From what I can understand, the #1 focus of forming a conference is to put together like-minded institutions into a competitive bracket where their athletic programs can play against each other while holding their identity intact.

What bothers me about where conferences seem to be heading these days is that there is often little rhyme or reason for their revision/expansion/formation outside of a TV contract. The only exception to the rule will be the Big East (C7 variant) that will be forming in about a season or two. While TV money does increase with each new add into a conference (for the most part - although I'd contest that the spike in popularity of the game has more to do with this than adding TV sets), it undermines the purpose of why the conference ever existed in the first place. At some point, the underlying differences between schools within these giant amalgamations of conferences will begin to tear them apart. We now have conferences that have ridiculous geographic sprawl (B1G, SEC, A-12, C-USA), inequities in TV contracts between members (MWC), ugly holes in their footprint (ACC), distant islands in their footprint (Big XII), major differences in institutional makeup between schools (ACC, A-12, C-USA), and/or awful leadership that betrays the member institutions (many conferences).

People say the regional model is inefficient when it comes to extracting money. People say the academic model isn't practical anymore - and that this is sports, not the spelling bee. People say that the institutional model (schools with similar views banding together) is just nothing but ego-flexing against other schools.

The problem with bashing these models is that they've been more successful when compared to the sprawling model used by the BE and C-USA in recent years.

If you're going to build a conference, it should be a small and tight one with no dead weight, outliers, or nasty differences between schools. People can relate best to a conference that has one identity - yet our identity as schools and conferences seems to sell for so little in the year 2013. Can't find a conference that suits you? Then figure out a way to go independent and protect the identity of your school. Worried about making ends meet as an Indy? Then you need to change how you run your athletic program and clean up your own books.

Ok that all sounds great, but for the most part it's not possible.

Everyone is selling out. There is no loyalty or identity unless it's because you can make money together. It's only a matter of time before some schools in established conferences get the boot.

For the record, conference realignment has been going on for 80 years and every school has always followed the money.

It goes back to the lawsuits by UGA and OU. As long as TV contracts are as lucrative as they are, teams will sell their souls and identities and conferences are going to be spread out and make no sense. Rivalries are going to continued to be lost, game attendance will continue to slowly drop, the distance fans will have to travel will increase and the separation of the haves verses the have nots will continue to expand.

(03-12-2013 09:09 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Ok that all sounds great, but for the most part it's not possible.

You don't think that media executives would take well to a regional conference with 10-12 well-knit schools that make sense together?

They seem to like the Pac-12 - that's for sure. The Pac-12 schools - unlike the A-12 or C-USA or ACC - seem to be well-connected and haven't expanded to the point of no return. They are also on the same academic plane with each other for the most part as well (Stanford, UCLA, USC, and UC-Berkeley would stand out in most conferences. That's just chalked up to those four being extra-special in that regard)

The conferences that have 100% control over their own destinies - the Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC - have actually all followed expansion in the way that you've stated. They have only expanded into states that are contiguous to their existing footprints with like-minded academic institutions. I would hardly call their moves as having no rhyme or reason and, even if the primary purpose of expansion was to maximize revenue, they all still fit for reasons other than money. The Big East/Catholic 7, which you claim is an exception to the expansion madness, will end up having a geographic footprint that matches the Big Ten. They are also a conference that controls its own destiny within its own sphere of non-FBS basketball schools. However, none of the other conferences really control their own destinies. Everyone wants a school that has great academics, great football, great TV markets and is geographically close. Not every conference can get schools that hit all of those metrics, though.

(03-12-2013 09:21 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 09:09 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Ok that all sounds great, but for the most part it's not possible.

You don't think that media executives would take well to a regional conference with 10-12 well-knit schools that make sense together?

They seem to like the Pac-12 - that's for sure. The Pac-12 schools - unlike the A-12 or C-USA or ACC - seem to be well-connected and haven't expanded to the point of no return. They are also on the same academic plane with each other for the most part as well (Stanford, UCLA, USC, and UC-Berkeley would stand out in most conferences. That's just chalked up to those four being extra-special in that regard)

Yeah that's fine, but start listing a group of 10-12 gang of 5 schools that are well-knit schools that make sense together. Only the MAC actually has that. I can't name 9 other schools that ECU truly "fits" with. I can't name 9 that Tulane truly "fits" with.

New SouthWest Conference

1. Houston
2. SMU
3 Tulane
4. Southern Miss
5. Rice
6. Memphis
7. Tulsa
8. UTEP
9. La Tech
10. UTSA
11. UAB
12. Middle Tenn

New East Coast Conference

1. ODU
2. ECU
3. Temple
4. U Conn
5. Cincy
6. UCF
7. USF
8. Marshall
9. UNCC
10. FAU
11. FIU
12. U Mass

New CUSA: Would be a combination of the what is left in CUSA and Sunbelt which would eliminate the need for the Sunbelt to bring up FCS schools.

That would create several pretty regional conferences with some familiarity of some teams and bit of the best upcoming potential schools. Then the Gang of Five conferences would still be the MAC, CUSA, MWC and the new East Coast and Southwest, all would be more regional, less travel expense and no further division of the pie.

That sounds great but they would also make FAR less money. If you are a school that has a choice in the matter, like say a Houston or a Cincinnati, why not cut out the dead weight and just align with the strongest schools in that other group - which is exactly what the A-12 appears to be doing.

(03-12-2013 09:18 AM)Lord2FLI Wrote:  For the record, conference realignment has been going on for 80 years and every school has always followed the money.

This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^. It amazes me how people look at a 5 year window and assume it's always been that way. Makes me think most people are under the age of 30 that post their opinions on these forums.

(03-12-2013 11:06 AM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 09:18 AM)Lord2FLI Wrote:  For the record, conference realignment has been going on for 80 years and every school has always followed the money.

This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^. It amazes me how people look at a 5 year window and assume it's always been that way. Makes me think most people are under the age of 30 that post their opinions on these forums.

Really? Do you think that Memphis and UC left indy status in the 70s because of money? There were few college basketball games on tv in the 70s, and we certainly didn't get anything worthwhile from the tv contracts. We did it because we all shared the same goals as institutions and as basketball programs.

Money is a pretty new thing in college sports. And it's still not the biggest motivating factor in these conference reallignments. If it was, FSU would be gone to the Big 12 already, UVA/UNC would be in the SEC, and Texas would be in the Big 10.

A lovely sentiment, but it just doesn't work. Inter regional conferences don't make the money pan regional conferences do. The #1 CoD for the SWC was that nobody outside Texas cared and so its TV deal sucked and it was becoming less and less competitive on the national stage with each passing year.

The only way regional, 9 team leagues (IMO the ideal #) work would be in the NCAA/Government stepped in and reversed the Georgia/Oklahoma case that took TV away from the NCAA and gave it to the conferences.

If every conference received the same cut of the total TV pie, then they could reorganize themselves into 9 team regional conferences with like minded schools because there wouldn't be a huge gap in profit between conference A and Conference B to where being in B, even if it was better for the fans, was a financial suicide for the program.

None of this will ever happen though.

(03-12-2013 09:06 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  We now have conferences that have ridiculous geographic sprawl (B1G, SEC, A-12, C-USA), inequities in TV contracts between members (MWC), ugly holes in their footprint (ACC), distant islands in their footprint (Big XII), major differences in institutional makeup between schools (ACC, A-12, C-USA), and/or awful leadership that betrays the member institutions (many conferences).


If you're going to build a conference, it should be a small and tight one with no dead weight, outliers, or nasty differences between schools. People can relate best to a conference that has one identity - yet our identity as schools and conferences seems to sell for so little in the year 2013. Can't find a conference that suits you? Then figure out a way to go independent and protect the identity of your school. Worried about making ends meet as an Indy? Then you need to change how you run your athletic program and clean up your own books.

I agree that conferences should be formed around similarities.

Unfortunately for UC, the schools with similar institutional characteristics in our region are all in the SEC, ACC, or Big 10 and don't want to add us. Therefore, we have to choose between searching farther or pairing up with institutions with different goals. We choose to search farther, just like we did in the 70s.


7 of the 11 A-12 schools have the exact same institutional profiles: public research universities in large cities.

Of the others, UConn is a public research school in a small, mostly urban state. So they're practically identical for all intents and purposes. SMU is a private school, and doesn't focus on research, but they do have solid academics and are in a gigantic city.

ECU and Navy are the only real outliers, and they're not full members. So how can you say that the A-12 isn't a cohesive group?

(03-12-2013 11:49 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  A lovely sentiment, but it just doesn't work. Inter regional conferences don't make the money pan regional conferences do. The #1 CoD for the SWC was that nobody outside Texas cared and so its TV deal sucked and it was becoming less and less competitive on the national stage with each passing year.

The only way regional, 9 team leagues (IMO the ideal #) work would be in the NCAA/Government stepped in and reversed the Georgia/Oklahoma case that took TV away from the NCAA and gave it to the conferences.

If every conference received the same cut of the total TV pie, then they could reorganize themselves into 9 team regional conferences with like minded schools because there wouldn't be a huge gap in profit between conference A and Conference B to where being in B, even if it was better for the fans, was a financial suicide for the program.

None of this will ever happen though.

That's not going to happen. No power conference is going to willingly give up money and control. That said, there is no reason the Gang of 5 cannot organize into something like the old College Football Association. That group could negotiate for all non-AQ schools. The individual structure of conferences would be irrelevant other than for bowl contracts. The media contract would be between the CFA and the networks--the schools would be paid media money by CFA, not the conferences. At the very least, it would give the non AQ negotiating clout they don't have now and enough resources to create thier very own network--something the existing networks would not want to see happen. That would allow the conferences to organize more regionally without destroying thier value. The CFA could even create a network of OOC games that pit top non-AQ schools from different regions against each other thoughout the year (rather than all OOC's being front loaded) to help garner cross regional interest.

(03-12-2013 09:06 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  From what I can understand, the #1 focus of forming a conference is to put together like-minded institutions into a competitive bracket where their athletic programs can play against each other while holding their identity intact.

That all went out the window when the television money got so big.

I think it is a conspiracy led by the Airlines to make bus and car travel impossible for fans and teams.

(03-12-2013 11:53 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 09:06 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  We now have conferences that have ridiculous geographic sprawl (B1G, SEC, A-12, C-USA), inequities in TV contracts between members (MWC), ugly holes in their footprint (ACC), distant islands in their footprint (Big XII), major differences in institutional makeup between schools (ACC, A-12, C-USA), and/or awful leadership that betrays the member institutions (many conferences).


If you're going to build a conference, it should be a small and tight one with no dead weight, outliers, or nasty differences between schools. People can relate best to a conference that has one identity - yet our identity as schools and conferences seems to sell for so little in the year 2013. Can't find a conference that suits you? Then figure out a way to go independent and protect the identity of your school. Worried about making ends meet as an Indy? Then you need to change how you run your athletic program and clean up your own books.

I agree that conferences should be formed around similarities.

Unfortunately for UC, the schools with similar institutional characteristics in our region are all in the SEC, ACC, or Big 10 and don't want to add us. Therefore, we have to choose between searching farther or pairing up with institutions with different goals. We choose to search farther, just like we did in the 70s.


7 of the 11 A-12 schools have the exact same institutional profiles: public research universities in large cities.

Of the others, UConn is a public research school in a small, mostly urban state. So they're practically identical for all intents and purposes. SMU is a private school, and doesn't focus on research, but they do have solid academics and are in a gigantic city.

ECU and Navy are the only real outliers, and they're not full members. So how can you say that the A-12 isn't a cohesive group?

And that's the similarity shared with most schools in the unnamed conference. Houston is surrounded by Big12 schools--but the Big 12 doesnt need a 5th team from Texas. Memphis is surrounded by SEC schools that see no need to add an additional school from a state they are already in. UCF and USF have peer schools in Florida, but they are in the SEC or ACC. It's the same with most unnamed conference members. That's really the only thing we have in common.

(03-12-2013 09:21 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 09:09 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Ok that all sounds great, but for the most part it's not possible.

You don't think that media executives would take well to a regional conference with 10-12 well-knit schools that make sense together?

They seem to like the Pac-12 - that's for sure. The Pac-12 schools - unlike the A-12 or C-USA or ACC - seem to be well-connected and haven't expanded to the point of no return. They are also on the same academic plane with each other for the most part as well (Stanford, UCLA, USC, and UC-Berkeley would stand out in most conferences. That's just chalked up to those four being extra-special in that regard)

No.
As 10th Mountain said, media dollars and national exposure were not there in the Southwest Conference. You can only sell your product to Texas. You have regional networks like Fox Sports Southwest which cater to these particular regions and could provide a showcase for regional conferences, but teams like Texas / Texas A&M wouldn't give up ABC/CBS nationally televised games for that.

Even with the Fox Sports model, you have splits depending on which region you are in. If the Mavericks and Spurs are playing at the same time, certain parts of Texas get the Mavs game and others get the Spurs game. If the SWC were still around and on that network, Saturdays would find Houston market broadcasting UH/Rice games while Dallas would show TCU/SMU further diluting the exposure of your team.

The Mountain West tried their hand at their own network. Here are several close-nit, regional, like-minded schools working to put something out there. It didn't grow outside of their region and hindered their teams exposure in the eastern half of the country.

(03-12-2013 11:06 AM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 09:18 AM)Lord2FLI Wrote:  For the record, conference realignment has been going on for 80 years and every school has always followed the money.

This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^. It amazes me how people look at a 5 year window and assume it's always been that way. Makes me think most people are under the age of 30 that post their opinions on these forums.

The schools of the Pac-12 have competed under several different conference names. But the 8 teams located in Washington, Oregon, and California have played in the same conference pretty much every year since 1928 (a major cheating scandal in the 1950s threw the old Pacific Coast Conference into disarray, and it took a few years to get things back under control), and they only accepted two new members (Arizona and AZ State) from then until Utah and Colorado.

The Southeastern Conference did not accept any new members from 1933 until Arkansas/South Carolina in 1991/92.

The ACC only accepted one new member (Georgia Tech) from the league's founding in 1953 until Florida State in 1991/92, and only those 2 until the ACC/Big East war of 2003.

The old Big 8 did not accept any new members from 1947 until Baylor in 1995, unless you count Oklahoma State, which was in, then out in the 1920s, then in again in the 1950s.

The Big Ten only accepted one new member (Michigan State) from 1912 until Penn State in 1990/91, and only those 2 until Nebraska.

So yes, realignment has existed all along. But it has never unfolded at the kind of breakneck pace we have seen in recent years.