The PAC 10 expansion groundswell

[All-American]

Exactly. While the SEC and B1G have separated themselves, they still need other conferences in order for the B1G and SEC to remain economically viable.

They do?

And the networks need content. And student athletes need and want places to play.

And the Big 10 needs more teams on the West Coast. Lots of problems about to solve themselves.

We will soon transition into the 12-team playoff era, and the B12 has an automatic seat at that table. Positioning itself as the nation's #3 conference will be a big win for the B12.

This, I think, is by far the most significant development that pushes against the continued concentration of power in college football. (And so of course the PAC 12 resisted it. Dummies.) I don't know how effectively it will buck against the general trend, without more.

[Uncle Ted]

Of course BYU fans are more relaxed about conference realignment at the moment than Utah fans...at least those paying attention to reality. There is not even a comparison. Now the most likely conclusion to this saga is Utah ends up in the Big 12. Second most likely is they remain in a weakened PAC with a bad TV deal and unequal revenue sharing. But that's not really a conclusion because it isn't sustainable.

The other two potential scenarios are Utah getting left out altogether and going to the MWC or equivalent or Utah being swept into the Big Ten as part of a west coast division. I'd say getting left out is far more likely than the Big Ten, but both are less than 1% chance so not really worth discussing in detail.

You forgot the scenario where Utah goes to the SEC... No wonder Utah fans are so happy right now. So many options.

[USUC]

Most likely scenario is Utah stays another 4 to 5 years in the patchwork media deal Pac-12. Then in 4 to 5 years they come to the Big-XII or whatever conference comes after the Big-XII.

The next most likely scenario is Utah moves to the Big-XII for the 2024 season along with the AZ schools and Colorado.

But also Utah's above moderate success ends when KWhit retires and his psycho-ness cant be replicated. So its not like Utah is a giant who will dominate the Big-XII like they think they can. Utah's zenith is conference championship teams with 4 losses.

[Uncle Ted]

Oregon and UW with smaller pieces of the B1G pie?

Embedded Tweet

I am sure the Big 12 would give them an equal sized piece each and let them them sit at the big table like everyone else.

[myboynoah]

They do?

Yes, they do. If somehow all the power goes to the B1G and the SEC, then they loose a lot of viewership, and money. Fewer people will care. They acknowledged that by expanding the playoff. Every FBS team now sees a path to the playoff. That means more eyeballs on sets.

Sure, they want and get most of the money, but to what end? Talent needs to go somewhere, and it certainly won't concentrate among the 30 teams in the B1G and SEC.

The B12 needs to position itself as the #3 conference, which is okay. Yormark seems to to be heading in that direction.

[myboynoah]

Most likely scenario is Utah stays another 4 to 5 years in the patchwork media deal Pac-12. Then in 4 to 5 years they come to the Big-XII or whatever conference comes after the Big-XII.

The next most likely scenario is Utah moves to the Big-XII for the 2024 season along with the AZ schools and Colorado.

But also Utah's above moderate success ends when KWhit retires and his psycho-ness cant be replicated. So its not like Utah is a giant who will dominate the Big-XII like they think they can. Utah's zenith is conference championship teams with 4 losses.

Yeah, I think this is the most likely scenario as well.

[All-American]

Yes, they do. If somehow all the power goes to the B1G and the SEC, then they loose a lot of viewership, and money. Fewer people will care. They acknowledged that by expanding the playoff. Every FBS team now sees a path to the playoff. That means more eyeballs on sets.

Sure, they want and get most of the money, but to what end? Talent needs to go somewhere, and it certainly won't concentrate among the 30 teams in the B1G and SEC.

The B12 needs to position itself as the #3 conference, which is okay. Yormark seems to to be heading in that direction.

Call me crazy, but I think if the B1G and SEC broke off and formed their own league tomorrow, they'd somehow manage just fine. They might even make more money if they play non-conference games against each other instead of FCS patsies.

And if 30 isn't enough to maximize revenue*, there's an answer to that. They add as many teams, or as few teams, as necessary to get where they want to be.

I don't understand your concentration point. Talent is already concentrating among the 30 teams in the B1G and SEC (and really, among 2 or three teams in each).

*I made this point once before. It is extremely interesting to me that pretty much every pro sports league in America ends up at about 30 or so teams. 30 MLB teams, 30 NBA teams, 32 NFL teams, and 32 NHL teams. The fact that each of these leagues, each of which presumably acts to maximize its own revenue, ends up at roughly the same number. Now, college is a little different, because people are especially attached to their alma maters; you have value you can capture by adding another team that doesn't merely divide those who were watching already. If you blew everything up and formed a new college football league, including only those schools that maximized revenue, I think you add more than 30, but I don't know how much more than 30. I certainly don't think the SEC and B1G, currently at 32 teams between the two of them, will stop there.

[Jeff Lebowski]

This, I think, is by far the most significant development that pushes against the continued concentration of power in college football. (And so of course the PAC 12 resisted it. Dummies.) I don't know how effectively it will buck against the general trend, without more.

Whoa, be careful there. That was a hint of optimism.

[tooblue]

Call me crazy, but I think if the B1G and SEC broke off and formed their own league tomorrow, they'd somehow manage just fine. They might even make more money if they play non-conference games against each other instead of FCS patsies.

And if 30 isn't enough to maximize revenue*, there's an answer to that. They add as many teams, or as few teams, as necessary to get where they want to be.

I don't understand your concentration point. Talent is already concentrating among the 30 teams in the B1G and SEC (and really, among 2 or three teams in each).

*I made this point once before. It is extremely interesting to me that pretty much every pro sports league in America ends up at about 30 or so teams. 30 MLB teams, 30 NBA teams, 32 NFL teams, and 32 NHL teams. The fact that each of these leagues, each of which presumably acts to maximize its own revenue, ends up at roughly the same number. Now, college is a little different, because people are especially attached to their alma maters; you have value you can capture by adding another team that doesn't merely divide those who were watching already. If you blew everything up and formed a new college football league, including only those schools that maximized revenue, I think you add more than 30, but I don't know how much more than 30. I certainly don't think the SEC and B1G, currently at 32 teams between the two of them, will stop there.

I understand your rational but I don't agree. A 30 team college football league would collapse in on itself. It would remain viable but only regionally a lot like the NHL. And like the NHL they would face the same economic ceiling that could be crippling for the lessor schools in the two conferences.

The model for college sports is close to 64 teams who are fighting for spots in a 12 (or slightly more) national playoff.

[All-American]

Whoa, be careful there. That was a hint of optimism.

It’s hard to be grumpy ALL the time. I have to take breaks every now and again.

[myboynoah]

Call me crazy, but I think if the B1G and SEC broke off and formed their own league tomorrow, they'd somehow manage just fine. They might even make more money if they play non-conference games against each other instead of FCS patsies.

And if 30 isn't enough to maximize revenue*, there's an answer to that. They add as many teams, or as few teams, as necessary to get where they want to be.

I don't understand your concentration point. Talent is already concentrating among the 30 teams in the B1G and SEC (and really, among 2 or three teams in each).

*I made this point once before. It is extremely interesting to me that pretty much every pro sports league in America ends up at about 30 or so teams. 30 MLB teams, 30 NBA teams, 32 NFL teams, and 32 NHL teams. The fact that each of these leagues, each of which presumably acts to maximize its own revenue, ends up at roughly the same number. Now, college is a little different, because people are especially attached to their alma maters; you have value you can capture by adding another team that doesn't merely divide those who were watching already. If you blew everything up and formed a new college football league, including only those schools that maximized revenue, I think you add more than 30, but I don't know how much more than 30. I certainly don't think the SEC and B1G, currently at 32 teams between the two of them, will stop there.

I think you're crazy. Sankey was a key supporter of expanding the playoff to 12 and giving automatic bids to the five P5 conference champions and another autobid for the best of the G5s. He recognizes that, otherwise, the rest of college football would lose interest, affecting viewership, and ultimately the price networks are willing to pay to televise conference games during the season.

I thought your "30 team" observation was interesting, but I don't think it applies that well to college sports. College sports have factors (like history, rivalries, school loyalty, market segmentation) that expand the number of participants that maximise interest among fans and viewers of college athletics. Otherwise, how do we explain states like Alabama and Mississippi being able to support two college teams apiece in the richest conference in the land, while neither are home to major pro sports teams? Yes, the B1G and SEC can add schools, but why do they need to do that? The B12, ACC and maybe the PAC are there to provide homes to other schools and maintain a nucleus of roughly 70-80 schools in the upper tier that are needed to make this whole thing work.

[tooblue]

I think you're crazy. Sankey was a key supporter of expanding the playoff to 12 and give automatic bids to the five P5 conference champions and another autobid for the best of the G5s. He recognizes that, otherwise, the rest of college football would lose interest, affecting viewership, and ultimately the price networks are willing to pay to televise conference games during the season.

I thought your "30 team" observation was interesting, but I don't think it applies that well to college sports. College sports have factors (like history, rivalries, school loyalty, market segmentation) that expand the number of participants that maximise interest among fans and viewers of college athletics. Otherwise, how do we explain states like Alabama and Mississippi being able to support two college teams apiece in the richest conference in the land, while neither are home to major pro sports teams? Yes, the B1G and SEC can add schools, but why do they need to do that? The B12, ACC and maybe the PAC are there to provide homes to other schools and maintain a nucleus of roughly 70-80 schools in the upper tier that are needed to make this whole thing work.

I don't know about 70 - 80 teams, but maybe your are right. The better model college football could follow, if the BIG and SEC really want to create a monopoly, is to adopt a relegation structure similar to English soccer. But that ain't gonna fly in the US. Amurica ain't gonna be OK with queuing and does not tolerate the kind of thinking that allows living on the dole.

[myboynoah]

I don't know about 70 - 80 teams, but maybe your are right. The better model college football could follow, if the BIG and SEC really want to create a monopoly, is to adopt a relegation structure similar to English soccer. But that ain't gonna fly in the US. Amurica ain't gonna be OK with queuing and does not tolerate the kind of thinking that allows living on the dole.

Yeah, I may be on the high side. Relegation? Sounds like a commy plot.

[Jeff Lebowski]

We have had this discussion before, and at some point fusnik will swoop in and call most of us dummies and tell us how it is. But I disagree that we are doomed to a one or two-league power system in college football and everything else will die. Yes, we are seeing some disruption and the two big leagues are in a race to pick off the few remaining blue bloods, but CFB is substantially different than the NFL. If you concentrate the broadcasting power behind a small handful of teams (even if they are big teams), you will not keep the same audience you get with the broader collection of schools we have now. CFB loyalties are different. You think all of the BYU/Utah/USU fans (for example) are going to start rooting for USC or Texas or some other big school the same way they support their current schools? No way. Part of the magic of CFB is rooting for your local school or your alma mater. CFB would be mortally wounding itself by creating a 30-team super league and drastically reducing their overall market. As MBN says, there is plenty of capacity for content and there are plenty of talented kids who want to play college football.

Furthermore, I am always amazed at how badly people misunderstand the NCAA. They think it is some kind of government agency policing universities. It is literally an organization formed and governed by universities. People talk about universities leaving the NCAA. Why on earth would they do that? If they want to change something (like going to a 12-team playoff!) they can just vote and do it. You also need to remember that these universities are run by university presidents, not football coaches. SU is absolutely right when he says ultimately the big decisions are made by the presidents. University presidents are not going to vote to kill off their own organization.

Given the current climate, I think the B12 is as stable as it could be. Lots of good schools in a region of the country with great fan support, but no elite blue bloods left to pick off and destabilize the conference. Unlike the P12, they can expand in any direction and they are in a good time zone. And now that we have a 12-team playoff, increased fan interest and visiblity in the post-season. There are lots of reasons for optimism.

PS: I also agree that Utah will most likely end up in the B12. Would rather see them in the MWC, but oh well.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I think you're crazy. Sankey was a key supporter of expanding the playoff to 12 and giving automatic bids to the five P5 conference champions and another autobid for the best of the G5s. He recognizes that, otherwise, the rest of college football would lose interest, affecting viewership, and ultimately the price networks are willing to pay to televise conference games during the season.

I thought your "30 team" observation was interesting, but I don't think it applies that well to college sports. College sports have factors (like history, rivalries, school loyalty, market segmentation) that expand the number of participants that maximise interest among fans and viewers of college athletics. Otherwise, how do we explain states like Alabama and Mississippi being able to support two college teams apiece in the richest conference in the land, while neither are home to major pro sports teams? Yes, the B1G and SEC can add schools, but why do they need to do that? The B12, ACC and maybe the PAC are there to provide homes to other schools and maintain a nucleus of roughly 70-80 schools in the upper tier that are needed to make this whole thing work.

Yes!! Preach, my brother.