod" system is the only practical way around this complication. So, the Big 10, SEC, and ACC won't add additional teams until this obstacle to structural development is removed.
2. If there is a breakaway, or upper division, will the emphasis switch to internal playoff structures with the possibility of multiple divisions within a conference?
I think so. And by doing so the objections that some schools have to having too many quality programs in a conference will be partially overcome. A Texas or Oklahoma wouldn't be competing with 15 other schools for a championship season. They would be competing essentially against 5. They would have a round robin with the other 3 teams of their division. Win your division and you are in a 4 team conference championship for the conference title. That means outside of your division you only "have to beat" more out of division teams than your division mates, and then two more in the playoff. So, in essence you are competing against the three in your division and the two you have to face in the playoffs, even though you play a total of 9 conference games (which is no more than Texas and Oklahoma face now).
Once some kind of on the field way of determining the National contenders is decided there will be no need of further cupcake games on the schedule. The route to victory will be basically laid out the same for everyone and the networks will slobber over the possibility of only having upper tier matches for the entire schedule.
II. The Reality of Finances
1. Conference Networks
The reality is that the Big 10 and SEC are only going to get wealthier.
The PAC whether their market develops or not is too isolated to be a likely expansion target.
Without networks the Big 12 and ACC will continue to be at a disadvantage. But at least the ACC has ESPN as a mediator between themselves and the SEC which lends them a good deal of security.
The Big 12 has no such arrangement.
Texas and Oklahoma make enough money that they don't have to go elsewhere. But, watching others pull even with them that otherwise would never have been able to do so will cause them some real concern. And, their concern over the lack of compelling conference scheduling will continue to bite into attendance and interest even though it is far from epidemic proportions at this time. They will long for the relevance of old rivals and I think that they will want to make moves when the GOR has reached a point of acceptable loss with a move.
I look for this to happen within 3 to 5 years, or sooner if they can find homes for the other schools.
So realignment is not going to happen until the best product is on the market again. Then the PAC, SEC, and Big 10 will vie for the membership of Oklahoma, Texas, and Kansas. And to a lesser degree some will seek Oklahoma State and West Virginia.
The initial move will be to 16 members, but I don't think it will be over at that point.
III. Numbers and Legalities
1. Back to the Upper Tier or Breakaway and Structure
It is possible that the need for more schools will be eliminated with the first step. Assume for a moment that an upper division is formed or a breakaway occurs. With the addition of stipends, minimum number of required sports to be offered, a minimum athletic endowment to be required, and minimum standards in facilities required, it is likely that some present P5 schools, though not many, will opt out. If seven schools opt out then further realignment may not be necessary. And if just three or four opt out it's possible that a 4 x 16 model is all that will be required.
Waiting to see who and how many opt out is also holding up realignment. What if Wake Forest, Boston College, or Purdue say no? The commissioners need to know how many spots they have open before they form their strategies about which schools to seek.
If nobody opts out then I think we will eventually move to 72. Cincinnati, Connecticut, Brigham Young, South Florida, Central Florida, Nevada, East Carolina, San Diego State, and Fresno State are just some of the schools that might be able or willing to meet the requirements set for the upper tier. Endowment may weed a few, minimum attendance requirements (if set) may cut a few more out, but in the end there are going to be a handful of schools who will meet all of the entrance requirements and demand inclusion. If they are omitted legal action will follow. To be bullet proof so to speak, the upper tier will have to have some established avenue for inclusion. By moving to 72 they will diminish those who could make a claim and establish a better de facto boundary.
2. Repercussions of moving to 18
For the most part there aren't any. A three division of 6 schools system would have some benefits over the 4 x 4 divisions system. The negative would be in the planning phase. If there was a real chance that the conferences may have to go to 18 to insulate themselves from a lower division in qualifications then moving to 18 needs to be incorporated in the plans to get to 16. While schools like Kansas State don't appear to offer the SEC much now, if we were going to 18 I would much rather have them than some of the other options that may be remaining if everyone goes to 16 first and then pauses before going to 18.
How you add, where you add, and how you plan your divisions would be better executed once we know whether or not we are stopping at 16 or going to 18. For instance if we knew we might be going to 18 and the ACC knew for sure Texas was not coming would they take Cincinnati, Connecticut and West Virginia to add greater continuity to their footprint, or would they opt to try for a Western grouping if they knew already that Wake Forest had opted out? I use this as a hypothetical to show that until we know who is making the jump to the upper tier and how many more want in we have no idea of what needs to be done to make further realignment cohesive and coherent.
I for one would rather see the SEC (if it looked like 18 was the number) take 4 Big 12 schools. Ideally in that circumstance, another Texas team, a Kansas Team, an Oklahoma Team, and West Virginia would make some sense. (Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, West Virginia) would be the sweep that truly established us as the most hated conference. But far more likely would be a Texas school, the two Oklahoma's and someone else.
But use your own imagination to fill in the blanks. For now everything is on hold. Whether there is an upper tier or not, whether we have control over rules and structure or not, and what the minimum requirements will be for inclusion if we have what we are seeking, all will determine who and how many we pursue for the completion of realignment.
When the AD's say there will be no further realignment for two years they are correct. Whatever we are seeking, or get, will not be in place until 2016. But just because it can't be set up and operational until 2016 doesn't mean stuff won't be happening and soon. Between January and next August most of the questions I've posed will be answered. Concurrent with those meetings and decisions things will be happening behind the scenes as the networks and conferences begin to line up their desires. I think by June or July we will be hearing some definite things about the future of the Big 12 (do they expand or fold), and the potential number of teams that may comprise the remaining conferences.
I know it seems like forever, especially for us older guys, but things are actually playing out at a fairly rapid pace when placed in the context of the greater history of the NCAA.
As always your thoughts and ideas would be appreciated.
Before any future realignment can be discussed seriously the schools need to know a few things:
1. Will there be an upper division or breakaway?
If there is, either accompanied by the ability to create their own rules, or structure, then multiple divisions become possible. This is crucial since adding more teams complicates a structure where divisions are limited to just two. At 14 you can still have, however unwieldy, two divisions. At 16 it means you seldom play schools from the other division. The "pod" system is the only practical way around this complication. So, the Big 10, SEC, and ACC won't add additional teams until this obstacle to structural development is removed.
2. If there is a breakaway, or upper division, will the emphasis switch to internal playoff structures with the possibility of multiple divisions within a conference?
I think so. And by doing so the objections that some schools have to having too many quality programs in a conference will be partially overcome. A Texas or Oklahoma wouldn't be competing with 15 other schools for a championship season. They would be competing essentially against 5. They would have a round robin with the other 3 teams of their division. Win your division and you are in a 4 team conference championship for the conference title. That means outside of your division you only "have to beat" more out of division teams than your division mates, and then two more in the playoff. So, in essence you are competing against the three in your division and the two you have to face in the playoffs, even though you play a total of 9 conference games (which is no more than Texas and Oklahoma face now).
Once some kind of on the field way of determining the National contenders is decided there will be no need of further cupcake games on the schedule. The route to victory will be basically laid out the same for everyone and the networks will slobber over the possibility of only having upper tier matches for the entire schedule.
II. The Reality of Finances
1. Conference Networks
The reality is that the Big 10 and SEC are only going to get wealthier.
The PAC whether their market develops or not is too isolated to be a likely expansion target.
Without networks the Big 12 and ACC will continue to be at a disadvantage. But at least the ACC has ESPN as a mediator between themselves and the SEC which lends them a good deal of security.
The Big 12 has no such arrangement.
Texas and Oklahoma make enough money that they don't have to go elsewhere. But, watching others pull even with them that otherwise would never have been able to do so will cause them some real concern. And, their concern over the lack of compelling conference scheduling will continue to bite into attendance and interest even though it is far from epidemic proportions at this time. They will long for the relevance of old rivals and I think that they will want to make moves when the GOR has reached a point of acceptable loss with a move.
I look for this to happen within 3 to 5 years, or sooner if they can find homes for the other schools.
So realignment is not going to happen until the best product is on the market again. Then the PAC, SEC, and Big 10 will vie for the membership of Oklahoma, Texas, and Kansas. And to a lesser degree some will seek Oklahoma State and West Virginia.
The initial move will be to 16 members, but I don't think it will be over at that point.
III. Numbers and Legalities
1. Back to the Upper Tier or Breakaway and Structure
It is possible that the need for more schools will be eliminated with the first step. Assume for a moment that an upper division is formed or a breakaway occurs. With the addition of stipends, minimum number of required sports to be offered, a minimum athletic endowment to be required, and minimum standards in facilities required, it is likely that some present P5 schools, though not many, will opt out. If seven schools opt out then further realignment may not be necessary. And if just three or four opt out it's possible that a 4 x 16 model is all that will be required.
Waiting to see who and how many opt out is also holding up realignment. What if Wake Forest, Boston College, or Purdue say no? The commissioners need to know how many spots they have open before they form their strategies about which schools to seek.
If nobody opts out then I think we will eventually move to 72. Cincinnati, Connecticut, Brigham Young, South Florida, Central Florida, Nevada, East Carolina, San Diego State, and Fresno State are just some of the schools that might be able or willing to meet the requirements set for the upper tier. Endowment may weed a few, minimum attendance requirements (if set) may cut a few more out, but in the end there are going to be a handful of schools who will meet all of the entrance requirements and demand inclusion. If they are omitted legal action will follow. To be bullet proof so to speak, the upper tier will have to have some established avenue for inclusion. By moving to 72 they will diminish those who could make a claim and establish a better de facto boundary.
2. Repercussions of moving to 18
For the most part there aren't any. A three division of 6 schools system would have some benefits over the 4 x 4 divisions system. The negative would be in the planning phase. If there was a real chance that the conferences may have to go to 18 to insulate themselves from a lower division in qualifications then moving to 18 needs to be incorporated in the plans to get to 16. While schools like Kansas State don't appear to offer the SEC much now, if we were going to 18 I would much rather have them than some of the other options that may be remaining if everyone goes to 16 first and then pauses before going to 18.
How you add, where you add, and how you plan your divisions would be better executed once we know whether or not we are stopping at 16 or going to 18. For instance if we knew we might be going to 18 and the ACC knew for sure Texas was not coming would they take Cincinnati, Connecticut and West Virginia to add greater continuity to their footprint, or would they opt to try for a Western grouping if they knew already that Wake Forest had opted out? I use this as a hypothetical to show that until we know who is making the jump to the upper tier and how many more want in we have no idea of what needs to be done to make further realignment cohesive and coherent.
I for one would rather see the SEC (if it looked like 18 was the number) take 4 Big 12 schools. Ideally in that circumstance, another Texas team, a Kansas Team, an Oklahoma Team, and West Virginia would make some sense. (Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, West Virginia) would be the sweep that truly established us as the most hated conference. But far more likely would be a Texas school, the two Oklahoma's and someone else.
But use your own imagination to fill in the blanks. For now everything is on hold. Whether there is an upper tier or not, whether we have control over rules and structure or not, and what the minimum requirements will be for inclusion if we have what we are seeking, all will determine who and how many we pursue for the completion of realignment.
When the AD's say there will be no further realignment for two years they are correct. Whatever we are seeking, or get, will not be in place until 2016. But just because it can't be set up and operational until 2016 doesn't mean stuff won't be happening and soon. Between January and next August most of the questions I've posed will be answered. Concurrent with those meetings and decisions things will be happening behind the scenes as the networks and conferences begin to line up their desires. I think by June or July we will be hearing some definite things about the future of the Big 12 (do they expand or fold), and the potential number of teams that may comprise the remaining conferences.
I know it seems like forever, especially for us older guys, but things are actually playing out at a fairly rapid pace when placed in the context of the greater history of the NCAA.
As always your thoughts and ideas would be appreciated.