(01-30-2019 12:30 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Please understand I am not trying to be cynical or contrary. I follow the playful, yet thoughtful, models presented by the majority of you. I understand opportunities opening, competitiveness, and the importance of broadcasting contracts.
What is being delivered is a lot of PROCESS. What's being implied, is to have fewer, but much larger power conferences. So, the desire is to have 4, maybe even just 3, super-duper conferences. Some take it to just 2 or even one, as truly elite. All else is tiered downwards. OK, there can be structurally and process arguments there. But what is the GOAL or the ultimate OUTCOME sought? Stability? Major revenue enhancements? Narrowing the elite club, but why? Giving corporate media, one that is more monopolized, greater control of conferences in exchange for greater payouts? That last one is not necessarily a cause-effect matter, particularly for the long term. Never relinquish permanent negotiating power in exchange for a dated financial set-up.

I am not opposed to the SEC moving to 16 if a couple of real jewels come their way. Stop there! Not every school with fortitude belongs in the SEC. Who is the SEC going to compete against? The rust belt, northeast, and west coast? It doesn't make sense for an extreme, one-sided model, whereby competition is more incestuous than external.
And a season in any college sport have definitive available days to compete. Many here want to extend conference games, add more games for playoffs, etc. There's a point in which absurdity, impractically, and logistical dysfunction are reached.
Again, my point is not focused on individual posters; and I realize I am inviting further disagreement. But having unlimited parameters when it comes to expansion needs a plausible rationale that isn't sufficiently defended, let alone clarified.
If I am totally confused, perhaps I am if there is a global perspective I've missed. It just looks like more hurt for many schools, and the favored may be jumping into an arena not knowing how or when the lions come out.

I have a theory and it's only a theory, but I don't think these networks particularly want larger conferences. Thus I am in favor of bigger numbers than most.

We talk about profitability and content quality and we certainly should, but I've always felt these corporations have a divide and conquer mentality. It's not just that they want control of the product of college sports, but they want to decide who makes the cut for no more reason than they concern themselves with nothing other than profitability. They have no real interest in the health of these sports or the best interests of schools. What they want is the most efficient system whereby they can sell content and make the most money doing it.

You'll notice that professional leagues tend to generate a lot more money from major media contracts. Is that because the product is more desirable? I think for the most part, no. I think it primarily comes down to their negotiating power.

I've advocated for larger conferences because I think it consolidates negotiating power on the end of the schools. If you're a conference and you have 20-24 very solid brands in your quiver and you go to a network and threaten to walk if you're not paid a reasonable amount then I think the corporation is more likely to listen than if you brought 12 solid brands to the table.

The theory goes that there is strength in numbers. Some of my suggestions are mostly for fun or just to pick the brain of others so I do know that not just any school can be considered a very solid brand, but I tend to think some schools are undervalued simply because they are important to the people of their region. Remove their school from the equation and you lose their interest.

On some level we're still playing the corporation's game either way because we're concerned with getting paid TV money, and so we have to concern ourselves with their rules. We can't do that by putting all schools on the same table because not all schools are of equal value to media companies. Nonetheless, I tend to err on the side of "too big" because I don't like the idea of anyone being left behind simply because some accountant in New York decided they shouldn't be included.