This conference realignment stuff is all going to come full circle eventually

[AppleCornCy]

I feel like it almost has to. The major conferences and their precursors were formed 100+ years ago by like-minded regional institutions. It’s really only been since the late 80s/early 90s that TV deals have played a huge role in this.

At the very beginning of this “TV contract era”, expansion was still about making the leagues better. Penn State made sense as an addition to the Big Ten. Florida State to the ACC made sense. South Carolina and Arkansas fit well into the SEC’s footprint and allowed them to have a championship game. The eastern independents playing together in the Big East made sense.

What doesn’t make sense is 14 and 16 team conferences with expansion based on TV markets. West Virginia playing Texas Tech and Baylor instead of Pitt and Syracuse doesn’t make any sense. Rutgers and Maryland in the Big Ten doesn’t make sense.

Ten years ago a lot of us still had flip phones. Streaming boxes weren’t a thing. Technology has drastically changed how we receive and interact with media.

I can’t help but think that within ten years cable television as we knew it growing up will be completely dead. That’s going to have a major impact on sports broadcasting deals. We’re already seeing that to some degree.

I don’t know how this is all going to play out but it seems to me that conference alignments will likely have to go back to being based on true value.

 

[JM4CY]

I feel like it almost has to. The major conferences and their precursors were formed 100+ years ago by like-minded regional institutions. It’s really only been since the late 80s/early 90s that TV deals have played a huge role in this.

At the very beginning of this “TV contract era”, expansion was still about making the leagues better. Penn State made sense as an addition to the Big Ten. Florida State to the ACC made sense. South Carolina and Arkansas fit well into the SEC’s footprint and allowed them to have a championship game. The eastern independents playing together in the Big East made sense.

What doesn’t make sense is 14 and 16 team conferences with expansion based on TV markets. West Virginia playing Texas Tech and Baylor instead of Pitt and Syracuse doesn’t make any sense. Rutgers and Maryland in the Big Ten doesn’t make sense.

Ten years ago a lot of us still had flip phones. Streaming boxes weren’t a thing. Technology has drastically changed how we receive and interact with media.

I can’t help but think that within ten years cable television as we knew it growing up will be completely dead. That’s going to have a major impact on sports broadcasting deals. We’re already seeing that to some degree.

I don’t know how this is all going to play out but it seems to me that conference alignments will likely have to go back to being based on true value.

 

[KnappShack]

I feel like it almost has to. The major conferences and their precursors were formed 100+ years ago by like-minded regional institutions. It’s really only been since the late 80s/early 90s that TV deals have played a huge role in this.

At the very beginning of this “TV contract era”, expansion was still about making the leagues better. Penn State made sense as an addition to the Big Ten. Florida State to the ACC made sense. South Carolina and Arkansas fit well into the SEC’s footprint and allowed them to have a championship game. The eastern independents playing together in the Big East made sense.

What doesn’t make sense is 14 and 16 team conferences with expansion based on TV markets. West Virginia playing Texas Tech and Baylor instead of Pitt and Syracuse doesn’t make any sense. Rutgers and Maryland in the Big Ten doesn’t make sense.

Ten years ago a lot of us still had flip phones. Streaming boxes weren’t a thing. Technology has drastically changed how we receive and interact with media.

I can’t help but think that within ten years cable television as we knew it growing up will be completely dead. That’s going to have a major impact on sports broadcasting deals. We’re already seeing that to some degree.

I don’t know how this is all going to play out but it seems to me that conference alignments will likely have to go back to being based on true value.

Doesn't this describe the formation of the B1GSEC in 2035?

When the biggest of the big break off and form the super super conference

 

[madguy30]

I'm not sure how football will work in the middle of all of this by the time it 'comes around' but I hope ISU's at least having a bowl season.

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

I feel like it almost has to. The major conferences and their precursors were formed 100+ years ago by like-minded regional institutions. It’s really only been since the late 80s/early 90s that TV deals have played a huge role in this.

At the very beginning of this “TV contract era”, expansion was still about making the leagues better. Penn State made sense as an addition to the Big Ten. Florida State to the ACC made sense. South Carolina and Arkansas fit well into the SEC’s footprint and allowed them to have a championship game. The eastern independents playing together in the Big East made sense.

What doesn’t make sense is 14 and 16 team conferences with expansion based on TV markets. West Virginia playing Texas Tech and Baylor instead of Pitt and Syracuse doesn’t make any sense. Rutgers and Maryland in the Big Ten doesn’t make sense.

Ten years ago a lot of us still had flip phones. Streaming boxes weren’t a thing. Technology has drastically changed how we receive and interact with media.

I can’t help but think that within ten years cable television as we knew it growing up will be completely dead. That’s going to have a major impact on sports broadcasting deals. We’re already seeing that to some degree.

I don’t know how this is all going to play out but it seems to me that conference alignments will likely have to go back to being based on true value.

 

[KennyPratt42]

College football is going to more resemble boxing (broken up with no unifying authority and decreased relevance) or NASCAR (a niche regional sport without much national footprint) than what it ever used to.

ESPN and other power brokers (networks, conferences, schools, bowls, et al.) are unintentially killing college football by trying to improve their bottom line and increase their control/influence.

 

[CascadeClone]

Doesn't this describe the formation of the B1GSEC in 2025?

When the biggest of the big break off and form the super super conference

FIFY.
That's why the B1G needs to be bold now (imho) or else their top dogs will be in that super super conference faster than anyone can believe. And the other B1G teams will be left out in the minor leagues. With us and many others...

 

[Cyclonepride]

Again, super conferences make no sense at all. No one outside their own fan bases will give a rip about them if they are on a decidedly different plane than the schools they root for.

 

[cyIclSoneU]

This will get worse before it gets better (if it ever does). Do you really think Clemson and Florida State will sit quietly and watch the SEC become even more financially dominant, and stay put? They’ll be putting in their notice with the ACC within a decade. Then we will have a whole different island of misfit toys trying to stay relevant as UVA and UNC join the B1G but most of that conference can’t latch on to one of the two super conferences.

 

[dualthreat]

I think the biggest problem, in my very basic understanding of the situation, is lack of a presiding body. As long as it’s every man for himself, this will continue.

 

[BMWallace]

I feel like it almost has to. The major conferences and their precursors were formed 100+ years ago by like-minded regional institutions. It’s really only been since the late 80s/early 90s that TV deals have played a huge role in this.

At the very beginning of this “TV contract era”, expansion was still about making the leagues better. Penn State made sense as an addition to the Big Ten. Florida State to the ACC made sense. South Carolina and Arkansas fit well into the SEC’s footprint and allowed them to have a championship game. The eastern independents playing together in the Big East made sense.

What doesn’t make sense is 14 and 16 team conferences with expansion based on TV markets. West Virginia playing Texas Tech and Baylor instead of Pitt and Syracuse doesn’t make any sense. Rutgers and Maryland in the Big Ten doesn’t make sense.

Ten years ago a lot of us still had flip phones. Streaming boxes weren’t a thing. Technology has drastically changed how we receive and interact with media.

I can’t help but think that within ten years cable television as we knew it growing up will be completely dead. That’s going to have a major impact on sports broadcasting deals. We’re already seeing that to some degree.

I don’t know how this is all going to play out but it seems to me that conference alignments will likely have to go back to being based on true value.

Unfortunately, I don't feel like it will be circling back. We are in the middle of a march toward the largest college football programs being unified under one banner, while everyone else will be left behind. This consolidation will accelerate at the will of the media networks (primarily ESPN/Disney), similar to how we can see ESPN pulling strings on this OU/UT/SEC thing. Their goal is to create at many high (advertising) value games each year as they can, while eliminating as much dead weight as possible. It feels like we are on a path to a 24 to 32 team super league league, made up entirely of the biggest programs in the country. And the programs will be on board because that means more money for them, and in the world of college sports, more money (generally) means more success.

So while the rich get richer, everyone else will get swept aside and left as an after thought. ESPN and FOX will push their premier teams and matchups because that's who they are invested in, and act like everyone should be happy with the new arrangement. At the same time, they will fail to recognizing the number of fans that they are going to alienate in the process.

 

[BMWallace]

Again, super conferences make no sense at all. No one outside their own fan bases will give a rip about them if they are on a decidedly different plane than the schools they root for.

They make no sense to actual fans of the sport because they go against the history and tradition that college football so proudly stands upon. But that doesn't matter, because super conferences make sense to the money people: the networks, the advertisers, and the schools who stand to benefit by being a part of them.

 

[jdoggivjc]

People act like this hasn't happened before with college football, but it has. You had the split of D-1 football back in the late 1970s into D-1A (now FBS) and D1-AA (now FCS), and then through the 1980s you had the whole deal with the FCA. And then in the 1990s you had the dissolution of the SWC and the agreement of the Big 8 to pick up the "chosen" members to form the Big 12, which really got the dominos falling to where we are now.

The difference this time being ESPN's meddling, the sheer amount of money that's involved, and the number of truly large universities that appear to be getting the shaft this time.

As for ESPN, it just has this really slimy feeling that they're picking and choosing which particular schools they want to have involved and the rest can go die on the vine.

 

[Cyclonepride]

They make no sense to actual fans of the sport because they go against the history and tradition that college football so proudly stands upon. But that doesn't matter, because super conferences make sense to the money people: the networks, the advertisers, and the schools who stand to benefit by being a part of them.

It doesn't make sense from that standpoint either.

The only reason I have ever cared about UT or Oklahoma games was because we were in the same conference. I care less, but still care, about teams from other conferences because they still exist on the same level of football. We may play them in the regular season, the postseason, or teams that we play may play them. That generates interest. A shared experience. We compete for the same things.

Almost all of that goes away if there is a super conference structure that cements that group (or groups) into a different plane of existence from where my team competes. I do not believe that I am anywhere near unique in that view.

 

[madguy30]

I think the biggest problem, in my very basic understanding of the situation, is lack of a presiding body. As long as it’s every man for himself, this will continue.

And the B1G won't be any help. Didn't their president give it up to each school for Covid protocol? Talk about no direction/making sure there's a way for the blue bloods to have an 'out'.

 

[clone4sure]

I feel like it almost has to. The major conferences and their precursors were formed 100+ years ago by like-minded regional institutions. It’s really only been since the late 80s/early 90s that TV deals have played a huge role in this.

At the very beginning of this “TV contract era”, expansion was still about making the leagues better. Penn State made sense as an addition to the Big Ten. Florida State to the ACC made sense. South Carolina and Arkansas fit well into the SEC’s footprint and allowed them to have a championship game. The eastern independents playing together in the Big East made sense.

What doesn’t make sense is 14 and 16 team conferences with expansion based on TV markets. West Virginia playing Texas Tech and Baylor instead of Pitt and Syracuse doesn’t make any sense. Rutgers and Maryland in the Big Ten doesn’t make sense.

Ten years ago a lot of us still had flip phones. Streaming boxes weren’t a thing. Technology has drastically changed how we receive and interact with media.

I can’t help but think that within ten years cable television as we knew it growing up will be completely dead. That’s going to have a major impact on sports broadcasting deals. We’re already seeing that to some degree.

I don’t know how this is all going to play out but it seems to me that conference alignments will likely have to go back to being based on true value.

 

[clone4sure]

I wonder if Texas A&M, Colorado and Nebraska would be interested in coming back now that Texas is leaving ? this might make up for the loss in viewership. who knows, Fox may offer a good deal. we could use the monies from OU and Texas to help them leave their current Confrences. The Pac is a bad fit for Colorado, A&M is already up in arms over Texas coming to the SEC, and Nebraska hasn't had a fair deal with the Big since they joined. just saying
I wonder if Texas A&M, Colorado and Nebraska would be interested in coming back now that Texas is leaving ? this might make up for the loss in viewership. who knows, Fox may offer a good deal. we could use the monies from OU and Texas to help them leave their current Confrences. The Pac is a bad fit for Colorado, A&M is already up in arms over Texas coming to the SEC, and Nebraska hasn't had a fair deal with the Big since they joined. just saying

 

[AppleCornCy]

Unfortunately, I don't feel like it will be circling back. We are in the middle of a march toward the largest college football programs being unified under one banner, while everyone else will be left behind. This consolidation will accelerate at the will of the media networks (primarily ESPN/Disney), similar to how we can see ESPN pulling strings on this OU/UT/SEC thing. Their goal is to create at many high (advertising) value games each year as they can, while eliminating as much dead weight as possible. It feels like we are on a path to a 24 to 32 team super league league, made up entirely of the biggest programs in the country. And the programs will be on board because that means more money for them, and in the world of college sports, more money (generally) means more success.

So while the rich get richer, everyone else will get swept aside and left as an after thought. ESPN and FOX will push their premier teams and matchups because that's who they are invested in, and act like everyone should be happy with the new arrangement. At the same time, they will fail to recognizing the number of fans that they are going to alienate in the process.

I think the nature of college football means that can only go so far. For the NFL, a state like Iowa will have fans of Minnesota, Green Bay, Chicago, and Kansas City. The entire appeal of college football over the pros is that it’s more localized.

Fans in Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, etc aren’t going to pick some college team in another state to cheer for. They’ll just stop watching. All the schools that get left out of a super league might have relatively small fan bases individually, but collectively they form the majority of college football fans. Alienating those fans will kill the ratings for the big dogs and cost them a ton of money. So there has to be a tipping point somewhere.

 

[coolerifyoudid]

And the B1G won't be any help. Didn't their president give it up to each school for Covid protocol? Talk about no direction/making sure there's a way for the blue bloods to have an 'out'.

Given how poorly the B1G handled the covid situation and how poorly the Pac 12 has handled about everything lately, it's frustrating that the Big 12 is the one coming apart.

 

[Lemmiwinks]

I wonder if Texas A&M, Colorado and Nebraska would be interested in coming back now that Texas is leaving ?

Please take Nebraska back.