Conference Realignment

sunnyheel

sunnyheel

Member
Messages
24
I have no information to share but an interest in the subject that I have looked to IC for.

Personally, I think the ACC is irretrievably broken and must be reorganized in relation to the power dynamics of today and suspect it’ll be resolved within the year with the application of funds to the losers.
 
The ACC simply can't keep up financially with the BIG and SEC. In an age of naked financial cynicism at the uppermost level of college sports, tradition and geography only mean something to the power brokers insofar as those factors contribute to the bottom line.

As a kid, a colony on Mars would've seemed more plausible than A&M, Texas, and Texas Tech not playing each other every year. Frankly, I don't long for those times, as the SEC is a grossly better viewing experience, but I do miss a more naive time in college sports when fans didn't include athletic department revenues and budgets in their shit-talking.
 
aGDevil2k said:
We are rapidly nearing a time, I believe, where there are conferences and then there are football leagues. And they aren't the same. The insanity to have softball teams and soccer teams traveling 20,000 miles a year for conference games will reach a breaking point
Click to expand...
Just bring on the baby NFL at this point.
 
This won't be resolved IMO until AAA decides what to do
Apple. Amazon,. Alphabet

The demise of the lucrative cable system means the networks won't be able to offer wshat they could when they negotiated the B1G and SEC deals a few years back.
And the CFP payout won't be able to sustain what will happen with the NIL wars (without a CBA, this will spin compltely out of control quickly) and the settlement with athletes.
I think a lot of schools will give up trying to be Top 25 in football, just aim to be 500 most of the time, and direct monies to the other sports where they might have a shot at national relevance and which ESPN is interested in for yar-round programming
 
RockyMtnHoo said:
FSU & Clemson to the SEC.

UNC & UVa to the Big Ten.
Click to expand...
just don't care to play maryland, rutgers, iowa, nebraska, iowa st,, illinois, purdue, indiana, michigan st, northwestern, and minnesota. At all, ever, in any sport
Those are the only teams we could compete with in football (didn't include ucla because would like to play them in other sports but we could compete with them in football). The others would kick our teeth in.

Vs

florida, usuck, vandy, kentucky, ole miss, miss st, arkansas, tex a&m, missouri, auburn
Would rather get our teeth kicked in by the sec powers than the big 10 powers
 
aGDevil2k said:
We are rapidly nearing a time, I believe, where there are conferences and then there are football leagues. And they aren't the same. The insanity to have softball teams and soccer teams traveling 20,000 miles a year for conference games will reach a breaking point
Click to expand...
Agreed. I think the model we're heading for - which is to have two or maybe three megaconferences, each with 20-plus members, literally drawn from all over the country - simply isn't sustainable in the long run, either financially or in terms of maintaining rivalries and even fan interest. Even with increased payouts many schools simply won't be able to afford to send all of their men and women's sports teams halfway or all the way across the country to compete on a regular basis. I also think that as traditional rivalries are broken up and just a handful of teams dominate each conference in football and basketball each year (and they will) that resentment by the "have nots" will grow every year until a breaking point is reached. Add in that ESPN and Cable are a dying model and the huge payouts everyone is expecting may not be possible long-term and you've got a ticking time bomb for college sports.

I think what is probably going to happen over the next couple of decades is what you've suggested - college football will break away and form its own league, with all other sports (including basketball) likely going back to smaller, more geography-oriented conferences to save travel expenses and restore rivalries and fan interest in college sports. I don't think the idea of having 60+ college teams in just 3 conferences is going to sustainable or practical for the long haul.
 
sunnyheel said:
I have no information to share but an interest in the subject that I have looked to IC for.

Personally, I think the ACC is irretrievably broken and must be reorganized in relation to the power dynamics of today and suspect it’ll be resolved within the year with the application of funds to the losers.
Click to expand...
Sunny! Good to see you here. I hadn't seen you on ZZLP for a while. I always liked your posts.
 
Mulberry Heel said:
Agreed. I think the model we're heading for - which is to have two or maybe three megaconferences, each with 20-plus members, literally drawn from all over the country - simply isn't sustainable in the long run, either financially or in terms of maintaining rivalries and even fan interest. Even with increased payouts many schools simply won't be able to afford to send all of their men and women's sports teams halfway or all the way across the country to compete on a regular basis. I also think that as traditional rivalries are broken up and just a handful of teams dominate each conference in football and basketball each year (and they will) that resentment by the "have nots" will grow every year until a breaking point is reached. Add in that ESPN and Cable are a dying model and the huge payouts everyone is expecting may not be possible long-term and you've got a ticking time bomb for college sports.

I think what is probably going to happen over the next couple of decades is what you've suggested - college football will break away and form its own league, with all other sports (including basketball) likely going back to smaller, more geography-oriented conferences to save travel expenses and restore rivalries and fan interest in college sports. I don't think the idea of having 60+ college teams in just 3 conferences is going to sustainable or practical for the long haul.
Click to expand...
One conference with 32-48 teams.

Schools such as Mississippi State, Rutgers, Purdue (or Indiana), Vanderbilt, Missouri, Maryland, South Carolina, Arkansas,g Notth
 
Mulberry Heel said:
Agreed. I think the model we're heading for - which is to have two or maybe three megaconferences, each with 20-plus members, literally drawn from all over the country - simply isn't sustainable in the long run, either financially or in terms of maintaining rivalries and even fan interest. Even with increased payouts many schools simply won't be able to afford to send all of their men and women's sports teams halfway or all the way across the country to compete on a regular basis. I also think that as traditional rivalries are broken up and just a handful of teams dominate each conference in football and basketball each year (and they will) that resentment by the "have nots" will grow every year until a breaking point is reached. Add in that ESPN and Cable are a dying model and the huge payouts everyone is expecting may not be possible long-term and you've got a ticking time bomb for college sports.

I think what is probably going to happen over the next couple of decades is what you've suggested - college football will break away and form its own league, with all other sports (including basketball) likely going back to smaller, more geography-oriented conferences to save travel expenses and restore rivalries and fan interest in college sports. I don't think the idea of having 60+ college teams in just 3 conferences is going to sustainable or practical for the long haul.
Click to expand...
I never understood the desire for mega conferences. It seems like the haves will always be trying to get away from the have nots to avoid revenue sharing. I have always felt that this was an arms race between the SEC power schools and the Big 10 power schools to reach a critical mass of teams to destroy the NCAA and then re-write the rules to benefit themselves. At that point the have-nots will be kicked aside.
 
altmin said:
I never understood the desire for mega conferences. It seems like the haves will always be trying to get away from the have nots to avoid revenue sharing. I have always felt that this was an arms race between the SEC power schools and the Big 10 power schools to reach a critical mass of teams to destroy the NCAA and then re-write the rules to benefit themselves. At that point the have-nots will be kicked aside.
Click to expand...
That is my assumption as well. What I am hoping is a critical mass happens to separate and then a geographic restructuring happens after a merger
 
altmin said:
I never understood the desire for mega conferences. It seems like the haves will always be trying to get away from the have nots to avoid revenue sharing. I have always felt that this was an arms race between the SEC power schools and the Big 10 power schools to reach a critical mass of teams to destroy the NCAA and then re-write the rules to benefit themselves. At that point the have-nots will be kicked aside.
Click to expand...
And then the Big Boys come after the juicy March Madness money
 
I'm not convinced the ACC is going to die, and it's possible we could be stuck in it for longer than we hope, because the reality of the situation is this: there are probably four schools that will be better off getting out of the ACC (UNC, UVA, Clemson, FSU) and 13 schools for whom the status quo is almost certainly better than if those four schools leave. The amount of money the first four schools are doing to have to come up with to placate the other 13 is likely enormous, and unless and until the GOR is defeated in court (an argument I think the ACC has the better side of, though it's certainly not a guarantee) the 13 schools have an enormous amount of leverage to wait for an offer they can't refuse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top