(02-01-2018 05:18 PM)ColKurtz Wrote: Not going to happen. Even 16 team conferences are iffy. Could make sense with carriage fees driving revenue but that may have already peaked. And the conference networks are already showing mostly content that the networks have passed on. There's no room for a second conference network.
Consider an ACC/SEC merger. That makes no sense because that would mean the SEC's earnings would be subsidizing the new ACC schools. Even FSU and Clemson wouldn't be bringing all of their weight because they are not adding new markets for carriage fees. Ditto for the B1G merging with anyone. Boards and presidents vote on expansion, not fans.
A scheduling arrangement between the highest profile would just as early accomplish adding inventory as voting to become a bloated mess.
If you're a fan of contraction and restoring regional rivalries, though, an 18+ team "conference" is the definitely the way to go, as it would quickly collapse under its own weight.
As to the bolded part Muskie was saying that the model would have to be "content" based. We are rapidly headed away from subscription fee based pay models and toward "content" driven ones. Will that happen overnight? No. But it is coming much sooner than people care to think that it will.
It could be driving factor in further expansion, and it could also one day be a reason for groupings to leave some schools behind. I hope we don't get to that point, but it has to be acknowledged that when the group content value is the driving force that slots within that group will have to pull their weight.
And if the rights seeking organizations should lack competitiveness then larger associations for the sake of leveraging contracts might indicate larger conferences and not smaller ones. But that direction is presently unclear.
If FOX holds its Disney shares and stays in the sports broadcasting business then it's mutual relationship with Disney profits leaves some concerns about how competitive the sports rights business will be. If on the other hand rumors prove to be correct that FOX will sell out it's sports broadcast interests to Amazon, then competitiveness for rights will be quite healthy and the need to collectivize for leverage won't be a factor.
Right now the way the distributions are figured if either the SEC or Big 10 added either or both of Texas and Oklahoma it would be extremely difficult to suggest that any further additions added to everyone's bottom line.
I've quipped that if the SEC landed OU and UT the only other two schools that could still add value to the SEC would be Ohio State and Notre Dame. Certainly neither of those would ever join the SEC, but my point was if you want to end realignment for the Big 10 and SEC let Kansas and Texas head to the Big 10 and Oklahoma and Oklahoma State head the the SEC.
In all likelihood both the SEC and Big 10 would be out of the realignment business at that point and the sole reason would be no other additions (not even Virginia or UNC or USC and Stanford) could add to the bottom line. But then both of those additions would be both content additions as well as market additions so the receiving conferences would have hedged their bets as to the future direction of realignment.
However if we move to strictly a content driven model then yes the justification for Florida State and Clemson to the SEC could be made. They are worth much more to TV if they are playing Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Tennessee, L.S.U., Texas A&M, Florida, Arkansas, and others than they would be worth playing just Miami and Virginia Tech with an occasional important game against Ga Tech, N.C. State, or UNC.
Each event in a content driven model becomes the basis for pay. The more intriguing the game the more you make. Clemson and F.S.U. are intriguing.
In that kind of model Virginia Tech and Miami would be of interest as well. The only thing that ever made N.C. State or UNC of interest was the market model. In a content driven world it is the competitiveness of every game that pays dividends. Conferences will reshape if this does indeed become the dominant pay model and I believe strongly that it will be within a decade.