Yes, Gunner, I have come around to thinking of Temple as a viable candidate for a new Big East after reading Bullet's analysis of the situation. Even if Temple continues to be terrible for football, at least they play I-A football & can be an all-sports partner. Villanova has said that it has no intention of upgrading to I-A. Ergo, Temple is it for the Philly market & the Big East would be very, very foolish to abandon the Philly market - even if they only would have it for basketball.
Re my comments about college football above - partly tongue-in-cheek - I am reacting to defenders of the idea that the BCS schools should keep the bowls to themselves because they earn the money. And the idea that something other than a team's competitiveness should be a factor in a team's participation in a bowl or - God forbid. - a play-off. The idea that a team "travels well" & therefore should be chosen over a team that has better credentials. That's tantamount to saying the rich should get richer. Well, those same folks look just a little bit hypocritical if they turn around & criticize the Yankees.
Yes, there are differences & baseball does operate as a single entity vs the way college operates. However, wishing for a salary cap in baseball is a little like wishing for a play-off system in college football. Wishing won't make it so. The reality is that when it comes to revenues, major league teams don't operate as a single entity - & just like college football, tradition is part of the reason for this.
Listening to the smaller markets whine after begging for a place at the table is a little like listening to the non-BCS schools whine for a place at the table & then not have the resources to compete. I did an analysis of baseball markets a few years ago - which I won't bother to post here - & just suffice it to say that some of the teams that label themselves "small markets" are not so small & others like Atlanta are small, but due to creative marketing efforts (TBS) have managed to expand their potential.
Majorr league baseball doesn't have a national TV contract & never will. Given the scheduling differences between it & the NFL, there is no way to have anything comparable. The problem in baseball is twofold, it seems to me.
1. There are franchises in major league baseball that are not in major league cities. There is just not enough of a population base in some of these places to compete. Remember, baseball is a sport in which people go to the game after work & then go home & have to get up for work the next morning. So, a baseball team is pretty much limited to the population in its immediate metro area. In contrast, people will drive 3-4 hours to a Sunday afternoon football game, tailgate, go to the game, & still have plenty of time to get home that night. Because of this, a small city like Green Bay can survive in the NFL & sell out every game. If they didn't they would be blacked out & then pressured by the league to move.
2. The other side of this coin is that major league baseball has a territorial rule that gives teams exclusive rights to a 75 mile geographic radius around their city. The Yankees had to waive this back in 1962 in order for the Met franchise to be established. It seems to me that the quickest way to break up the Yankees is to introduce competition into their marketplace. Get rid of the territorial rule. Metro New York is a megalopolis unlike anything else in this country - almost 25 million people. There are enough people in this region to easily support 5 major league baseball franchises - not just two.
If major league baseball moved their franchises to where the people are, revenue would not be a problem - except for those cases of mismanagement. The Yankees have no revenue advantage over the Mets - same market. The Mets owned New York in the early '70s & again in the mid '80s. In each case, they blew it. They don't have the resources the Yankees do because they refused to invest in their product, made poor business decisions when they did, & failed to develop new revenue streams. The Yankees did just the opposite. Major League Baseball didn't develop the Yankees revenue streams, the Yankees did. Nothing was handed to them. They were a disaster when Steinbrenner bought them after the '73 season. Why should the Yankees hand over their revenue to other teams who did nothing to develop this revenue?
Why are the LA Dodgers not the dynasty they were for 30 years? Disney has ruined them over the past 15 years. They have enormous market potential & every bit the name recognition of the Yankees. But they have been mismanaged since they were sold. Meanwhile, the Angels have emerged as a successful franchise right in their own backyard & will continue to flourish & grow if they continue to be well managed. It's no coincidence that both the Yankees & Dodgers declined under corporate ownership - CBS in the case of the Yankees. Teams with hands-on private ownership that are committed to winning - like the obnoxious Steinbrenner - will always do much better.
So, bottom line . . . to me the Major League Baseball situation has a very simple solution - get out of the small, unproductive markets & introduce competition into the larger, under-developed markets.
Unfortunately, the small markets want socialism. The big markets will never give it to them. The players' union will never allow it. So, the small markets cling to the hope that the mirage of revenue sharing will solve their problems. Until they end their delusion, the situation will continue.
And what if they implemented revenue sharing? Nirvana? No . . . Parity (I got the spelling right this time, although maybe the other spelling would be better here too? ;D) - just like the NFL. And then people would be longing for the good old days when we had great teams & great rivalries.