RE: Convincing B1G to add undesirable teams
With how top-heavy power conferences have evolved into, I would not be surprised to eventually see the P5 add programs not only for additional content, and likely added revenue, but also to "help-out" the middle-programs and even lower-programs for competitive parity reasons.
For the B1G, SEC and ACC, 14-team leagues have eliminated - just 30 years ago - the ability to have smaller leagues each have a top-level program representing it. Back then, you could have had Michigan (B1G), Clemson (ACC), Nebraska (Big 8), USC (PAC 10), Alabama (SEC), Texas (SWC), Miami (Big East) and Notre Dame (Independent) all legitimately have top-10 teams, and each representing its conference. However, with mass consolidation, there only are five leagues that can really have representatives in the final rankings - which, IMO, has hurt a number of programs that were once able to compete for top-level status annually. The elimination of major leagues, has eliminated the quantity of perceived top-level teams too. For schools now, there are no complaints about the money they are earning; however, long-term, it is only a matter of time before the notion of being "too big" might be revealed, where there can be a pursuit from the middle-to-low programs wishing more competitive balance and/or opportunity. No school wants to be cemented into the bottom of a major sport long-term, which is where a significant number of power programs find themselves in at present.
I am not arguing to move backwards, but - with this topic in mind - what we could find is the opposite: power conferences moving to super-conference status not just in the name of more content, exposure and, likely, revenues, but also for the ability to create more parity and competition for its middle and bottom programs by establishing additional divisions/leagues within the conference. Maybe we see the evolution of super-conferences to four divisions, creating two additional recognitions and/or achievements that could create competitive incentives for many programs that, at present, simply is unrealistic (or so far away) that is is unattainable. For a program like Rutgers or Maryland or Indiana, for example, their ability to win a B1G East title with Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and Michigan State is - long-term - remarkably low. Similarly, programs like Duke, UNC, NC State and Virginia have each had either one or zero ACC Championship game appearances (zero wins) in the ACC Championship game. The middle and bottom programs can only accept checks for so long before they will begin to desire ways to win more.
With five power conferences, there can only be five true champions, and only eight divisional champions (Big 12 has no divisional champions). At some point, there will be push back from schools within the P5 that will want ways to be able to win more (and not just be lambs for the slaughter for the blue blood dynasties that have been formed).
|