olivecourt
Well-Known Member
I'm not buying the idea that we are moving towards 16-team mega-conferences, either in the immediate or distant future. This is aside from the fact that I don't like the idea-- I actually don't think it will happen, and I think the way this idea is being hyped by the sports media ignores a few important factors. Why don't 16-team conferences make sense?
1. Sharing: If you cut a pizza into 16 slices, each slice will be smaller than if you cut it into 12. Why not just order a bigger pizza, aka, the mega-conference? I don't think that revenue will grow each time you add a team, at least not enough to make it worth cutting an sharing another piece. The revenue grows in two ways: First, by adding a 12th team so you can play a conference championship game; second, by adding a major television market/audience. Deace projects that the Big Ten will add Nebraska, Missouri, and Rutgers... but why wouldn't the Big Ten stop after adding just ONE of those teams? You've still got your conference championship game, and now you only have to split your BTN money 12 ways instead of 14. That's why Rutgers makes so much sense-- add the 12th team and a major market as a bonus. You could also add Nebraska OR Missouri and accept that you aren't capturing a substantially larger TV audience, but at least you can now play a conference championship game. But adding Nebraska and Missouri (or Syracuse and Pitt) ON TOP of Rutgers doesn't add enough revenue to make the extra sharing worthwhile. And that's why Notre Dame is the holy grail-- you get a conference championship game and a NATIONWIDE TV audience, all for only one extra share.
2. Travel takes time and costs money: People talk about Texas as though the other Big Ten teams would just have to schedule one football game there every other year. How about Penn State women's basketball at Texas on a weeknight? That's over 1,500 miles... not exactly like chartering a small plane from Iowa City to Columbus. Baseball, soccer, gymnastics, swimming... all of these sports are required to have a certain number of conference matchups, and the more the athletic department is spending on those teams, the faster they chew up their football/BTN revenue. I haven't even mentioned fan travel yet... how many Michigan State fans do you think are making the trek to Austin? How many Syracuse fans would come to Minneapolis? You take away the opportunities for fans to travel to games and you lose what makes the Big Ten special.
3. Identity: The Big Ten, the SEC, and the PAC-10 are the gold standards for the athletic conferences. The PAC-10 has been the same for 30+ years-- and when they did expand, they added Arizona and ASU, schools from contiguous states. The league has an identity-- big public schools (except USC and Stanford) on the West Coast and Arizona, and it has a presence in every major media market in the Pacific time zone. The SEC has an identity as well-- 10 schools have been in it since the league was formed in the 30s, and Arkansas and South Carolina were added in 1991. You never hear rumors about teams leaving the SEC-- they all fit together. You can look at a map and point to SEC country, just like you can point to Big Ten country.
Does the Big East have an identity? You think basketball, and rightly so, but that's mostly the old Big East. How does South Florida fit in with that tradition? What do schools like Marquette share with Louisville? How fired up do you think the UConn baseball team gets for a Thursday afternoon game at Cincinnati? The Big East, like the Big 12, overexpanded, taking on too many teams too fast, and now they have no identity.
4. The Big 12: If you want a model for how not to expand, look at the old Big 8, which took on four teams with no attention to geography (Ames to Austin is 1,000 miles), identity, traditional rivalries (Oklahoma/Nebraska), or academics (paging Texas Tech). How has it worked out for the original members? Great for Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, which play in the South Division and its huge media markets. OK for Kansas, which now seems to have a pulse on the football field and is developing a basketball rivalry with Texas. Meh for Kansas State and Missouri. Terrible for Colorado and Nebraska.... just terrible. They used to be nationally relevant, and now they are not. We all know how ISU is faring in the Big 12. Now add the fact that they are freaked out (justifiably so) about losing teams only 15 years after they added them, and tell me why the Big 10 should take a similarly cavalier approach to adding teams?
I think a lot of the 14- and 16-team stuff that's being thrown around is a smokescreen to put pressure on certain schools, especially Notre Dame. Ultimately, I see the Big Ten adding one school, and then they other conferences playing musical chairs to replace the member they lose. I could also see the PAC-10 going to 12 teams and trying for a TV network, although I think they would do so with care and caution. I do not think the era of the mega-conference is at hand, now or in the future.
1. Sharing: If you cut a pizza into 16 slices, each slice will be smaller than if you cut it into 12. Why not just order a bigger pizza, aka, the mega-conference? I don't think that revenue will grow each time you add a team, at least not enough to make it worth cutting an sharing another piece. The revenue grows in two ways: First, by adding a 12th team so you can play a conference championship game; second, by adding a major television market/audience. Deace projects that the Big Ten will add Nebraska, Missouri, and Rutgers... but why wouldn't the Big Ten stop after adding just ONE of those teams? You've still got your conference championship game, and now you only have to split your BTN money 12 ways instead of 14. That's why Rutgers makes so much sense-- add the 12th team and a major market as a bonus. You could also add Nebraska OR Missouri and accept that you aren't capturing a substantially larger TV audience, but at least you can now play a conference championship game. But adding Nebraska and Missouri (or Syracuse and Pitt) ON TOP of Rutgers doesn't add enough revenue to make the extra sharing worthwhile. And that's why Notre Dame is the holy grail-- you get a conference championship game and a NATIONWIDE TV audience, all for only one extra share.
2. Travel takes time and costs money: People talk about Texas as though the other Big Ten teams would just have to schedule one football game there every other year. How about Penn State women's basketball at Texas on a weeknight? That's over 1,500 miles... not exactly like chartering a small plane from Iowa City to Columbus. Baseball, soccer, gymnastics, swimming... all of these sports are required to have a certain number of conference matchups, and the more the athletic department is spending on those teams, the faster they chew up their football/BTN revenue. I haven't even mentioned fan travel yet... how many Michigan State fans do you think are making the trek to Austin? How many Syracuse fans would come to Minneapolis? You take away the opportunities for fans to travel to games and you lose what makes the Big Ten special.
3. Identity: The Big Ten, the SEC, and the PAC-10 are the gold standards for the athletic conferences. The PAC-10 has been the same for 30+ years-- and when they did expand, they added Arizona and ASU, schools from contiguous states. The league has an identity-- big public schools (except USC and Stanford) on the West Coast and Arizona, and it has a presence in every major media market in the Pacific time zone. The SEC has an identity as well-- 10 schools have been in it since the league was formed in the 30s, and Arkansas and South Carolina were added in 1991. You never hear rumors about teams leaving the SEC-- they all fit together. You can look at a map and point to SEC country, just like you can point to Big Ten country.
Does the Big East have an identity? You think basketball, and rightly so, but that's mostly the old Big East. How does South Florida fit in with that tradition? What do schools like Marquette share with Louisville? How fired up do you think the UConn baseball team gets for a Thursday afternoon game at Cincinnati? The Big East, like the Big 12, overexpanded, taking on too many teams too fast, and now they have no identity.
4. The Big 12: If you want a model for how not to expand, look at the old Big 8, which took on four teams with no attention to geography (Ames to Austin is 1,000 miles), identity, traditional rivalries (Oklahoma/Nebraska), or academics (paging Texas Tech). How has it worked out for the original members? Great for Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, which play in the South Division and its huge media markets. OK for Kansas, which now seems to have a pulse on the football field and is developing a basketball rivalry with Texas. Meh for Kansas State and Missouri. Terrible for Colorado and Nebraska.... just terrible. They used to be nationally relevant, and now they are not. We all know how ISU is faring in the Big 12. Now add the fact that they are freaked out (justifiably so) about losing teams only 15 years after they added them, and tell me why the Big 10 should take a similarly cavalier approach to adding teams?
I think a lot of the 14- and 16-team stuff that's being thrown around is a smokescreen to put pressure on certain schools, especially Notre Dame. Ultimately, I see the Big Ten adding one school, and then they other conferences playing musical chairs to replace the member they lose. I could also see the PAC-10 going to 12 teams and trying for a TV network, although I think they would do so with care and caution. I do not think the era of the mega-conference is at hand, now or in the future.
