With the uncertain future of TV as a source of revenue for college athletics programs is there any logic in these behemoth 13+ member conferences?

At the P5 level, yes. At the G5 level, no.

(06-11-2016 08:16 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  With the uncertain future of TV as a source of revenue for college athletics programs is there any logic in these behemoth 13+ member conferences?

Not for a G5 conference. P5 is a different story.

Personally, I think small conference are better. For P5, I think it will be Hybrid. I think you will see four 18 team conferences.

Each conference will split into two 9 or 10 team divisions. B12 and ACC somehow merge. With each division winner play each other for conference championship. CFP will still pick top four teams, but that is a safety net in case a 8-3 team upset a top conference champ. Basically the attempt to create CCG as semi's.

I see advantage in other sports for 12 team league. Ideal is 9 for football, 10 for all-sports. But 12 works very good as well. I think there is some advantages to division play.

If you have a product you can bundle into a cable TV channel extract a buck a month for it and get many many millions for your other TV rights, conferences of 20 or more can make financial sense.

If you make more money from the CFP than TV, then 10 is a great number and 12 only makes sense if you need to address a geographic issue that makes it worth making less.

Depends on the team make up for the P5 for the G5 not one. You just have to split more money if you are a G5 no make up of teams is going to change anything. It does not make sense for the Big12 to add anyone because nobody in the G5 is going to increase revenue likely. Houston and a Boise add would be the closest combo but I don't see them having a significant enough impact on ratings to radically change any media money. Wash at best with having to split the playoff revenue two more ways. This is why the Big12 pushed for CCG deregulation because they did not want to add teams. It is a good thing for the Belt now we dont really have to worry about losing more teams and we can focus on growth and have our own CCG with 10 teams.

(06-14-2016 12:11 PM)JCGSU Wrote:  Depends on the team make up for the P5 for the G5 not one. You just have to split more money if you are a G5 no make up of teams is going to change anything. It does not make sense for the Big12 to add anyone because nobody in the G5 is going to increase revenue likely. Houston and a Boise add would be the closest combo but I don't see them having a significant enough impact on ratings to radically change any media money. Wash at best with having to split the playoff revenue two more ways. This is why the Big12 pushed for CCG deregulation because they did not want to add teams. It is a good thing for the Belt now we dont really have to worry about losing more teams and we can focus on growth and have our own CCG with 10 teams.

There is no team Big XII could add that benefits their bottom line by attracting viewers at a pace of West Virginia or Texas Tech.

But any P5 conference would accept Texas, OU moves the needle, Kansas moves the needle. Big 10 could easily grow from 14 to 20 and make more per team with the right adds from Big XII and ACC.

(06-11-2016 09:22 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  Personally, I think small conference are better. For P5, I think it will be Hybrid. I think you will see four 18 team conferences.

That would mean an increase from 65 to 72 in the upper-level. Or possibly 73 if Notre Dame stays Independent (which I doubt they'll be able to do that, but we'll see...)

Quote:Each conference will split into two 9 or 10 team divisions. B12 and ACC somehow merge.

Hmmmmm.....