Iowa Hot Take: Big 10 Contraction

[jbhtexas]

Restoring the "classic" SEC and SWC from before the various rounds of realignment would have the exact same problem, though. Not much would change. What I have is basically doing that, though with a few wrinkles to emphasize compactness even more.

Giving northern conferences a presence in Texas or the Southeast and/or giving the ACC a presence in Florida kind of messes up the geography pretty badly.

I think this is less of a problem now than in 1990, though. Recruiting is heavily nationalized. Iowa State is pulling a ton of kids out of Ohio even if we have no games there.

Recruiting is certainly nationalized. But, you've also added more teams to the "Elite" league, which means competition for recruits will be tougher. Just an example...yes, ISU is getting kids from Ohio, but many of them are from the Cincinnati area. You added Cincinnati (the university) to the Elite league, so the competition for recruits now becomes tougher there. Plus UCF and USF would be in the Elite league, making it tougher to pull recruits from Florida.

And then there is Nebraska after they left the Big 12...

 

[Sigmapolis]

Recruiting is certainly nationalized. But, you've also added more teams to the "Elite" league, which means competition for recruits will be tougher. Just an example...yes, ISU is getting kids from Ohio, but many of them are from the Cincinnati area. You added Cincinnati (the university) to the Elite league, so the competition for recruits now becomes tougher there. Plus UCF and USF would be in the Elite league, making it tougher to pull recruits from Florida.

And then there is Nebraska after they left the Big 12...

I agree there is a balance here, but the downsides are manifest...

-- conferences that overlay each other's territory
-- northern conferences having weird salients towards the south
-- or just having weird outposts, like WVU in the Big 12

All of these cut down on the compactness that drives fan interest and attendance as well as drives up expenses in an era when TV money will be drying up.

I would be curious your alternative, though.

 

[merx]

I have always preferred a more purely geographic version. Ten each conference, nine game round-robin in football, eight conference champions make a playoff.

80 = 64 from P5, Notre Dame and BYU, plus a handful of the most competitive programs from the G5, mostly former members of the Big East and Mountain West when they were both one step below the five BCS conferences before the last round of realignment.

Great Eastern
Boston College
Connecticut
Maryland
Navy
Penn State
Pitt
Rutgers
Syracuse
Temple
West Virginia

Big Ten
Cincinnati
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisville
Michigan
Michigan State
Notre Dame
Ohio State
Purdue
Vanderbilt

Big Eight
Illinois
Iowa
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
Northwestern
Wisconsin

ACC
Clemson
Duke
Georgia Tech
NC State
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Wake Forest

SEC
Alabama
Auburn
Florida
Florida State
Georgia
Miami
Mississippi
Miss State
UCF
USF

SWC
Arkansas
Baylor
Houston
LSU
Memphis
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
TCU
Texas
Texas A&M

Pac-Mountain-South
Arizona
Arizona State
Colorado
Colorado State
New Mexico
San Diego State
Texas Tech
UCLA
UNLV
USC

Pac-Mountain-North
Boise State
Brigham Young
California
Nevada-Reno
Oregon
Oregon State
Stanford
Utah
Washington
Washington State

I did something similar but took all the FBS teams into 16 divisions of 8 or 9 and 8 conferences. The thinking being that all 8 conference champs would make the play-offs and the conference championship games act as a 1st round play-off game.

 

[dawgpound]

I have always preferred a more purely geographic version. Ten each conference, nine game round-robin in football, eight conference champions make a playoff.

80 = 64 from P5, Notre Dame and BYU, plus a handful of the most competitive programs from the G5, mostly former members of the Big East and Mountain West when they were both one step below the five BCS conferences before the last round of realignment.

Great Eastern
Boston College
Connecticut
Maryland
Navy
Penn State
Pitt
Rutgers
Syracuse
Temple
West Virginia

Big Ten
Cincinnati
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisville
Michigan
Michigan State
Notre Dame
Ohio State
Purdue
Vanderbilt

Big Eight
Illinois
Iowa
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
Northwestern
Wisconsin

ACC
Clemson
Duke
Georgia Tech
NC State
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Wake Forest

SEC
Alabama
Auburn
Florida
Florida State
Georgia
Miami
Mississippi
Miss State
UCF
USF

SWC
Arkansas
Baylor
Houston
LSU
Memphis
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
TCU
Texas
Texas A&M

Pac-Mountain-South
Arizona
Arizona State
Colorado
Colorado State
New Mexico
San Diego State
Texas Tech
UCLA
UNLV
USC

Pac-Mountain-North
Boise State
Brigham Young
California
Nevada-Reno
Oregon
Oregon State
Stanford
Utah
Washington
Washington State

Stick that Big 8 conference straight into my veins, easy drive to every road game!

 

[isu81]

The problem with a lot of speculative realignment plans is that there is no incentive for all of the SEC and Big 10 teams to want to change their current lot in life. A couple of these scenarios, for example, have mentioned TAM moving back to a group that includes Texas. Why would they ever want to do that? They escaped once. And they are currently ranked near the top of just about every model that ranks value. Same with Arkansas, Nebraska, Iowa. They have no advantage over teams in the B12 or some of these new alignments. Yet, they currently have "value" of multiple times those teams. Why would they want to leave?

 

[FinalFourCy]

The problem with a lot of speculative realignment plans is that there is no incentive for all of the SEC and Big 10 teams to want to change their current lot in life. A couple of these scenarios, for example, have mentioned TAM moving back to a group that includes Texas. Why would they ever want to do that? They escaped once. And they are currently ranked near the top of just about every model that ranks value. Same with Arkansas, Nebraska, Iowa. They have no advantage over teams in the B12 or some of these new alignments. Yet, they currently have "value" of multiple times those teams. Why would they want to leave?

Because Michigan, OSU, Texas, Bama etc said so? Because the current revenue structure changes? Because it’s always best to have an advantage over as many of your peers as possible?

There are several scenarios and motivations that would result in change.

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

The problem with a lot of speculative realignment plans is that there is no incentive for all of the SEC and Big 10 teams to want to change their current lot in life. A couple of these scenarios, for example, have mentioned TAM moving back to a group that includes Texas. Why would they ever want to do that? They escaped once. And they are currently ranked near the top of just about every model that ranks value. Same with Arkansas, Nebraska, Iowa. They have no advantage over teams in the B12 or some of these new alignments. Yet, they currently have "value" of multiple times those teams. Why would they want to leave?

I don't think it is going to boil down school to A or school B wanting to dictate the move. With cord cutting, I don't see how the next round of TV contracts will be as lucrative as the last ones that were signed. Something is going to have to give financially.

 

[somecyguy]

I don't think it is going to boil down school to A or school B wanting to dictate the move. With cord cutting, I don't see how the next round of TV contracts will be as lucrative as the last ones that were signed. Something is going to have to give financially.

Agreed and I think as soon as the first conference comes to the table and gets offered less than the previous contract, you'll start to see the conversations start. If BTN isn't getting 40-50 million per team, and Comcast decides BTN belongs on a separate tier, how long before the Big10 starts discussing cutting Rutgers loose?

 

[jbhtexas]

I agree there is a balance here, but the downsides are manifest...

-- conferences that overlay each other's territory
-- northern conferences having weird salients towards the south
-- or just having weird outposts, like WVU in the Big 12

All of these cut down on the compactness that drives fan interest and attendance as well as drives up expenses in an era when TV money will be drying up.

I would be curious your alternative, though.

For now, 7 conferences with 9-10 teams each (not critical that each conference have the same number of teams). As new schools become viable candidates and are added, reorganize to 8 conferences. I would not elevate too many additional teams right now...it just dilutes the talent pool and money payout...maybe down the road.

The conferences would be somewhat geographical, but would be north/south oriented exposing all schools at least somewhat to the talent-rich areas. I have no issues with conferences overlaying each other's territory. I think compactness is good, but not paramount to fan interest.

PAC: USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, Utah

SWC: Arizona, ASU, Colorado, TT, TAMU, BU, Nebraska, BYU, elevate 1 or 2 from CSU/Boise St/Houston/?

Big Central : ISU, KU, KSU, OU, OSU, UT, TCU, MU, + 1 or 2 from Iowa/Minnesota/Illinois/NW/Arkansas/LSU

WVU, ND, remaining Big Ten, ACC, remaining SEC rearrange into four conferences, elevating a team or two if necessary.

Could flop TT/TCU...
Could add Utah to SWC and elevate a team in the PAC (the more I think about it, I like this better)...
Many other tweaks possible...

Of course, this is strictly athletic...academic affiliations are not considered.

 

[merx]

Could the 7 conferences with 8, 9 or 10 teams be done as a football only alignment? Leave the conferences in place for all other sports, that way conferences can still have their TV contracts.

 

[VeloClone]

Could the 7 conferences with 8, 9 or 10 teams be done as a football only alignment? Leave the conferences in place for all other sports, that way conferences can still have their TV contracts.

All the other sports are a big part of the problem when it comes to far flung conferences. Having your equestrian team have to travel from the Eastern time zone to almost the Mountain time zone is expensive and not good for the athletes (student or equine).

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

All the other sports are a big part of the problem when it comes to far flung conferences. Having your equestrian team have to travel from the Eastern time zone to almost the Mountain time zone is expensive and not good for the athletes (student or equine).

The changes would be for football only.

 

[VeloClone]

The changes would be for football only.

If you are going to fix the **** show that the conferences have become you might as well do it right.

 

[isu81]

If you are going to fix the **** show that the conferences have become you might as well do it right.

While I don't think the "realignment" that is proposed in this thread is what is going to actually happen, I do agree with this sentiment. If you are going to do it, fix it all. Create real rivalries again and eliminate having conferences (if that's what they're called) with teams all over the map. The regional approach benefits other sports even more than football.

 

[jbhtexas]

While I don't think the "realignment" that is proposed in this thread is what is going to actually happen, I do agree with this sentiment. If you are going to do it, fix it all. Create real rivalries again and eliminate having conferences (if that's what they're called) with teams all over the map. The regional approach benefits other sports even more than football.

In the present era, from a pragmatic standpoint, "fixing it" means keeping the big money blue bloods (and those who think they are blue bloods but aren't really there yet) happy in football, because football is generating the money for the ADs. If you create a bunch of nice, quaint geographic-based conferences that become imbalanced from a competition standpoint, the wailing and gnashing of teeth will start, and the thing will fall apart in a decade.

I think you can balance some geographic sanity with reasonable assurance of competitive balance, which is what I was trying to do with my spitballing above.

 

[merx]

While I don't think the "realignment" that is proposed in this thread is what is going to actually happen, I do agree with this sentiment. If you are going to do it, fix it all. Create real rivalries again and eliminate having conferences (if that's what they're called) with teams all over the map. The regional approach benefits other sports even more than football.

An option could be to go back the conferences as they existed prior to the 1990s realignments. Big 8, PAC-10, SWC, Big East and have football only conferences that can be all over the map.

 

[Clonefan94]

Agreed and I think as soon as the first conference comes to the table and gets offered less than the previous contract, you'll start to see the conversations start. If BTN isn't getting 40-50 million per team, and Comcast decides BTN belongs on a separate tier, how long before the Big10 starts discussing cutting Rutgers loose?

The Big 10 isn't going to kick out Rutgers, at least not for just being Rutgers. I can't imagine they don't have something in the agreement that would require a loss of institutional control or illegal activity before they could be booted from the conference. The law suit that would come against the Big 10 for booting them for no reason would, imo, eventually bankrupt the Big 10 because them kicking out Rutgers for just being Rutgers would probably get the federal government to check into this non-profit status and weather or not it should still be in place.

 

[somecyguy]

The Big 10 isn't going to kick out Rutgers, at least not for just being Rutgers. I can't imagine they don't have something in the agreement that would require a loss of institutional control or illegal activity before they could be booted from the conference. The law suit that would come against the Big 10 for booting them for no reason would, imo, eventually bankrupt the Big 10 because them kicking out Rutgers for just being Rutgers would probably get the federal government to check into this non-profit status and weather or not it should still be in place.

I agree, and Rutgers would be in the right to do so, they were just my example of dead weight the Big10 will want to rid themselves of. They won't be operating alone either. Once those internal discussions start, an unknown number of conferences may begin re-organizing under different circumstances.

 

[CarrollCyclone]

So a Hawkeye fan came up with a website and decided on the domain name "goiowaawesome.com"?

Says all I need to know right there.

 

[GTO]

So a Hawkeye fan came up with a website and decided on the domain name "goiowaawesome.com"?

Says all I need to know right there.

CarrollCyclone? Is that your alt @CyTwins ?