Not bad. If one of the conferences DID bite, we could go ahead and start scheduling some home and home to stoke interest and get some exposure.
And leaving the SEC. I’d rather be sitting with Vandy in the cellar than be in the situation we are in now.
Agreed. I just think it would be nice to create the possibility of programs moving up or down to keep things interesting (and honest).
I think I understand what you’re saying about mobility (and agree with the sentiment) but I’m not sure how you pull that off. There will still be conferences inside the tiers and I’m not sure who would tell a conference they should promote/demote a university. I think the only possibility is like what is happening now.
That isn't actually an SI article. It is from a Cal fan forum underneath SI. Kind of like KQ's site under Rivals. It is also a pipe dream. Clemson, FSU, nor Miami would probably be more likely to join one of the top two conferences than start an upstart conference. Only Oregon and OK State would be similar in national appeal. They would have a national footprint for subscriber rights, but I don't think they could get anything near what the SEC and Big10 are going to get.
Because I don't think any of their remaining members (or new members) are high on the wish list for poaching at this point. The SEC and the Big 10 are not going after any Big 12 members. They will eventually go after Pac 12 and ACC members.
The only reason the Big10 or SEC will add schools is if it increases the individual payout for the current schools. There is no other reason. It's not that complicated. Both Washington and Oregon said they want to join the Big10, but the Big10 said No Thank you. That's because they don't increase the revenue enough. The only school that is available that could increase total revenue enough is ND. Some might argue Clemson and FSU could do that, but they are currently not available (and adding them could be a wash). The conferences aren't going to add teams for a wash. It would dilute the influence of each current member of the conference.
I disagree. I think the positioning will be about controlling the direction of college football. I think the B1G and SEC will add teams strategically. That may have to do with increasing individual payouts, but it also might be to gain or maintain geographical dominance or to gain a presence in a geographical region. Ultimately, it's about power, which leads to money down the road. I think there are those playing the long game and then those reacting.
You really think Oregon, Washington, FSU, and Clemson would generate less revenue than UCLA, a program that was about to cut half of its sports because it was running out of money?
You don't like sitting with Duke ?
I think USC/UCLA was a package deal. I think USC is a lot more valuable than Oregon, Washington, FSU and Clemson. UCLA might be less valuable than the ones you mentioned, but they are still a very big brand.
Perhaps, but I think it’s primarily about money. I just don’t see schools getting $100m/year voting to add schools that will take their annual payout down to $90m - 95m/year. Secondly, I don’t see Alabama and UGA voting to add schools that will not only reduce their annual payout but also dilute their influence in the conference. Every school that’s added reduces the influence that Alabama and UGA have in the SEC.
I think adding teams will be about making the conference stronger. That will probably lead to more money. Those that have control, control the money. I think there will be opportunities to add teams that may not payoff immediately but will put the conference in a position to be more dominant down the road. Ultimately, it's about power and power is about money.
I don't think more teams equals more power. More powerful teams equals more power. More mediocre teams weakens the powerful.
I think we're talking past each other. No one's talking about adding weak teams.