(10-17-2012 08:59 AM)Duffman Wrote: [ -> ]Any better conference comes calling any team will be gone. But same with the ACC .No ACC team would turn down the SEC. But if more $$ is offered to anyteam not in SEC they will be gone to. thats the new thing in college football. No one is loyal.
I think it's much more complicated than that. While money is the #1 issue overall, it's not correct that it's the *only* issue. If Notre Dame wanted to flat out make the most TV money, then it would drop independence and join the Big Ten. Texas would make more TV money as a full member of either the Big Ten or SEC than it would by keeping its Longhorn Network contract. Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri and Texas A&M are all likely much better off in the long-term by moving to their new leagues than staying in the Big 12, but it wasn't a huge TV revenue gap that caused their moves. They were much more concerned about long-term stability and cultural fit. Those are also the reasons why schools like FSU and Clemson aren't necessarily just going to jump to the Big 12 even though that conference can offer more TV money right now than the ACC. I don't think that there's any amount of money that you could offer UNC to leave its position of power in the ACC for the SEC.
It's funny that I'm saying this because 3 years ago I was someone that continuously talked about the importance of TV contracts in conference realignment while the general public seemed to just care about geography and rivalries. Now, it's as if though it has gone in the opposite direction, where there's this complete belief that it's ONLY about TV money. While all expansion moves are mercenary to some degree, all of the ones made by the Big Ten, Pac-12 and ACC *did* follow more than just adding the most money possible. They all added schools that fit their academic and cultural fit requirements even though there were other schools available (e.g. West Virginia, Louisville, BYU, Boise State) that would have added more football-wise. The SEC found a great cultural fit with Texas A&M; Missouri was more of a stretch, but a necessary addition because A&M was so valuable.
It's not an accident that those 4 leagues happen to be the oldest and most established. For as much as we talk about football money being the end-all be-all, every one of those moves were, at the very least, "football plus something else" moves as opposed to purely football revenue decisions. When you're an established league, you can (and do) look at factors beyond just how much TV money a particular school can add.
To be sure, everyone other than those 4 conferences (starting with the Big 12 and Big East and going on down) pretty much only can look at how much TV revenue a school has. They don't have the luxury to be choosy on academic or cultural fit requirements. I have a TON of respect for the WVU athletic department, but the Big 12 adding them is the very essence of a purely revenue-driven move (as several schools believed Louisville fit the league better overall and less out-of-whack geographically, but WVU was the most valuable to the TV partners). The Big East, in turn, has essentially created a football-only coast-to-coast conference with schools such as Boise State and San Diego State for TV purposes.
So, it really depends upon the school (e.g. are they academically snobby and/or a legit power player in their current league) and the conference (e.g. once again, whether they are academically snobby). For the 4 established leagues, it's really a sliding scale between TV revenue and the other factors (academics, culture, geography), whereas everyone else is purely in revenue generation (or survival) mode.
Good Catch!