12-14-2022, 01:57 AM
Where we are:
The California Board of Regents is threatening to hold up UCLA's move to the Big 10.
The New Commissioner of the Big 12 says they'll add four more.
The SEC coyly is saying it's content with 16 while the background noise indicates otherwise.
The Big 10 is threatening more additions if UCLA isn't freed to move (which it likely can anyway).
The ACC is in some quarters of their conference nervously watching and in other quarters hunkering behind the GOR.
Meanwhile several commissioners have supported the suggestion of collective bargaining with players which implies a player's union as well as pay for play. And this would be in keeping with Cavanaugh's remarks in the NIL ruling.
And the hooey holding up the CFP expansion (which was the alleged impetus for the Alliance) has now been cleared for an early start. This is acting as a catalyst for Texas and Oklahoma to want to move to the SEC in 2024 and could act as a catalyst for more consolidation among the top conferences.
The general assessment of the California Board of Regents is that they are likely trying to find a way to encourage the Big 10's inclusion of Cal in these upcoming moves. Cal is in major debt and any kind of bump in revenue from a move would be beneficial.
Perhaps the issue will be partial payments to schools whose value doesn't add to the Big 10's projected payouts. If so, and if the Big 10 and PAC 12 schools agree to utilize disproportionate revenue distributions in order to go ahead and include a greater expansion to the West this could easily accelerate consolidation at the top.
Oregon, Washington, Stanford, California could round the Big 10 out at 20 schools, or you might see Colorado, Arizona, and Utah (all AAU) come on board with them. I suppose at this juncture the Big 10 would make a play for Notre Dame again and if the Irish were still a nyet that Kansas could round out their 24, or it could be a surprise from either the ACC or SEC.
The Big 12 would be poised to pick up Arizona State, Oregon State and Washington State as all of them add to their mean revenue numbers. A California school like San Diego State would make sense as well. Perhaps this is what Yormark will be looking at as his four Westward additions?
So where could this lead:
Does the SEC sit still? I doubt it. Do they raid the ACC? Well, I wouldn't call it that. I think they would simply merge with unequal revenue in place, but that merger could see some shuffling and with the combined scheduling it would essentially hold the divisional structures of each conference intact but would be used for greater scheduling mobility which would help to balance the football heavy SEC, while augmenting the ACC hoops brand and all Spring and minor sports as the old boundaries of OOC would vanish opening up new, and more interesting match ups.
The combined scheduling would still give the ACC a boost in markets and viewership which should result in a modest to more reasonable increase in revenue.
The 15 ACC schools and 16 SEC schools could be augmented with Central and South Florida, Cincinnati, Connecticut, and West Virginia and depending upon which school heads to the Big 10 as #24 you could see a selection of schools considered for the 36th slot.
With 24 schools in the Big 10 all that would be needed to give the Big 10 access to Texas would be a scheduling alliance with the new Big 12 and should that conference consist of the 3 PAC remnants San Diego State, B.Y.U., Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, T.C.U., Houston, possibly Kansas, or possibly a Fresno or Boise, or perhaps even a Tulane the resulting 2 leagues would be balanced at 36 each and all old rivalries still viable, especially for PAC schools.
What you would see emerge is a Super 2 (Two Leagues) in which the Big 10 would stand at 24, the SEC and ACC at 18 each and the Big 12 at a name fitting 12 but each comprising two leagues of 36 schools. This allows for the flexibility of the unequal revenue distributions, an academic alliance consistency within the Big 10, broader regional play in the Southeast, and access to Texas for the Big 10 without having to compromise its academic identity.
It also takes the best of the current G5 and incorporates them into the leagues and could help close the playoffs and system to just the new Super Two Leagues.
If all games are played within those 2 Leagues the networks benefit in product quality, rivalries are restored which were lost, and the North South dynamic still drives viewership.
Should both leagues be comprised of 6 divisions each of 6 schools for the purposes of play and scheduling then the divisional champs would become the 12 playoff entrants and in an expanded playoff of 16 four at large schools (2 per League) could be added to the field. Just under a quarter of the schools would see playoff action annually.
The money and manageability both improve. Cross League play could provide access to California and Florida for the respective leagues.
What this avoids is the necessity of segregating realignment by revenue which helps with balance and access to recruiting markets, and thereby it eliminates the necessity of a third conference. With schools in the SEC and Big 10 keeping their earned advantages but splitting post season revenue equally and deliberately assisting the other schools in viewership and markets through scheduling you have more balance top to bottom among these 72 schools than we have now.
And that is the impetus and benefit of making this kind of move.
With everyone we have now plus more of the best G5 included the need to realign would be over. Over each subsequent TV contract, the payouts could slowly be ameliorated until even that advantage is leveled.
Will it happen? It's logical, profitable, and workable, but that doesn't mean it is what will be done.
At worst I still see a Big 10 and SEC of 20 each and two lesser conferences of 16 each. Or 3 conferences of 24, with the third lagging significantly in revenue. But if we want to secure the model well into the future, I will tender what I proffered above for serious consideration. Let's build a structure which will end the upheaval of realignment, work toward equity, and provide a structure which yields most of the CFP participants by a method decided on the field.
The California Board of Regents is threatening to hold up UCLA's move to the Big 10.
The New Commissioner of the Big 12 says they'll add four more.
The SEC coyly is saying it's content with 16 while the background noise indicates otherwise.
The Big 10 is threatening more additions if UCLA isn't freed to move (which it likely can anyway).
The ACC is in some quarters of their conference nervously watching and in other quarters hunkering behind the GOR.
Meanwhile several commissioners have supported the suggestion of collective bargaining with players which implies a player's union as well as pay for play. And this would be in keeping with Cavanaugh's remarks in the NIL ruling.
And the hooey holding up the CFP expansion (which was the alleged impetus for the Alliance) has now been cleared for an early start. This is acting as a catalyst for Texas and Oklahoma to want to move to the SEC in 2024 and could act as a catalyst for more consolidation among the top conferences.
The general assessment of the California Board of Regents is that they are likely trying to find a way to encourage the Big 10's inclusion of Cal in these upcoming moves. Cal is in major debt and any kind of bump in revenue from a move would be beneficial.
Perhaps the issue will be partial payments to schools whose value doesn't add to the Big 10's projected payouts. If so, and if the Big 10 and PAC 12 schools agree to utilize disproportionate revenue distributions in order to go ahead and include a greater expansion to the West this could easily accelerate consolidation at the top.
Oregon, Washington, Stanford, California could round the Big 10 out at 20 schools, or you might see Colorado, Arizona, and Utah (all AAU) come on board with them. I suppose at this juncture the Big 10 would make a play for Notre Dame again and if the Irish were still a nyet that Kansas could round out their 24, or it could be a surprise from either the ACC or SEC.
The Big 12 would be poised to pick up Arizona State, Oregon State and Washington State as all of them add to their mean revenue numbers. A California school like San Diego State would make sense as well. Perhaps this is what Yormark will be looking at as his four Westward additions?
So where could this lead:
Does the SEC sit still? I doubt it. Do they raid the ACC? Well, I wouldn't call it that. I think they would simply merge with unequal revenue in place, but that merger could see some shuffling and with the combined scheduling it would essentially hold the divisional structures of each conference intact but would be used for greater scheduling mobility which would help to balance the football heavy SEC, while augmenting the ACC hoops brand and all Spring and minor sports as the old boundaries of OOC would vanish opening up new, and more interesting match ups.
The combined scheduling would still give the ACC a boost in markets and viewership which should result in a modest to more reasonable increase in revenue.
The 15 ACC schools and 16 SEC schools could be augmented with Central and South Florida, Cincinnati, Connecticut, and West Virginia and depending upon which school heads to the Big 10 as #24 you could see a selection of schools considered for the 36th slot.
With 24 schools in the Big 10 all that would be needed to give the Big 10 access to Texas would be a scheduling alliance with the new Big 12 and should that conference consist of the 3 PAC remnants San Diego State, B.Y.U., Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, T.C.U., Houston, possibly Kansas, or possibly a Fresno or Boise, or perhaps even a Tulane the resulting 2 leagues would be balanced at 36 each and all old rivalries still viable, especially for PAC schools.
What you would see emerge is a Super 2 (Two Leagues) in which the Big 10 would stand at 24, the SEC and ACC at 18 each and the Big 12 at a name fitting 12 but each comprising two leagues of 36 schools. This allows for the flexibility of the unequal revenue distributions, an academic alliance consistency within the Big 10, broader regional play in the Southeast, and access to Texas for the Big 10 without having to compromise its academic identity.
It also takes the best of the current G5 and incorporates them into the leagues and could help close the playoffs and system to just the new Super Two Leagues.
If all games are played within those 2 Leagues the networks benefit in product quality, rivalries are restored which were lost, and the North South dynamic still drives viewership.
Should both leagues be comprised of 6 divisions each of 6 schools for the purposes of play and scheduling then the divisional champs would become the 12 playoff entrants and in an expanded playoff of 16 four at large schools (2 per League) could be added to the field. Just under a quarter of the schools would see playoff action annually.
The money and manageability both improve. Cross League play could provide access to California and Florida for the respective leagues.
What this avoids is the necessity of segregating realignment by revenue which helps with balance and access to recruiting markets, and thereby it eliminates the necessity of a third conference. With schools in the SEC and Big 10 keeping their earned advantages but splitting post season revenue equally and deliberately assisting the other schools in viewership and markets through scheduling you have more balance top to bottom among these 72 schools than we have now.
And that is the impetus and benefit of making this kind of move.
With everyone we have now plus more of the best G5 included the need to realign would be over. Over each subsequent TV contract, the payouts could slowly be ameliorated until even that advantage is leveled.
Will it happen? It's logical, profitable, and workable, but that doesn't mean it is what will be done.
At worst I still see a Big 10 and SEC of 20 each and two lesser conferences of 16 each. Or 3 conferences of 24, with the third lagging significantly in revenue. But if we want to secure the model well into the future, I will tender what I proffered above for serious consideration. Let's build a structure which will end the upheaval of realignment, work toward equity, and provide a structure which yields most of the CFP participants by a method decided on the field.