OT - UGA President's View - 4 Major Conferences
UGA President goes on record to state the impending reality - there will be four major football conferences (and one of them is the SEC). Which are the three other major football conferences in order of rank? B1G, Big 12, PAC 12, ACC, or Big East?
“I think effectively there are about four major football conferences right now,” University of Georgia president Michael Adams said. Adams said the four included the SEC, but he declined to say what the other major conferences were.
“I think there are some conferences that have devalued themselves in the whole process,” [and] “I don’t think the SEC is one of them.”
The SEC has no further expansion plans, Adams said, “that I know of.”
[Source: WSJ 11/28/12]
November 29th, 2012 at 11:49 AM ^
1. Doubt if Texas goes anywhere, at least within next 10 years+. It will take that long to realize the fruits of Longhorn Network, etc. They have developed an almost demigod-like mentality, similar to ND. They have virtually complete autonomy over what they do and are in a conference that will support it.
2. If there is ever a “falling-out” between TX and Oklahoma that could be significant and may cause the Sooners to reevaluate and leave, other wise I can foresee Pac12 picking off maybe Texas Tech in a next round, strengthening their access to the fertile recruiting ground, and divvy up the football crazed state again, (maybe lessen UT influence for a future union). It is really the Pac12’s only real play.
November 29th, 2012 at 12:24 PM ^
You can make an argument for the ACC if the PAC opts to pillage the B12 again. Then without a doubt the four majors would be PAC, SEC, B1G, and ACC. However the reality appears to be that the B12 pillages the ACC instead. We'll need to see where the dust settles after this expansion round before annointing one or another.
I feel in part as if our move to grab Maryland was part of a preset movement against the ACC. We grab Maryland, then the B12 goes for FSU and/or Clemson. That in turn makes the conference weaker and increases the odds UVa or the like is willing to bolt for the B1G. On the research grant side the UVa is the real prize in the ACC (GT isn't too shady either). We'll have to see though, if the ACC can survive losing Maryland and the PAC grabs B12 teams again, the landscape changes.
November 28th, 2012 at 7:27 PM ^
I believe this is the blog entry the OP is quoting -
http://espn.go.com/colleges/georgia/football/story/_/id/6954389/
One interesting point that it also makes, and one which shouldn't come as a complete shock to anyone, is that some of the strategy for some conferences is about bolstering their positions when the playoff format takes over and the criteria for selection involve things like strength of schedule. It does put the addition of Louisville to the ACC in perspective a little bit, especially if the Cardinals continue to be successful.
November 28th, 2012 at 9:31 PM ^
Nope. I was looking at "The Rules of College Realignment" blog entry on WSJ.
November 28th, 2012 at 10:01 PM ^
I posted the link from the wrong tab. The one in your reply is the one I found and meant to post. My apologies to the board. I own that fail.
I read it again and it is interesting that Adams points out that the SEC is not "seeking out schools", but it doesn't really have to do so, and as we have seen in the last couple weeks, neither does the Big Ten really. It does seem like we are at a point where there are four or five conferences that can, for the most part, afford to sit and observe and take opportunities as they arise. That might very well be indicative of the future, especially with television revenue as part of the deal. I wonder if the major conferences will largely opt for the "pick of the remains" approach, if it comes to that. It is intertesting that, of all things, college football would eventually develop a business model which would favor some form of quasi-corporate amalgamation.
November 28th, 2012 at 10:22 PM ^
No worries.
Adam's comments reeked of SEC arrogance throughout.
November 28th, 2012 at 7:33 PM ^
There has been talk over the years of the major powers leaving the NCAA and/or creating another division for football. The 4 superconferences are not going to share their money/glory with a bunch of smaller conferences like the MAC. Instead, you will see them either create a new top division or tell the NCAA, "we are taking our ball and playing somewhere else" (in football at least).
This might not be a bad thing either. It's not like the NCAA enforces their rules.
Three of the conferences will definitely be the SEC, the PAC and the B1G. The ACC and Big12 will fight for the fourth spot with the teams from the losing conference being consumed by the 4 majors or left out completely.
November 28th, 2012 at 7:55 PM ^
if this (i.e. the 'take our ball and leave scenario") does indeed happen, i wouldn't be surprised if the conferences expand to 20-team conferences with 5-team divisions, 3 in-conference matchups against a team from each other division, one protected rivalry matchup, and 3 matchups against teams from the other 3 conferences.
then you could have a 4 team playoff of division winners for the conference title, and then a 4-team playoff for the national title, with losers/consolation brackets for the rest at the conference level, and
it'd lead to a 12-game schedule for all, and you could make the losers bracket at the conference level more relevant by tying the results to the remnants of the bowl system. plus, as close to legit playoff for the cream as you get.
November 28th, 2012 at 7:58 PM ^
Oh that's gonna piss them off!
November 28th, 2012 at 8:21 PM ^
fuck notre dame.
but it would normalize scheduling. and they could even schedule a preseason exhibition against a regional opponent against a non-top tier opponent. for example, imagine a michigan exhibition against EMU, an ohio exhibition against ... ohio, etc.
November 29th, 2012 at 3:34 PM ^
It would be interesting and it would have a huge impact on college basketball as well as other sports.
What happens to the ncaa basketball tournament, the college world series, the frozen four? I believe those all fall under the ncaa and generally involve a number of teams that would probably not be in the 4 super conferences (the college world series is generally teams from the 4 super conferences but the regionals and super regionals usually have a good representation from teams outside the 4 conferences).
November 28th, 2012 at 8:07 PM ^
November 28th, 2012 at 8:17 PM ^
At some point they'll go the way of the old SWC. When teams decide they want to stay in the MWC as opposed to joining your conference, you need to give it up. At least they have hoops and olympic sports.
November 29th, 2012 at 3:40 PM ^
is quickly going downhill too. WVU has left. Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville and ND are going to be leaving as well. Once all those teams have left, Big East basketball is going to be a shell of what it once was.
November 28th, 2012 at 8:18 PM ^
The 4th conference isn't the ACC, or the Big East. I can see what he's saying about conferences diluting themselves. The B1G added traditional powers Penn State, Nebraska, and TV/recruiting markets including DC, Baltimore, NJ, and NY, and the SEC expanded into South Carolina, Arkansas, added traditional power LSU, and A&M, and added TV/recruiting grounds near Houston and St Louis. Everybody else basically lost schools from the top, and/or added to the bottom.
November 28th, 2012 at 8:25 PM ^
Its the business side that matters and for that the order is B10, SEC, and Pac12. The ACC and Big12 are far behind and in my opinion with the Big12 having the edge, especially considering FSU's wandering eye.
November 28th, 2012 at 8:41 PM ^
There are essentially two eastern conferences (Big Ten and the SEC) while there are two western conferences (Big 12 and the Pac 12).
Can conferences get too big to serve the purpose that was intended? If you have a 20 team conferences, is there any difference between that and having two 10 team conferences?
I'd imagine that the flagship schools, or the schools with means, will get sick of sharing their money with the deadbeat schools such as Rutgers, Maryland, and those others that are on financial life support and cut them off. Maybe there are too many teams to begin with, and large conferences will be able to expose the fat that are the poor schools as to eliminate those programs all together. This frees up the additional revenue for those left standing.
There is absolutely no integrity in the NCAA. They are allowing this to happen. Maybe we should just detach football from education and call it what it is which is a minor league.
Ramble ramble ramble.
November 28th, 2012 at 9:15 PM ^
Why would the Flagship schools want to get rid of the others.? They pay for themselves. The collective whole of the B10 makes more money for each school than they could individually. That includes UM, OSU ect. Rutgers and Maryland will add much to the university, each bringing many new eyeballs to the BTN. You need to read what was posted above or take a look at this blog Frank the Tanks Slant.
Rutgers, combined with the YES network, will be a windfall for the B10. 20 million homes in the greater NYC area. Will the B10 teams see all of that? No, but it's still a very big payout per year. UMD, also put eyes on the screen and now has a jumping off point to go further into the growing Mid Atlantic states.
November 28th, 2012 at 10:21 PM ^
I understand that football is a business, but the game is being diluted severely by all of this conference expansion crap. I can even see at one point football players forming their own unions. Too many added games due to the playoffs, which will eventually grow to more than 4 teams, creates too much stress on the student athlete, and some teams threaten to stop playing altogether. It sounds insane but not totally unreasonable.
November 29th, 2012 at 8:50 AM ^
I actually do think it's entirely possible that big time college football can collapse on itself.
November 28th, 2012 at 11:08 PM ^
November 29th, 2012 at 8:43 AM ^
The promotion/relegation thing I don't think we will ever see in North American sports It is bad for business. I think if the Kansas schools do leave it will be for the same conference. Can't see the Ok schools leaving the Texas schools. It would severely damage their recruiting. The Pac12 could go pick off say Fresno St., SMU, Houston and SD St and get themselves to 16. No one thought they would take Utah and they did. Baylor to the Pac12 won't happen as Cal blocked them last time.
November 29th, 2012 at 10:46 AM ^
Utah is a flagship school, not bad academically, has decent sports, is located in a fast growing and economically well-off state, and fits the geography. I don't think it's correct to say that no one say Utah going to the Pac-12.
November 29th, 2012 at 10:47 AM ^
nm double post
November 29th, 2012 at 1:56 PM ^
However it shakes out, some schools are going to be just below the cut line and they're going to be pissed. A few of them will probably be schools that have recently dropped a lot of money into upgrading their programs. They're going to do what they can to bring legal pressure to bear--we've seen that already with the BCS and it's going to be much worse now. And the pressure will only build over time, with the usual and natural fluctuations in strength. Eventually somebody will do what Utah did a few years ago, mow through an undefeated season in a lesser conference, manhandle a major conference school in a bowl game, and the whole system will be threatened unless a pressure valve is built in.
It may take a restraint-of-trade class action to get it done, but I think it's eventually coming.
November 29th, 2012 at 9:01 AM ^
In fact, I've been making a similar argument for a while now based on the moves of the Pac10 and Big 10. And especially after the emergence of the 4 team playoff.
Everybody keeps talking "expansion" or "realignment" but the one consistent theme over the past few years has been the consolidation of power. We'd have 4 super conferences right now, today, if it were not for Notre Dame and Texas fighting to protect their little fiefdoms. Can they be broken & forced to conform? Will they continue to succeed by resisting? Or will the others simply leave them behind?
November 29th, 2012 at 11:10 AM ^
Can anyone explain to me what magical force will require conferences to get to 16 teams and then stay at 16 teams forever? Realignment is one of the most perfect examples of chaos and entropy, so why is there this belief that it will all sort itself out into perfect round harmonious numbers?
November 29th, 2012 at 11:43 AM ^
You need twelve teams to have a conference championship game.
Having an odd number of teams presents unequal divisions.
A division of eight teams is easier to deal with than one with seven.
Sixteen teams allows the possibility for a pod system with four teams each. Fifteen teams allows for three pods of five.
Thus 16 or 12>15>14>13>11 or fewer.
I expect there to be an eight team championship playoff in place before four megaconferences are formed (or both the Big East and one of Big 12/ACC fold). I would never, ever want to see the Big Ten have more than 16 teams, and am personally hoping for an eventual pod system.
Iowa/Nebraska/Minnesota/Wisconsin
Indiana/Purdue/Illinois/Northwestern
Michigan/Michigan State/Ohio State/???
Rutgers/Maryland/Penn State/???
November 29th, 2012 at 12:06 PM ^
Again: creating harmony and perfection out of a system where there is none. Against the mountain of evidence that the only thing that matters is money, money, money, where is the evidence that conferences and university presidents care about things like "divisions of eight teams are easy to deal with"?
November 29th, 2012 at 12:48 PM ^
My guess is that if you went to 18 and played 9 conference games (which is going to be a necessity) you would only have one cross over game which means you couldn't have protected cross divisional games. As to why they don't stop at 14 my only guess right no is that no one believes Rutgers and Maryland are the Big10's end game or that the SEC is going to stay where they are.
November 29th, 2012 at 1:59 PM ^
My guess is that if you went to 18 and played 9 conference games (which is going to be a necessity) you would only have one cross over game which means you couldn't have protected cross divisional games.
If a school or two is available that would bring in a ton of TV revenue, or a big new TV market, or is an elite academic or athletic school, and is willing to leave whatever conference they're in and join the B1G or the SEC, would the conference presidents go, "no thanks, don't need more money, it would mess up the football schedule"?
They've already proven the answer is no, no, a thousand times no, that would not happen. There's no reason to believe they'll suddenly do so in the future. Other than avoiding odd numbers, there is absolutely no concern about the schedule like that. Even in the avoidance of odd numbers like 13, the conferences have always made sure the 14th or 12th member brings something new.
November 29th, 2012 at 3:47 PM ^
My point was that if you go to 18 for all intensive purposes each division is really its own conference with a title game at the end. And by the time you get to 16 teams in each conference is their really going to be any schools left that are going to add value?
November 29th, 2012 at 5:32 PM ^
My point was that if you go to 18 for all intensive purposes each division is really its own conference with a title game at the end.
And?
Fans care about that. Conferences and presidents don't. Period. The sooner we all stop looking at this through a fan's eyes, the sooner we can make sense of this. Fans want tradition, decent scheduling, and harmony. Conferences and presidents want that if they can get 100 other factors sorted out first. Trying to make sense of conference realignment through the eyes of a fan is like trying to make sense of the American Revolution through the eyes of the Indians. Nobody gave (gives) a shit about what they (we) think is important.
In short, you're telling me reasons why we won't like it, not reasons that they won't do it.
Also: "for all intents and purposes." /grammarpolice
November 29th, 2012 at 6:00 PM ^
The fact that at some point adding more schools won't increase the amount of revenue each school is getting from the conference. Is that point 16 schools? I don't know. Where are the teams going to come from? The Big East is basically down to Uconn and maybe Cincinnati If you assume one of the Big12 or the ACC falls some of those schools will have value, but not all of them. To get to 16, the B10 would need to add 2, the SEC 2, the ACC 2 or the Big 12 6 and the Pac12 4. That's 10 or 14 teams right there. If you go up to 18 its 18 or 22 teams. If the Big12 did go down even and someone took Uconn and Cinc that's 12 teams. Where do you find another 6 teams?
November 29th, 2012 at 7:13 PM ^
In some respects you're making my point for me. For all five of these conferences to get to 16, you're right; the teams aren't out there to make it happen. Which is why there's no gravitational force in that direction.
But picture this scenario, which is an ACC doomsday scenario. FSU and Clemson go to the Big 12 (occasionally pops up in rumors) while at the same time NC State and VT go SEC (also occasionally in rumors.) The B1G has already grabbed UConn and BC. (Don't tell me about them being crappy programs; they're in big TV markets, and we added Rutgers, didn't we? If that doesn't float your boat, GT instead.) Practically every ounce of value is gone from the ACC, so UVA and UNC start shopping around. Those are two elite public schools; do you honestly think the Big Ten presidents are going to look at the chance to collaborate with UVA and UNC and say, "well, that's nice, but we have 16 teams and it would mess up the football schedule."
Then you'd have the B1G with 18, the SEC with 16, the Big 12 with 12, and almost no happy fans because schedules everywhere are a mess and not one ounce of harmony has been achieved. In that case I think people would start saying, "we're definitely headed for 4x20, no doubt about it, that's the future where all this is going."
To achieve 4x16, you have to figure that either the Big 12 is going to absorb a huge chunk of the ACC (because if they figured they'd get any money adding Boise State, they'd've done that already,) the Pac-12 is gonna have to add I don't even know who, or else the Big 12 will have to be carved up by the Pac-12, SEC, and B1G. Either way the scenarios that lead to that happy gumdrop cloud fantasy are extremely farfetched.
November 29th, 2012 at 2:36 PM ^
I'm not sure if I'd call it a magicl force, but I suspect that the sheer challenge facing whatever committee members tasked with choosing the 4 teams to participate in the playoff may compel many of the big wigs to find some stability.
I just read this little experiment on si.com where they formed a selection committee to hypothetically seed a 4 team playoff this year. The immediate take away is that it's a hell of a lot more difficult than they imagined with a lot of politics involved...and that was without even really considering the fact that a number of the participants were involved in realignment issues behind the scenes.
It won't be long before the appeal of 4 major conferences, each sending their champion to the playoff will become to appealingly simple to avoid. I'm willing to bet that within a few years we will have 4 major conferences. Whether they settle on 16, 18 or 20 teams, I have no idea but once they get it settled they will have a very powerful & stable cartel of major college football that should last forever.
November 29th, 2012 at 5:19 PM ^
But that is the main point - they won't settle on a number. Why must they all be the same size?
All those politics that are involved are a far greater force than stability. I wouldn't be surprised if, in five or ten years, realignment gets to the point where schools are kicked OUT of the conferences and cartels. After all, if you reshuffled the deck and started over, would anyone bother adding Mississippi State or Wake Forest?
November 30th, 2012 at 5:28 AM ^
Why wouldn't you add Mississippi State? The stadium's always packed and rocking, they draw better than Indiana or Illinois or Minnesota or Northwestern or Purdue, or Virginia for that matter. And competitively they're currently around #30 on the various computer algos, in what's a pretty typical year for them over the last couple of decades. It's a rare season they aren't one of the best 64 teams in the country.
There seem to be some weird regional biases popping up here. I can't imagine why Miss State wouldn't be part of the top half of the FBS unless we're going to start redlining certain regions as having an undesirable marketing demographic.
November 29th, 2012 at 6:08 AM ^
reveals how the forces of entropy are pulling it apart through geographic distribution alone. The ACC is not far behind, with some exceptions.* ND gives it less, rather than more integrity, and FSU has long been a mediocre fit, academically, with the likes of UVA and NC. I still think the best outcome for the B1G would be to get those two latter schools.
*The ACC is the premier league for women's soccer, for example, and a very big deal at most of its schools.
November 29th, 2012 at 2:01 PM ^
Conference USA has added Midd Tennesse State and FAU after losing Tulane and ECU. CUSA now has only 2 original members, UAB and S.Miss. After these latest moves the league will be at 14 by 2014, at which point only 6 of this years current teams will be in the league. The Sun Belt is now down to 8 teams