Just pondering (my own thoughts, and not those of my employer, etc.):

Would it make sense for any two of the P5 conferences to merge completely? They are all, or will be making similar money per school.

Geography would be fairly important, so not ACC + PAC-12, for example.

But what about Big XII + SEC or B1G, or ACC + SEC?

Or would it be legal for reps of all the schools to meet in a big room and work out who should be in the four fairly equal conferences?

(01-02-2014 03:54 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  Just pondering (my own thoughts, and not those of my employer, etc.):

Would it make sense for any two of the P5 conferences to merge completely? They are all, or will be making similar money per school.

Geography would be fairly important, so not ACC + PAC-12, for example.

But what about Big XII + SEC or B1G, or ACC + SEC?

Or would it be legal for reps of all the schools to meet in a big room and work out who should be in the four fairly equal conferences?

I wouldn't think so. Mergers at the G5 level make more sense right now. A Sunbelt-CUSA merger might could make some sense in terms of travel and bowls---not sure if it would help the TV situation much. A MW-AAC merger might could have value as a nationwide conference with a lot of the better known G5 schools. That might could potentially be very valuable to TV.

Actually, one merger that might actually be intriguing would be a MAC-CUSA merger with north and south divisions. The truth is, with conferences at 12-14 members, full mergers are virtually impossible without modifying the NCAA rules that govern divisional play.

(01-02-2014 03:54 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  Just pondering (my own thoughts, and not those of my employer, etc.):

Would it make sense for any two of the P5 conferences to merge completely? They are all, or will be making similar money per school.

Geography would be fairly important, so not ACC + PAC-12, for example.

But what about Big XII + SEC or B1G, or ACC + SEC?

Or would it be legal for reps of all the schools to meet in a big room and work out who should be in the four fairly equal conferences?

I think that the problem with that scenario is that in most such mergers, while there would be additions that would be seen as valuable by a power conference (in this case, B1G or SEC, and by grace of geography the PAC), there would also be additions that would be seen as undesirable. For example, if the ACC and SEC merged, while the SEC would love to have UNC and UVa, I don't think that they'd be as excited about the likes of Wake Forest. Aside from intrinsic value, I think there's also the question of culture. The B1G and SEC in particular have done well in having cohesive cultures, and it's tough to bring too many schools together and finding common ground.

About the only large-scale merger type effort I could see as feasible would be the PAC + Big 12, and even there I would see it on a more limited scale. The PAC would probably value some Central time zone members, but they'd really like UT (if they'd play nicely enough with the rest), OU, and KU if in conjunction with the above. They may be persuaded to take a few more (2 per state would allow for a nice 18-team setup) but even that's a long shot and I definitely can't see them adding all of the Big 12 (or even all Central time schools of the Big 12) in order to expand into the Central.

16 is the max conference size. Anything else does not make sense for non football sports.

(01-02-2014 04:32 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  16 is the max conference size. Anything else does not make sense for non football sports.

18 if you don't care about playing anyone from the other division.

(01-02-2014 03:54 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  Just pondering (my own thoughts, and not those of my employer, etc.):

Would it make sense for any two of the P5 conferences to merge completely? They are all, or will be making similar money per school.

Geography would be fairly important, so not ACC + PAC-12, for example.

But what about Big XII + SEC or B1G, or ACC + SEC?

Or would it be legal for reps of all the schools to meet in a big room and work out who should be in the four fairly equal conferences?

I don't think full on mergers make a lot of sense. Now if say 10 SEC schools and 6 Big XII pulled out of their leagues and created a new one and it was the right collection of schools, THAT would be a financial beast.

When you look at the per team dollars of conference revenue and divide the numbers by 10 or 12 or 14 whatever the number of league members happens to be we tend to think that number is the value of each member but the reality is that it is unlikely that any member has a value equal to that number, they either carry a greater value or a smaller value. If you eliminate smaller value and consolidate higher value the result is bigger money.

16 or more in any league creates the risk of the league splitting apart into two or more groups, like the WAC-16 or the old 23-school Southern Conference, from which 13 schools split off to form the SEC.

In today's environment, that's a huge risk for any of the more vulnerable schools in a super-sized league. You don't want to be Wake Forest or Purdue or Vandy in a 20-team league and be constantly wondering who is meeting and e-mailing behind your back to split off into a new league with the conference's big boys and kick you to the curb.

Is there any benefit to a gigantic league other than leverage for TV rights? If that's the only benefit, two or more conferences can always get that benefit by pooling their TV rights when negotiating with the networks.

Like Phog mentioned earlier, adding 6 of the Big 12 schools to the PAC could make sense, but those 6 schools would have to be Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Kansas State. Even then, there are some cultural issues, but nothing like adding Baylor/TCU to the PAC or Pittsburgh to the SEC. It takes 8 schools to dissolve the Big 12, so if someone would take in Iowa State and West Virginia, it could work.

(01-02-2014 04:49 PM)Wedge Wrote:  16 or more in any league creates the risk of the league splitting apart into two or more groups, like the WAC-16 or the old 23-school Southern Conference, from which 13 schools split off to form the SEC.

In today's environment, that's a huge risk for any of the more vulnerable schools in a super-sized league. You don't want to be Wake Forest or Purdue or Vandy in a 20-team league and be constantly wondering who is meeting and e-mailing behind your back to split off into a new league with the conference's big boys and kick you to the curb.

Is there any benefit to a gigantic league other than leverage for TV rights? If that's the only benefit, two or more conferences can always get that benefit by pooling their TV rights when negotiating with the networks.

Yes, but the one thing protecting the less attractive schools is that most of them are founding members (namely Washington State, Oregon State, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest, Purdue, Northwestern), which still means something in most academic circles. I think the only thing that would drive a Southern or WAC type break-up is if the major conferences do what many posters on here want, which is take inferior brand schools. If the SEC took ECU, for example, and Florida and Georgia were vehemently against it, I could see them seriously consider a Big 10 invite if UNC and Virginia were also joining. Short of that kind of event, I don't see the Big 10, SEC, or PAC membership voluntarily leaving their respective conferences or attempting to add/subtract without unanimous membership approval with the subtraction also being agreed by the party leaving (e.g. Wake Forest not wanting to adhere to all the potential D4 requirements).

(01-02-2014 04:49 PM)Wedge Wrote:  16 or more in any league creates the risk of the league splitting apart into two or more groups, like the WAC-16 or the old 23-school Southern Conference, from which 13 schools split off to form the SEC.

In today's environment, that's a huge risk for any of the more vulnerable schools in a super-sized league. You don't want to be Wake Forest or Purdue or Vandy in a 20-team league and be constantly wondering who is meeting and e-mailing behind your back to split off into a new league with the conference's big boys and kick you to the curb.

Is there any benefit to a gigantic league other than leverage for TV rights? If that's the only benefit, two or more conferences can always get that benefit by pooling their TV rights when negotiating with the networks.

As did the group that formed the ACC.

Some time ago I though the ACC and BE (football) should merge. That would have required the C7 split off into their own division. I don't think that would have happened prior to Pitt, SU and WVU leaving.

Conference are too big for a wholesale merger. (Yes, I know the ACC/BE merger would have been 20 teams). With conferences limited to 2 divisions, going beyond 16 would be difficult. I would look for scheduling alliances to be revisited after the January NCAA meetings.

I don't think it is illegal if ALL the schools get together. It would be illegal, for example, if the SEC met with the B1G and said we will go after schools A & B, you go after schools X & Y.