Still haven't heard a reason that this is good for college football. I think a handful of writers are blowing this up into something it isn't. I don't think the Big Ten is putting much consideration into expansion beyond 12. I don't mind if people want to talk about it, but the reality is, its a horrible idea.
Okay, I will try, but you probably will not agree:
1) It would align the conferences up much better for a playoff system to be put in place. The current conference system has too much discrepancy between each conference. By going to four superconferences, it would be just be easier to seed a playoff.
Counterpoint 1) The bowl system is great, we need to keep it. It rewards more teams for their season, because like 30 teams get to end the season on a high note. Sure three or four teams might be disappointed, but that doesn't outweigh the 50 some odd teams that are just happy to be in a bowl.
Counterpoint to counterpoint 1. This was all fine and dandy pre-BCS. But the BCS pushed things closer to a playoff system and the momentum is not stopping until you scrap the BCS and go back to the old system. Guess what? It ain't happening.
Counterpoint 2)- Well, why don't we just move down to having 8 10 team conferences? That would make it even more easy to seed a playoff. You could eat up a few more of the non-BCS conference teams and the others would just have to drop down to FCS - which is probably where they belong already. (In fact the research shows this to be the case. Teams that jump from FCS to FBS end up worse financially).
Counterpoint to Counterpoint 2
Smaller conferences don't make as much money as bigger conferences.
2) Many college athletic programs are bleeding financially. The amount of money that it takes to run a top flight athletic program is staggering. At the same time, Regents and educators are getting squeezed more and more by reduced appropriations and rising costs of education. At Iowa, staff have been put on furlough in this last year.
If you can increase the overall revenue in the major sports, you can support your others sports. Iowa is unique in that it does not take student fees to pay for athletics. One reason this is possible is because of the BTN.
3) The BTN has changed the climate forever. The Big Ten was the driving force in the changing landscape. The SEC has the great ESPN contract. But they still don't come close to matching the Big Ten's revenue. What does this mean? It means that someone else is going to try to jump in this market. What is the problem with that? Well, no other league has the make-up to be able to support such a move... not yet. That "not yet" is what is driving a lot of this conversation.
If the Big Ten waits and lets another conference, or two, make their strategic move, then the Big Ten will be responding from a negative or at least closer to equal position. Right now, the Big Ten has an overwhelming position of strength. Better deals happen when you have the most leverage.
4) The BTN will not make more money unless it is able to move into other markets and/or get moved to the expanded basic package on most cable companies. As of right now, the BTN really is just a regional network. However, if they were able to take over the television sets along the Eastern Seaboard, they would move far beyond the regional level. Also, they would be in the unique situation of not having to worry about most of the huge empty spaces West of the Mississippi and East of the Rockies.
However, if the BTN lets this area slip away to a competitor, then it will be locked down as a regional network. Basically, it is just a huge opportunity for growth that has a shelf life.
So to summarize, all of this breaks down into 2 key areas of improvement in college football. 1) Better system for choosing a true national champion and 2) More revenue for Big Ten athletic programs, of which football is a part.
