bullet
Legend
Posts: 66,818
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3315
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
|
RE: A Sober Look at the Potential Realignment of 2024
(01-14-2021 04:29 AM)AllTideUp Wrote: (01-13-2021 08:18 PM)bullet Wrote: (01-13-2021 04:25 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: (01-13-2021 05:51 AM)XLance Wrote: (01-13-2021 01:17 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote: FWIW, I played with a divisional split of the two groups. I had a very hard time coming up with any reasonable scenario that splits the Alabamian programs, as that split complicated many other areas. Therefore, I had to keep the two together, then pair LSU with them. Georgia and Georgia Tech together is a no-brainer, especially when you also can pair GT with Vanderbilt and Tennessee. Putting all the former B8 and SWC programs together is also another obvious idea. None of the original SEC members would end up in a division with former SWC and B8 programs, which is about as fair as I could come up with.
On the Big Ten, I had connect the plains programs with one of the recruiting areas, so I paired Northwestern with Nebraska and Oklahoma. The Illini is paired with the upper lakes programs. Each division is to have at least two historical programs but that proved to be nearly impossible: separating the Michigans and Wisconsin/Minnesota make no sense, so I had to put the two pairs together, thus necessarily split Michigan and Ohio State. Therefore, not only did I split Michigan/Ohio State but also the Illinois programs and ND kept away from the Michigans and Indiana public schools.
Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Northwestern
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan State, Michigan, Illinois
Indiana, Purdue, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers
Notre Dame, Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia
Texas Tech, Arkansas, Missouri, Texas, Texas A&M
Mississippi, Mississippi State, Louisiana State, Alabama, Auburn
Vanderbilt, Georgia, Florida, Georgia Tech, Tennessee
Florida State, Clemson, South Carolina, Kentucky, Virginia Tech
In the past when a group got too big to manage, it divided, stronger entities were formed and the lesser programs were left with the original structure and then faded away. Such was the case with the old Southern Conference and would be with any number of teams over 16.....heck that number might actually be 14, which is why school Presidents are reluctant to expand.
Perhaps the key would be to start with a playoff number (say 8 teams) and work on forming conferences of 8 or so teams rather than 16, 18, 20 or 24.
Each champion would enter the tournament. Seven game round robin conference schedules would leave plenty of room for OOC rivalries without overloading the schedule.
If 8 were not feasible in some markets, the number of schools per conference could actually go as high as 10/11 as long as the conference was willing to give up scheduling flexibility. (The PAC could actually stay in tact as an 11 team conference if necessary, but in doing so making it more difficult for any individual school to become champion and participating in the playoff).
Smaller compact conferences would be easier for fans and schools because they would be more regional and better for the media giants that paid the bills as the conferences would have less power and therefore easier to control.
When money didn't keep them together, that was true.
But obviously no one is moving backwards to 8 team leagues or the like. The natural progression is consolidation of money and power...for better or for worse.
When leagues get too big, they break up. As the Pac's predecessor, the MVC, the Southern Conference (when they lost the SEC schools and when they lost the ACC schools), the Big East, the MWC. In fact, only the Big 10 among the P5 isn't a product of a breakup.
A hundred years ago, absolutely.
How many of those leagues had a monetary reason to stay aligned? How many of those leagues were generating billions of dollars in media revenue?
Even the most recent addition to that list, the Mountain West, broke away in order to re-emphasize the original members of the WAC. Nobody was paying that league a ton of money to operate at 16. They had no motivation to endure structural issues.
Even in the case of the MWC, what happened? A handful of teams ascended to the upper echelon and most of those schools are right back in the same conference.
MWC broke up specifically over money. Rivalries were a trigger, but it was absolutely about money as well as coverage and the disastrous WAC TV program. The disintegration of the SWC was also about money.
There is more than one way (ESPN) to make money. Playing low drawing schools like Rice, SMU, TCU (Purdue, Rutgers, Maryland?) hurts the home gate. And the nearby road trips hurt the home gate. If you can see your team staying in Houston or Dallas, why drive to Austin or College Station?
(This post was last modified: 01-14-2021 01:35 PM by bullet.)
|
|