Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Poll: How many SEC teams will there be in 2030? (YOU MAY VOTE FOR MORE THAN ONE OPTION)
There will be 16 SEC members (no change)
SEC will have 17 members
SEC will have 18 members
SEC will have 19 members
SEC will have 20 members
The SEC won't raid any conference.
SEC will raid the ACC
SEC will raid the Big Ten
SEC will raid the Big 12
SEC will raid the PAC 12
SEC will raid the G5
The SEC will merge with another conference.
There will be a P2, not a P5
Something else will happen.
[Show Results]
 
Post Reply 
Will the SEC stop at 16 or expand to 18 or 20?
Author Message
The Sicatoka Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 315
Joined: Jul 2013
Reputation: 25
I Root For: North Dakota
Location:
Post: #21
RE: Will the SEC stop at 16 or expand to 18 or 20?
I reflect back to the quote from the notorious WAC/MWC airport meeting, paraphrased as ...

You go to bed with a 16 team conference and wake up with two eight-team conferences.

Bigger isn't always better. Bigger brings whole new sets of headaches, and priorities, and egos.
06-17-2022 08:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 29,730
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 3903
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #22
RE: Will the SEC stop at 16 or expand to 18 or 20?
(06-17-2022 12:38 AM)Acres Wrote:  
(06-16-2022 10:50 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(06-16-2022 10:37 PM)LeeNobody Wrote:  
(06-16-2022 10:12 PM)Tigerblud Wrote:  
(06-16-2022 10:10 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  Will the SEC stop at 16 or expand to 18 or 20?.

They will eventually have FSU and Clemson. Maybe more.

Agreed. The ACC will be raided

Don’t agree.

Leagues don’t expand just for the sake of expanding.

Every expansion raises the bar for the next expansion to simply break even.

The SEC just added the single greatest pair of schools that they could EVER realistically add with Texas and Oklahoma.

This board exists because getting to be the final home of Texas was what caused all of conference realignment from 2010 until now.

I quoted Doctor Strange on the day that the UT/OU to the SEC story broke: “We’re in the END GAME now.”

There’s no one that loves discussing realignment more than me, but power conference realignment (at least for the Big Ten/SEC/ACC/Pac-12) is over unless Notre Dame decides to drop independence. That’s it. It’s over. Even adding FSU, Clemson, UNC and take your pick of anyone else in the ACC combined wouldn’t bring in the value that simply the pair of UT and OU just brought to the SEC. Hence the total paralysis of any movement from the Big Ten, Pac-12 and ACC over the past year (unlike the 2010-13 timeframe) outside of a non-binding Alliance.

Our realignment talks are going to be focused on the Big 12, G5 and basketball leagues. I have as much vested interest in seeing more big moves from the SEC, Big Ten and other major powers as anyone here, but it’s over. Done. There is NO expansion that’s better than UT and OU alone. NONE. It was a mic drop hammer to power conference realignment.

Getting Texas is the entire end game, NOT the start.

Solid statement. However, if it’s true that the SEC has reached its peak composition, then it’s also true that the conference will not maintain its new status quo. Laws of nature or business for that matter do not allow equilibrium at peak composition. There will be inherent instability that will inevitably arise when such powerhouse schools are pooled together in the same tent. The composition of the SEC is too perfect to work. How many of the current SEC schools were in the old SWC. The SEC, one of the most stable and profitable league, has upset its balance by bringing those two to the fold. The perfect Trojan horses.

Ultimately, as we have seen time and time again, it will start to fray , due to politics, arguments , personal animosity and straight up vindictiveness. Post Saban, Like the old SWC a coalition of the willing will break away to do their own thing.

Getting Texas is not the entire end game. It’s the beginning of the end of the Saban’s SEC.

All conference formation meets the needs of the moment. We only fool ourselves if we believe any of them are monolithic. Even the conference now called the PAC 12 has taken in and lost schools over the years and it is the most geographically isolated. What is true of life is also true of institutions, they grow, decline, and constantly change.

In times of high stress you get consolidation. In times of great opportunity and economic stability you get smaller more tailored and focused groupings. The moves by Texas and Oklahoma and the SEC are smart for the issues they all face. If the SEC grew to 20 in this it would not be surprising, and when, or if, the nation falls back into a time of relative calm and prosperity it would not surprising at all to see 2 conferences split out of it.

I've said here before, when giants move it is because they see what is happening on the horizon sooner, and it is never a good thing because it means the biggest and strongest among us have seen something which scared the hell out of them.

Well buckle up. World and massive regional conflicts have always followed mass migrations of people looking for the basic necessities of life. We have that. Mergers and acquisitions indicate a stress response, or may create stress responses, in business. Well, we have had a lot of that too. Now 2 iconic schools have moved for security. And IMO, that is the key reason they did finally move.

Something really frightening is on the horizon. It's kind of like all of the animals fleeing for the hills when a massive earthquake and tsunami are coming. Nature knows. People are usually blinded by routine and don't even notice the horizon. Maybe we all need to spend less time looking at the glow of the small screen and more time outside studying what's actually happening in the world, like China deploying troops possibly to the Solomon Islands as well as other Island chains. It's eerily reminiscent of moves made by Imperial Japan in the teens and twenties of the 20th century.
06-17-2022 08:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
PeteTheChop Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 981
Joined: Apr 2007
Reputation: 107
I Root For: C-A-N-E-S
Location: North Florida lifer
Post: #23
RE: Will the SEC stop at 16 or expand to 18 or 20?
(06-17-2022 06:50 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  You forgot the option that the SEC gets raided by the B1G for Mizzou. Which is as likely as any of the other options.

If Mizzou (understandably) leaves for a conference with a much superior geographical and cultural fit, the B1G isn't going to stay at 15.

Bet Kansas would love to join in tandem with its most bitter rival ...
06-17-2022 08:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
PeteTheChop Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 981
Joined: Apr 2007
Reputation: 107
I Root For: C-A-N-E-S
Location: North Florida lifer
Post: #24
RE: Will the SEC stop at 16 or expand to 18 or 20?
(06-17-2022 08:45 AM)The Sicatoka Wrote:  I reflect back to the quote from the notorious WAC/MWC airport meeting, paraphrased as ...

You go to bed with a 16 team conference and wake up with two eight-team conferences.

Bigger isn't always better. Bigger brings whole new sets of headaches, and priorities, and egos.

Much different deal fighting over peanuts as opposed to everyone taking home $90M or $100M per year from the TV folks.

Those big checks tend to soothe a lot of hard feelings
06-17-2022 09:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bluesox Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,041
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 66
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #25
RE: Will the SEC stop at 16 or expand to 18 or 20?
Why does the sec want to jump to 18 with Clemson and Florida state ?
06-17-2022 09:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gamenole Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,979
Joined: Oct 2016
Reputation: 204
I Root For: S Carolina & Fla State
Location:
Post: #26
RE: Will the SEC stop at 16 or expand to 18 or 20?
(06-17-2022 08:45 AM)The Sicatoka Wrote:  I reflect back to the quote from the notorious WAC/MWC airport meeting, paraphrased as ...

You go to bed with a 16 team conference and wake up with two eight-team conferences.

Bigger isn't always better. Bigger brings whole new sets of headaches, and priorities, and egos.

That is true, and yet unlike the old WAC I don't see the fault lines for an easy split. Would the old SWC/Big 8 schools leave? That's still only 5 with Texas, Oklahoma, A&M, Missouri & Arkansas. And why would Missouri & A&M go with that group to get back into a Texas-dominated conference like they left in the Big XII? I don't see an LSU or the Mississippi schools leaving with that group either and abandoning their long ties to the rest of the SEC.

Maybe an "old SEC" group in the east could leave with Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Ole Miss, Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia and Florida. Invite South Carolina too and you've got a workable 9 team conference that is more Southeastern, but why would they do it? They would let other conferences into their traditional territory through the left behinds (Vanderbilt could likely pick between the B1G and ACC, the Big XII would probably be reconstituted stronger than ever with the additions of Mississippi State & Arkansas) and they'd be abandoning the enormous Texas market with all the money it brings.
06-17-2022 09:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bluesox Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,041
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 66
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #27
RE: Will the SEC stop at 16 or expand to 18 or 20?
There is nothing wrong with a bigger conference operating as 2 separate conferences under 1 banner to save expenses but still have a brand. I actually think it’s wrong for a bigger conference to pretend to be a single conference when it’s just not workable with such large numbers. For instance, the sec could basically split into 2 eight team leagues , sec east and west, for all sports but football, ie have 2 basketball tournaments (Dallas and Nashville) for each 8 team side, ditto all other sports. I would like a rule any league bigger than 16 can have such a split and set up 2 sets of tournaments for sports. I could see the big 10, sec and act all jump for such a move if each could get 2 auto bids per sport with such a setup.
(This post was last modified: 06-17-2022 10:45 AM by bluesox.)
06-17-2022 10:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 54,036
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 2242
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #28
RE: Will the SEC stop at 16 or expand to 18 or 20?
(06-17-2022 07:29 AM)goofus Wrote:  The SEC will expand to 24 adding Ohio St,Mich, Penn St, Notre Dame, UNC, Virginia, Clemson and Florida St.

Once the reality sets in that the SEC is the only power conference and not even the Big Ten can compete, the top programs will eventually come to the same conclusion Ok and Tex did. You have to join the SEC to keep up or else you are going to fall behind.

The Big 10 makes plenty of money. Unless the presidents of half of the Big 10 want to look like the Ivy, the Big 10 powers will stay right where they are.
06-17-2022 10:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 54,036
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 2242
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #29
RE: Will the SEC stop at 16 or expand to 18 or 20?
(06-17-2022 08:45 AM)The Sicatoka Wrote:  I reflect back to the quote from the notorious WAC/MWC airport meeting, paraphrased as ...

You go to bed with a 16 team conference and wake up with two eight-team conferences.

Bigger isn't always better. Bigger brings whole new sets of headaches, and priorities, and egos.

There's yet to be a 16 team conference at any level, I, II or III, that didn't split up after a few years.
06-17-2022 10:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,295
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 808
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #30
RE: Will the SEC stop at 16 or expand to 18 or 20?
(06-17-2022 10:11 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 08:45 AM)The Sicatoka Wrote:  I reflect back to the quote from the notorious WAC/MWC airport meeting, paraphrased as ...

You go to bed with a 16 team conference and wake up with two eight-team conferences.

Bigger isn't always better. Bigger brings whole new sets of headaches, and priorities, and egos.

There's yet to be a 16 team conference at any level, I, II or III, that didn't split up after a few years.

How many of them were getting $80 million+ distributions from conference revenues?
06-17-2022 10:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,295
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 808
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #31
RE: Will the SEC stop at 16 or expand to 18 or 20?
So if I'm reading this right, 62.5% (15/24) of voters think the SEC will stay at 16. I wonder how many of us think the other P5 conferences will stand pat?
06-17-2022 10:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lurker Above Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 958
Joined: Apr 2011
Reputation: 62
I Root For: UGA
Location:
Post: #32
RE: Will the SEC stop at 16 or expand to 18 or 20?
(06-16-2022 10:50 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(06-16-2022 10:37 PM)LeeNobody Wrote:  
(06-16-2022 10:12 PM)Tigerblud Wrote:  
(06-16-2022 10:10 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  Will the SEC stop at 16 or expand to 18 or 20?.

They will eventually have FSU and Clemson. Maybe more.

Agreed. The ACC will be raided

Don’t agree.

Leagues don’t expand just for the sake of expanding.

Every expansion raises the bar for the next expansion to simply break even.

The SEC just added the single greatest pair of schools that they could EVER realistically add with Texas and Oklahoma.

This board exists because getting to be the final home of Texas was what caused all of conference realignment from 2010 until now.

I quoted Doctor Strange on the day that the UT/OU to the SEC story broke: “We’re in the END GAME now.”

There’s no one that loves discussing realignment more than me, but power conference realignment (at least for the Big Ten/SEC/ACC/Pac-12) is over unless Notre Dame decides to drop independence. That’s it. It’s over. Even adding FSU, Clemson, UNC and take your pick of anyone else in the ACC combined wouldn’t bring in the value that simply the pair of UT and OU just brought to the SEC. Hence the total paralysis of any movement from the Big Ten, Pac-12 and ACC over the past year (unlike the 2010-13 timeframe) outside of a non-binding Alliance.

Our realignment talks are going to be focused on the Big 12, G5 and basketball leagues. I have as much vested interest in seeing more big moves from the SEC, Big Ten and other major powers as anyone here, but it’s over. Done. There is NO expansion that’s better than UT and OU alone. NONE. It was a mic drop hammer to power conference realignment.

Getting Texas is the entire end game, NOT the start.
owev

Frank, you are correct when you say a conference, when stable, will not expand unless the new additions make each current conference member more money. I also agree it will be harder for SEC candidates to meet this threshold after the SEC brought in UT and OU. However, I think you may discounting how undervalued Clemson, FSU, and VT are in the ACC. UNC, NCS and UVA, and definitely Miami also have enormous untapped potential.

As to Clemson, FSU and VT, those three football programs specifically would have much higher value playing a SEC schedule the moment the enter SEC conference play. The amount of content they would provide, and market expansion for the conference adding these ready made brands, would be extremely valuable. You would not just be getting what Clemson, FSU and VT are now, you would be getting UGA vs Clemson, FSU vs Auburn, VT vs Tennessee and likely 8 or 9 other highly interesting match-ups. The potential is enormous, and I say would rival the UT and OU additions.
06-17-2022 10:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 29,730
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 3903
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #33
RE: Will the SEC stop at 16 or expand to 18 or 20?
(06-17-2022 10:11 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 08:45 AM)The Sicatoka Wrote:  I reflect back to the quote from the notorious WAC/MWC airport meeting, paraphrased as ...

You go to bed with a 16 team conference and wake up with two eight-team conferences.

Bigger isn't always better. Bigger brings whole new sets of headaches, and priorities, and egos.

There's yet to be a 16 team conference at any level, I, II or III, that didn't split up after a few years.

I can think of 2 off the top of my head. The WAC faced travel expense without great income and covered culturally diverse areas. The economy hit them hard.

The Southern Conference split over fundamental differences over post season play, but underpinning it was difficulty in transportation as Americans moved more away from trains and into travel by automobile.

So, your sample is absurdly small, each circumstance unique, and none separated over size.

The current potential league will survive as long as it meets the needs which created it. Lose the common interests which generate stability and it will split. But when that happens it will have nada to do with size.

The best you can say to support your assertion is that it is difficult to keep a unifying focus in larger groups than it is in smaller ones. Right now the unifying focus is money/security in times of turmoil in demographic paradigm shifts and economic uncertainty where strong brands bound together affords each a semblance of security and revenue stability. As long as that need exists there is unity. When it ceases to be a need self interest will bring change. It has nothing to do with size.
06-17-2022 10:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,116
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 938
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #34
RE: Will the SEC stop at 16 or expand to 18 or 20?
(06-17-2022 12:24 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-16-2022 11:56 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(06-16-2022 11:25 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  .

For every person who expects the SEC to stop expanding, there seems to be someone who expect either a continuing expansion or a merger resulting in fewer than 5 power conferences.

Question: Why do so many people seem to expect further SEC expansion of some kind (either adding members or merging/absorbing other conferences)?

.

This is a conference realignment forum. We’re total action junkies and crave it even when a proposed action doesn’t make sense. We don’t even bat an eye when people suggest that there will be two 24-team super conferences or other Armageddon scenarios. Many of us are incapable of thinking of something as huge as the SEC adding UT and OU as anything but *needing* more dominos and are in denial that the Pac-12, Big Ten and ACC don’t have any interest in the current Big 12 schools.

The “normal” world doesn’t see it this way. They think about conference realignment when it’s actually happening, but don’t think about it all in al of those years in between when it’s not happening.

Frank, Texas and Oklahoma had been in the works since 1987, albeit with feelers and flirtations sprinkled in. My point is just because we may go 6-8 years without an announced move, doesn't mean realignment discussions ever stop. They may change directions, cool, and re-heat, but they have never ceased with due diligence valuations, back door what ifs, and decisions made long ago waiting for the right moment, or knowing when to back away and stick. But there really aren't any sustained periods of absolute stasis and that goes back decades.

That's fair enough. I get that no one really knows what's going to happen or that you can never say never.

I guess I should clarify the scope of my analysis: it's power conference realignment in the Big Ten, SEC, ACC and/or Pac-12 based on adding Schools XYZ in order to create larger media deals that I believe is over. There could certainly be much more movement in the Big 12 and other conferences over the next several years, but they're not the ones that I'm talking about here.

Now, could there be massive changes to or the elimination of the NCAA that would spur other forms of realignment among the power conferences? Could there be a break off of the top 20 to 30 brands in all college football to create a super league? Could Notre Dame finally decide to give up independence at some point for some reason? I would grant that all of it is *possible* and, in that sense, there could be further power conference realignment.

However, the fact remains that the entire driver of all conference realignment from the 1960s through today has been to increase per school revenue. It's not about increasing total revenue - it's about making *per school* revenue larger. If that figure doesn't increase for a particular conference, then expansion doesn't happen.

For the Big Ten and SEC, they have or are about to have media deals that will pay them in the $60-70 million-plus per school range.

In 2010-2013, an expansion where each school was worth $20 million per year was worth it for the Big Ten and SEC. Hence, the additions of Rutgers and Maryland for the Big Ten and Texas A&M and Missouri to the SEC became substantial revenue generators with a "Moneyball" approach of adding markets to increase revenue more than the brands themselves.

In today's world, it's going to take each Big Ten or SEC expansion target to bring in $70 million-plus per year simply for those conferences to break even. That's a *massive* difference compared to just a decade ago. The "Moneyball" approach won't work anymore: simply being a solid school in a major market isn't enough for the Big Ten and SEC with the levels of revenue that they have.

There might be only 2 schools in all of college football that I would have faith in bringing in $70 million per year to either the Big Ten or SEC: Notre Dame and USC. That's it.

In the case of ND, it's easy. If they're actually willing to drop independence, then you just pair them up with one other school (who could be anyone - Kansas, UVA, Sam Houston State - it almost doesn't matter) and print money just like the UT/OU addition to the SEC. The issue, of course, is that ND is a specific enigma whose entire identity as a school is intertwined with football independence for reasons that go far beyond money. I'll always grant ND as an exception to every scenario - if they're willing to drop independence, then sure, it could trigger mass scale power conference realignment again. However, ND doesn't think the way that any other school in America thinks, so predicating anything based on ND dropping independence is effectively predicating your retirement on winning the lottery. You better have other plans for retirement outside of the winning the lottery or you're in serious trouble.

For USC, I preface this by saying again that for all of the massive impact that the UT/OU move to the SEC has (for reasons that I've already explained), it was still a traditional small "c" conservative move for the SEC for realignment purposes. The SEC just needed to add two schools without any "fat" (e.g. Texas Tech and Oklahoma State") that wouldn't add value. Geographically, UT and OU are in or contiguous to existing SEC markets, so that makes the chances of this working out long-term much greater. In terms of the things that fans actually care about such as rivalries, this expansion move actually *restores* rivalries (UT vs. A&M and Arkansas) as oppose to destroying them (like many other conference realignment moves). Take away all of the money involved and the UT/OU move to the SEC *still* makes sense.

There's nothing small "c" conservative about, say, adding USC to the Big Ten. If you add them alone or with one other school, you leave USC on a geographic island while destroying all of their rivalries. That might make more money in the short-term, but that's a recipe for a long-term divorce.

The problem is that for USC to actually feel comfortable with moving for the long-term, the Big Ten effectively needs to add most (if not all) of the Pac-12 schools to make it work. That's a problem financially for the Big Ten because they would now be adding a lot of "fat" that doesn't actually bring value. While adding USC with one other school could bring in the $70 million per year per school breakeven amount, the financials are almost impossible if it requires adding 4, 6 or more schools in expansion.

Even with other conceivable schools that the Big Ten and/or SEC would be interested in, particularly UNC, it's not going to work with a straight-line addition of 2 schools like UT/OU. No one is getting UNC by adding them alone - it's going to require Duke and UVA at a minimum, too. When getting UNC means adding a minimum of 4 schools, the math once again gets shaky. Whenever says the Big Ten or SEC should add 4 schools, that requires that expansion to be worth $280 million per year in total as a *minimum*. It doesn't matter even if schools like FSU and Clemson are involved - I don't that there's a combo of any 4 ACC and Pac-12 schools that exists that would reach that level without ND and/or USC.

A lot of people here are so obsessed with consolidation that they're forgetting that the financial figures still have to work. The Big Ten and SEC could add 4 schools with $80 million total less than a decade ago and still make money on expansion. Now, they're effectively requiring $80 million PER SCHOOL to make money on expansion. It's an entirely different atmosphere now financially. THAT is where my skepticism comes in.

To use an entertainment industry example (as I believe it's relevant since sports are effectively the entertainment industry now), look at Disney's expansion in the 2005-2020 period. It added the massive brands of Pixar, Marvel, Lucasfilm and 20th Century Fox all in orderly succession. There are plenty of other properties that would love to get bought by Disney today and you can argue would make sense within their portfolio, but the point is that Disney got so much value out of those prior expansions that there's literally nothing else out there that moves the needle for them. Disney's future fortunes are going to be based on maximizing the value of their *current* assets like Marvel and Star Wars in a way that no new acquisition is going to matter.

That's where I believe that the Big Ten and SEC are at this point (with the caveat that ND is always a wild card). They have derived so much value from their current lineups that not even schools like Florida State and Clemson move the needle anymore. Just throwing out fantasy lineups of all of the top football brands all in 1 or 2 conferences is fun, but it's a pointless exercise if the financials don't work... and that's where I see the Big Ten and SEC right now. Nothing can make more money than the expansion of UT and OU... and if there's no bigger expansion out there in a world where each expansion HAS to make more money than the last one in order to work out financially, it stands to reason that future expansion won't happen.
06-17-2022 10:43 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
YNot Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,043
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 173
I Root For: BYU
Location:
Post: #35
RE: Will the SEC stop at 16 or expand to 18 or 20?
(06-17-2022 10:30 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 10:11 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 08:45 AM)The Sicatoka Wrote:  I reflect back to the quote from the notorious WAC/MWC airport meeting, paraphrased as ...

You go to bed with a 16 team conference and wake up with two eight-team conferences.

Bigger isn't always better. Bigger brings whole new sets of headaches, and priorities, and egos.

There's yet to be a 16 team conference at any level, I, II or III, that didn't split up after a few years.

I can think of 2 off the top of my head. The WAC faced travel expense without great income and covered culturally diverse areas. The economy hit them hard.

The Southern Conference split over fundamental differences over post season play, but underpinning it was difficulty in transportation as Americans moved more away from trains and into travel by automobile.

So, your sample is absurdly small, each circumstance unique, and none separated over size.

The current potential league will survive as long as it meets the needs which created it. Lose the common interests which generate stability and it will split. But when that happens it will have nada to do with size.

The best you can say to support your assertion is that it is difficult to keep a unifying focus in larger groups than it is in smaller ones. Right now the unifying focus is money/security in times of turmoil in demographic paradigm shifts and economic uncertainty where strong brands bound together affords each a semblance of security and revenue stability. As long as that need exists there is unity. When it ceases to be a need self interest will bring change. It has nothing to do with size.

The primary reason the WAC split up was because BYU and Utah were placed in a quadrant with New Mexico and UTEP so Air Force, Colorado State, Wyoming, and SDSU missed BYU, Utah, and New Mexico for two years in '96 and '97 after having been conference mates and playing annually for the previous 20-30+ years. That didn't sit well. The Front Range schools and San Diego State missed playing BYU and Utah (and vice-versa).

The original MWC was the pre-expansion WAC, minus Hawaii and UTEP plus UNLV. I believe UNLV was included and Hawaii and UTEP excluded based on input from Comcast/CBS.
06-17-2022 10:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 54,036
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 2242
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #36
RE: Will the SEC stop at 16 or expand to 18 or 20?
(06-17-2022 10:17 AM)ken d Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 10:11 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 08:45 AM)The Sicatoka Wrote:  I reflect back to the quote from the notorious WAC/MWC airport meeting, paraphrased as ...

You go to bed with a 16 team conference and wake up with two eight-team conferences.

Bigger isn't always better. Bigger brings whole new sets of headaches, and priorities, and egos.

There's yet to be a 16 team conference at any level, I, II or III, that didn't split up after a few years.

How many of them were getting $80 million+ distributions from conference revenues?

You don't think parts of the SEC could split off and get more than $80 million?
06-17-2022 11:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,276
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 421
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #37
RE: Will the SEC stop at 16 or expand to 18 or 20?
(06-17-2022 10:18 AM)ken d Wrote:  So if I'm reading this right, 62.5% (15/24) of voters think the SEC will stay at 16. I wonder how many of us think the other P5 conferences will stand pat?

Perhaps you could start your own poll.04-cheers
06-17-2022 11:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 54,036
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 2242
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #38
RE: Will the SEC stop at 16 or expand to 18 or 20?
(06-17-2022 10:30 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 10:11 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 08:45 AM)The Sicatoka Wrote:  I reflect back to the quote from the notorious WAC/MWC airport meeting, paraphrased as ...

You go to bed with a 16 team conference and wake up with two eight-team conferences.

Bigger isn't always better. Bigger brings whole new sets of headaches, and priorities, and egos.

There's yet to be a 16 team conference at any level, I, II or III, that didn't split up after a few years.

I can think of 2 off the top of my head. The WAC faced travel expense without great income and covered culturally diverse areas. The economy hit them hard.

The Southern Conference split over fundamental differences over post season play, but underpinning it was difficulty in transportation as Americans moved more away from trains and into travel by automobile.

So, your sample is absurdly small, each circumstance unique, and none separated over size.

The current potential league will survive as long as it meets the needs which created it. Lose the common interests which generate stability and it will split. But when that happens it will have nada to do with size.

The best you can say to support your assertion is that it is difficult to keep a unifying focus in larger groups than it is in smaller ones. Right now the unifying focus is money/security in times of turmoil in demographic paradigm shifts and economic uncertainty where strong brands bound together affords each a semblance of security and revenue stability. As long as that need exists there is unity. When it ceases to be a need self interest will bring change. It has nothing to do with size.

Lone Star Conference, Great West Conference, Southern Conference 1933, Southern Conference 1953, WAC, Big East. So that is 0 for 6. There are probably others I don't know about. And the MVC as it got bigger split up twice, once to birth the Big 8 and once to birth the Metro. The Metro happened just a few years after they started talking about the MVC being the first superconference after it expanded to 12.

As you get bigger:
1) its harder to have a group of similar and similar minded institutions. I don't think its any coincidence that the two most stable conferences had the most homogenous members-Big 10 and SEC.
2) it gets harder to get consensus.
3) bigger groups just don't work as well. There's been a number of studies on group dynamics by business schools.
4) As times change, the things that once brought you together no longer work. And with a bigger group those get exaggerated. That can happen to a smaller group as it did with the SWC, but its more likely to happen to the larger conferences that were brought together under a specific paradigm-see the 17 team Big East.

And something that doesn't get mentioned often enough is that the larger you get, the less likely any school is to win a conference championship and the harder it gets to even finish in the top half.
(This post was last modified: 06-17-2022 11:26 AM by bullet.)
06-17-2022 11:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Online
Senior Chief Realignmentologist
*

Posts: 8,831
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 411
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location: Biden Cesspool
Post: #39
RE: Will the SEC stop at 16 or expand to 18 or 20?
In regards to USC, if the Trojans were willing to a 6 team Pacific “Division” (CA 4, Ore, & Wash) then I think the Big 10 could make it work.
06-17-2022 11:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 54,036
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 2242
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #40
RE: Will the SEC stop at 16 or expand to 18 or 20?
(06-17-2022 10:43 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(06-17-2022 12:24 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(06-16-2022 11:56 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(06-16-2022 11:25 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  .

For every person who expects the SEC to stop expanding, there seems to be someone who expect either a continuing expansion or a merger resulting in fewer than 5 power conferences.

Question: Why do so many people seem to expect further SEC expansion of some kind (either adding members or merging/absorbing other conferences)?

.

This is a conference realignment forum. We’re total action junkies and crave it even when a proposed action doesn’t make sense. We don’t even bat an eye when people suggest that there will be two 24-team super conferences or other Armageddon scenarios. Many of us are incapable of thinking of something as huge as the SEC adding UT and OU as anything but *needing* more dominos and are in denial that the Pac-12, Big Ten and ACC don’t have any interest in the current Big 12 schools.

The “normal” world doesn’t see it this way. They think about conference realignment when it’s actually happening, but don’t think about it all in al of those years in between when it’s not happening.

Frank, Texas and Oklahoma had been in the works since 1987, albeit with feelers and flirtations sprinkled in. My point is just because we may go 6-8 years without an announced move, doesn't mean realignment discussions ever stop. They may change directions, cool, and re-heat, but they have never ceased with due diligence valuations, back door what ifs, and decisions made long ago waiting for the right moment, or knowing when to back away and stick. But there really aren't any sustained periods of absolute stasis and that goes back decades.

That's fair enough. I get that no one really knows what's going to happen or that you can never say never.

I guess I should clarify the scope of my analysis: it's power conference realignment in the Big Ten, SEC, ACC and/or Pac-12 based on adding Schools XYZ in order to create larger media deals that I believe is over. There could certainly be much more movement in the Big 12 and other conferences over the next several years, but they're not the ones that I'm talking about here.

Now, could there be massive changes to or the elimination of the NCAA that would spur other forms of realignment among the power conferences? Could there be a break off of the top 20 to 30 brands in all college football to create a super league? Could Notre Dame finally decide to give up independence at some point for some reason? I would grant that all of it is *possible* and, in that sense, there could be further power conference realignment.

However, the fact remains that the entire driver of all conference realignment from the 1960s through today has been to increase per school revenue. It's not about increasing total revenue - it's about making *per school* revenue larger. If that figure doesn't increase for a particular conference, then expansion doesn't happen.

For the Big Ten and SEC, they have or are about to have media deals that will pay them in the $60-70 million-plus per school range.

In 2010-2013, an expansion where each school was worth $20 million per year was worth it for the Big Ten and SEC. Hence, the additions of Rutgers and Maryland for the Big Ten and Texas A&M and Missouri to the SEC became substantial revenue generators with a "Moneyball" approach of adding markets to increase revenue more than the brands themselves.

In today's world, it's going to take each Big Ten or SEC expansion target to bring in $70 million-plus per year simply for those conferences to break even. That's a *massive* difference compared to just a decade ago. The "Moneyball" approach won't work anymore: simply being a solid school in a major market isn't enough for the Big Ten and SEC with the levels of revenue that they have.

There might be only 2 schools in all of college football that I would have faith in bringing in $70 million per year to either the Big Ten or SEC: Notre Dame and USC. That's it.

In the case of ND, it's easy. If they're actually willing to drop independence, then you just pair them up with one other school (who could be anyone - Kansas, UVA, Sam Houston State - it almost doesn't matter) and print money just like the UT/OU addition to the SEC. The issue, of course, is that ND is a specific enigma whose entire identity as a school is intertwined with football independence for reasons that go far beyond money. I'll always grant ND as an exception to every scenario - if they're willing to drop independence, then sure, it could trigger mass scale power conference realignment again. However, ND doesn't think the way that any other school in America thinks, so predicating anything based on ND dropping independence is effectively predicating your retirement on winning the lottery. You better have other plans for retirement outside of the winning the lottery or you're in serious trouble.

For USC, I preface this by saying again that for all of the massive impact that the UT/OU move to the SEC has (for reasons that I've already explained), it was still a traditional small "c" conservative move for the SEC for realignment purposes. The SEC just needed to add two schools without any "fat" (e.g. Texas Tech and Oklahoma State") that wouldn't add value. Geographically, UT and OU are in or contiguous to existing SEC markets, so that makes the chances of this working out long-term much greater. In terms of the things that fans actually care about such as rivalries, this expansion move actually *restores* rivalries (UT vs. A&M and Arkansas) as oppose to destroying them (like many other conference realignment moves). Take away all of the money involved and the UT/OU move to the SEC *still* makes sense.

There's nothing small "c" conservative about, say, adding USC to the Big Ten. If you add them alone or with one other school, you leave USC on a geographic island while destroying all of their rivalries. That might make more money in the short-term, but that's a recipe for a long-term divorce.

The problem is that for USC to actually feel comfortable with moving for the long-term, the Big Ten effectively needs to add most (if not all) of the Pac-12 schools to make it work. That's a problem financially for the Big Ten because they would now be adding a lot of "fat" that doesn't actually bring value. While adding USC with one other school could bring in the $70 million per year per school breakeven amount, the financials are almost impossible if it requires adding 4, 6 or more schools in expansion.

Even with other conceivable schools that the Big Ten and/or SEC would be interested in, particularly UNC, it's not going to work with a straight-line addition of 2 schools like UT/OU. No one is getting UNC by adding them alone - it's going to require Duke and UVA at a minimum, too. When getting UNC means adding a minimum of 4 schools, the math once again gets shaky. Whenever says the Big Ten or SEC should add 4 schools, that requires that expansion to be worth $280 million per year in total as a *minimum*. It doesn't matter even if schools like FSU and Clemson are involved - I don't that there's a combo of any 4 ACC and Pac-12 schools that exists that would reach that level without ND and/or USC.

A lot of people here are so obsessed with consolidation that they're forgetting that the financial figures still have to work. The Big Ten and SEC could add 4 schools with $80 million total less than a decade ago and still make money on expansion. Now, they're effectively requiring $80 million PER SCHOOL to make money on expansion. It's an entirely different atmosphere now financially. THAT is where my skepticism comes in.

To use an entertainment industry example (as I believe it's relevant since sports are effectively the entertainment industry now), look at Disney's expansion in the 2005-2020 period. It added the massive brands of Pixar, Marvel, Lucasfilm and 20th Century Fox all in orderly succession. There are plenty of other properties that would love to get bought by Disney today and you can argue would make sense within their portfolio, but the point is that Disney got so much value out of those prior expansions that there's literally nothing else out there that moves the needle for them. Disney's future fortunes are going to be based on maximizing the value of their *current* assets like Marvel and Star Wars in a way that no new acquisition is going to matter.

That's where I believe that the Big Ten and SEC are at this point (with the caveat that ND is always a wild card). They have derived so much value from their current lineups that not even schools like Florida State and Clemson move the needle anymore. Just throwing out fantasy lineups of all of the top football brands all in 1 or 2 conferences is fun, but it's a pointless exercise if the financials don't work... and that's where I see the Big Ten and SEC right now. Nothing can make more money than the expansion of UT and OU... and if there's no bigger expansion out there in a world where each expansion HAS to make more money than the last one in order to work out financially, it stands to reason that future expansion won't happen.

Of course, I felt the same way before the SEC added Mizzou and A&M and the ACC added Pitt and SU and the Big 10 added Rutgers and Maryland. I thought the list warranting expansion beyond 12 was USC, UCLA, Texas, OU, FSU, ND. Pretty short. But it wasn't that short.
06-17-2022 11:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2022 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2022 MyBB Group.