RE: Law of diminishing returns
Yes, I do think that there is a law of diminishing returns.
Texas was THE single biggest expansion option out there. It was the case back in 2010 and it was the case today. THEY were the *end game*. Every single other conference realignment option - even Notre Dame, much less FSU and Clemson - isn't worth as much as Texas. When you add them and yet another elite brand (Oklahoma) with no one else coming along as filler (as what would have happened in the Pac-16 proposal), there's simply nothing better than that scenario. The UT/OU additions raise the bar so high for future revenue in the SEC that I honestly don't think any combination outside of some truly wacky conspiracy theorist ideas of them adding Notre Dame and raiding the Big Ten could make them any more money.
To ken_d's point, there do need to be some losers in every league. That's part of why I don't buy a college football Super League occurring (at least in the sense of a full 12-game schedule) since the powers that finish last in that league would no longer continue to be powers. Note that in the soccer context where we saw a Super League attempted earlier this year, the intent there was for those teams to break off from the Champions League as opposed to the country-specific leagues. This meant that the superpowers would continue to play and exert their dominance over local teams in their home country leagues. In essence, Manchester United, Liverpool and Chelsea still wanted to beat up on the local teams in the English Premier League since winning locally is still key to their brands, but wanted the Europe-wide competition to be only against equivalent superpowers (e.g. F.C. Barcelona and Real Madrid). It was a *dual* system that the soccer superpowers were after.
The equivalent in college football would be for the superpowers to continue to play in their home conferences where they can similarly beat up on local teams, but then have an entirely separate postseason where they'd be *guaranteed* to play only other superpowers from other conferences. Ironically, this is sort of what the old pre-BCS bowl system was with bowls choosing schools almost entirely based on brand names.
Now, I do think the difference between the Big Ten/SEC and the other power conferences is that the conference realignment value of those "losers" is generally much higher. To use ken_d's examples, Rutgers and Illinois have been finishing at the bottom of the Big Ten football standings lately, but these aren't tiny schools that aren't bringing the conference any money. To the contrary, they're huge flagship AAU schools that have a massive alumni presence in two of the three largest metro areas in the country (NYC and Chicago) in key recruiting regions for all sports (outside of football, they're arguably the two most important basketball recruiting areas - it's not an accident that the Big Ten has often been the deepest basketball league since adding Rutgers and Maryland) and, when it comes to the money, they are directly the reason why the BTN gets basic cable carriage in those home markets. Ohio State and Michigan aren't getting that NYC and Chicago TV money without Rutgers and Illinois. Frankly, those types of schools are actually perfect for Ohio State and Michigan for the bottom of the league - they can take their major market money for the BTN, give close games for their alums in those major markets, and then take all of their states' best recruits. Rutgers and Illinois then say, "Thank you sir! May I have another?" as they cash their checks in exchange. They're sort of like the New York Jets in the NFL - they're *perfect* as bad teams because they provide a lot of exposure in major markets for the top teams.
The Big 12, though, is an example of where the "losers" weren't bringing enough to the table. As you can now see in where none of their schools are attractive to the other power conferences, that depth wasn't there. Who brought the largest major media markets (plural) of any value within the Big 12? Texas. Who brought the best recruiting area? Texas. Who had the biggest national brand? Texas. Who had the best academics? Texas. All of that was wrapped into the single school of Texas. (Sure, Baylor, TCU and Texas Tech are located in the state of Texas, but they simply don't *bring* the state like the University of Texas itself in the sense that they could deliver a conference network for the Big 12 in the way Rutgers and Illinois do for their states in the Big Ten.) That was always the underlying vulnerability in the Big 12 - Texas and Oklahoma leaving alone could kill that league in terms of power conference status.
Think of it this way: The Big Ten has 11 flagship schools and their 3 non-flagships are all AAU members. (The AAU membership is relevant since it means they're academically on par or better than a flagship.) The new SEC will have 12 flagship schools plus 2 other AAU members. The Pac-12 has 7 flagship schools plus 2 super-elite private AAU members (Stanford and USC). The ACC has only 2 flagship schools, but their non-flagships include 3 AAU members along with a roster of elite privates... plus their two biggest football brands (Florida State and Clemson) don't even fit into either category. It's not an accident that the Big Ten and SEC have long separated themselves: they have a depth of schools that bring entire *states*, not just local markets. The Pac-12 and ACC don't have quite the same depth, but they aren't as many "dead weight" schools as you would think.
The Big 12? They now only have 1 flagship (Kansas) plus one other AAU member (Iowa State). Even with UT and OU, they only had 3 flagship schools total plus 1 other AAU member. When you looked under the hood of the Big 12, it was apparent just how much Texas and Oklahoma were propping up the entire league. So, it's not a surprise that they were exposed even though they had been distributing more money to conference members compared to the Pac-12.
|