(06-10-2019 09:20 AM)Keswick_Crusaders_Forever51 Wrote: Let me know what you think, or if you completely disagree, share your own ideas!
TL;DR at the bottom. Sorry in advance.
I'm in the camp of completely disagreeing. Conferences are only going to add schools if they increase the money paid to the members. Here are some links that better show this:
The Wall Street Journal P5 Football School Valuations:
https://csnbbs.com/thread-869587.html
Football value is 75-80% of a media deal's value. This was basically verified by Notre Dame getting ACC media value of about 20-25% of a full ACC member.
2017-2018 P5 Total Sports Revenue:
https://csnbbs.com/thread-871659.html
Part of the revenue is a function of being in a strong conference but the conference being strong is because it has strong members so it generally balances out in the end.
2018 Football Attendance:
https://csnbbs.com/thread-873579.html
Again, the biggest brands have the largest attendances.
2018 Football Viewers Per School:
https://csnbbs.com/thread-875944.html
Again, networks pay money for more viewers. Viewers are either alumni, generational (my grandpa grew up watching State University because his grandpa did and everyone in my family does), "Walmart fans", or the team is ranked.
========================================
Now as we look over these numbers, it is not good enough for a school reach the minimum of a prospective conference. For example, if Liberty wants to join the Big 12, it isn't enough to have better attendance than Kansas at 16,049 or even the next highest Baylor at 40,561. The Big 12 averaged 55,981 in 2018 so Liberty should be greater than that as a starting point.
With all of this in mind, the original post has so many schools that detract from the bottom line of most conferences so they wouldn't be added unless something drastic improves for the schools themselves or the conference drastically worsens. Take the Big Ten for example: Navy, Iowa State, Kansas, and Kansas State are added but they each are below (usually vastly below) each of the various metrics I linked to with Kansas's 2018 sports revenue as the lone exception. Navy is worthless in all sports besides football, and even then isn't too valuable and overlaps the University of Maryland; granted, they have a national following but the real jewel being the Army-Navy game wouldn't even be owned by the conference they are in so they can't even count that in their favor. Iowa-Iowa State and Kansas-Kansas State would become conference rivalry games for the Big Ten but they aren't must watch now so it doesn't move the needle. The Big Ten already has significant viewership in the Kansas, Maryland, and especially Iowa states/regions and adding these schools doesn't really capture much of a market that isn't already captured, nor is it worth it for defensive reasons. Kansas's basketball is questionable whether it can save the school and allow them to call their shot so they aren't left behind in a dismantled Big 12. Again, these conferences won't add just for the sake of adding.
Look at when the grant of rights for each conference ends and that is when movement may potentially happen. I believe the Big 12, Big 10, and PAC 12 all expire roughly 2023-2025 so expect movement to happen then if any happens at all. As you can see, the Big 10 and the SEC are the top dogs so they will be the major players. The PAC 12 is sheltered by being so far away that they are generally safe though they are upset with their lack of revenue (or mostly their high expenses). The Big 12 is most volatile and the two big prizes are Texas and Oklahoma. It will come down to bidding by ESPN, Fox, and/or others (Amazon? Netflix? Facebook?) and if they will finance a move, the conference and schools will make it work.
If I had to guess on some moves, Texas will move to the SEC and Oklahoma will move to the Big Ten. Their partners would be Texas Tech to the SEC to please Texas and Colorado (or Kansas if Colorado wants to keep their Pacific connections). Other than Texas and Oklahoma, there just isn't anyone else available that moves the needle for the Big Ten or SEC, even if the ACC were available. The trends are going away from markets and towards brands.
How does this effect Liberty? Well, we are the newest FBS member meaning we have the lowest valued brand. We don't have 100 years of history playing football at the highest level, must less connections to the other schools who have. Conference realignment doesn't care about performance on the field, court, or whatever. It cares about money and Liberty needs to show that they will improve another conference. We need to fill Williams Stadium and make them expand. Whoever can't get a ticket needs to sign up for ESPN+ and watch each of our games which ESPN will notice. We need to travel to away games and boost their attendance. We need to sellout our bowl games. We have so much room to make up and so little time. It isn't good enough to be the best G5 available; we need to be good enough that makes a conference invite us.
I firmly believe our best bet, as it currently stands, is to shoot for the Big 12. They have the most room for expansion and a perfect opportunity to be a travel partner for West Virginia is there. Unfortunately, Cincinnati would be better than us in almost every facet and they could have been added at any time for so long now and haven't been good enough. We make geographic sense for the Big 12, Big Ten, SEC, and ACC. The ACC has the lowest averages and has a solid number of private schools and we have plenty of future games against them but the market and fan base we provide is completely covered by both UVA and Virginia Tech so we'd need at least one, if not both to leave.
TL;DR version: Great discussion! I very much disagree with the OP. Conferences add schools to make more money. Liberty needs to vastly improve everything if they want to be a P5.
