Well, you confused me.

Right now FBS has 5 "have" conferences and 5 "have nots".
The all got together, and the "haves" (the Big 5) told the others how it's gonna be... we will give you one slot in an access bowl woth $86 mill to split up.
The Big 5 all get $60 - $80+ mill / year PLUS one would expect their schools will likely get all 4 semi-final spots and then the 2 spots in the finals worth what ??? -
I think ESPN is paying $700 mill / year for the whole ball of wax, and the Big 5 are likely to get all but $86 million.
So that's an average of well over $100,000,000 PER BIG 5 CONFERENCE EACH YEAR.

My question is "why does the Big 5 need to consolidate to 4 ?"
(which is another way of asking - what's the problem with stopping expansion right here at 14, and letting the BigXII and ACC continue to exist as the status quo) ?.

4 fits into a bracket nicely (if they were planning to exclude everyone else) but if they are going ahead with the announced format for the next 12 years,
5 conferences works just fine (those 5 are getting the lion's share of the money) SO I only see a need to consolidate to 4, if those 4 were planning on splitting off
and each of the 4 conference champions automatically qualifies for the 4 spots in the National Championship Bracket...

What is your vision of where this is all headed ? (I guess that is the grand question everyone should be asking Devany, Scott, Slive, Bowlsby, and Swofford ...)

tute79,
it would be same argument on why they did not keep the old BCS six conference automatic bid system and allow the Big East a seat at the table.

With four playoff spots, one of the so called current Big Five will always be left out of the playoff each year.

Of course the power of the SEC football could get two of the four playoff spots each year and leave two of the power leagues out, it just more easy to control the playoff with four super conferences as opposed to five power leagues.

It is not a matter of if and just when we get to four super leagues.

The Big Ten actually wanted to control this issue by supporting the plus one bowl which is the primary reason we have the Sugar Bowl alliance with the Big 12 and SEC. The Rose and Sugar Bowl winners would have most likely always advanced to the plus one.

The SEC and for that matter the Big 12 did not want to be limited to one playoff spot and the plus one got overridden by the four team playoff.

It does not change the fact the SEC, Big 12, Big Ten, and Pac 12 wanted to control the money and the playoff.

There's got to be a point of diminishing return. Say, roughly, for each power conference to add, the figure may come in around 23 to 24 million per school per year for a start. The quantity of games factored in, given just 12 regular season games for fb alone, impact costs that are not always outwardly presented. Then there are the auxillary costs, more referees, administrative personnel, overhead, etc. Such could go up or down on each factor with expansion, but assume the overall costs would go up.

Again, where's the point of diminishing return? Is every expansion assured be a profit? Some are operating that way through selective choice.

As to the BTN, I received that from the onset on basic cable. Then, I was dwelling in a B10 city. But even being now over 600 miles away from a B1G campus, I receive the BTN on the basic satellite package. The BTN already has major/wide distribution, including some areas way removed. OK, new adds will enhance viewership; but how much based on repeat games and down-the-line conference games that are far from the game-of-the-week carried elsewhere by contract?

The B12 has been arguing that 10 works for them, and implying there's been little out there that's available to make additions profitable. Maybe an alliance is the way to go with the ACC or whomever--group with the best quality schools available that are already organized, but must deal with them all.

In an alliance with the B12 as is, a school such as Clemson may have one game they could schedule with the B12 in fb per season. Say Clemson plays 8 ACC games plus it is their rotation to play ND. That's 9 games. And, they must play So. Carolina, that's 10. And say they want another series with nearby Georgia which they have forthcoming, that could be 11 or simply it get's canceled with little future possibilities. And what if they want to continue having that softie game with a school such as Furman, Wofford, or SC State? There's pressures for that. GT, FSU, may have at least similar constraints. And for bb, is it really needed? Yes, to head off certain possible extractions, not for current scheduling.

If "all" divide into smaller pods, both the B12 and the ACC, that can offer more rotations as Lash suggested; there's still a minimum of conference games required. So for the alliance to work, there would have to be re-configurations and new cores. Thus, using Clemson again, they may not be playing some current others such as Duke, UNC, BC, etc., except on rotation; and grouped with some schools far away.

It could work, but there's got to be more to it than calling it an alliance. It would be more like "unification", then re-structure the associations of all the member schools. That'll be a new fuss if such come to fruitation.

5 is good but 4 is better (if you make it in the 4), look the ACC squeaked into the Big 5 by the hair of their chinny chin chin, the Orange bowl didn't want them and noone wanted to partner up their champ with them (outside of the nBE/MWC) so they made the deal with the devil that is ND and then were able to get the SEC/B1G to jump on board. The Orange bowl is a good deal for the SEC/B1G but they could be playing in it every year against each other rather than an ACC team by simply eliminating along with the Big 12 which really has no great expansion options to keep up with its Northern/Eastern neighbors.

Imagine this, the SEC expands with NCSU and VPI, the Big Ten grabs UNC and UVA, and then then Big 12 swoopes in to establish a Eastern wing with Miami, FSU, GATech, Clemson, Duke, Pitt, Syracuse, and Lville to join up with WVU to make a nice 18 team league. Then ND decides to finally join the Big Ten along with Boston College. And boom the ACC is gone except Wake.

Now we have 6 BCS type games to seed that could be...
Rose PAC12/B1G
Fiesta B12/PAC12
Cotton PAC12/SEC
Sugar SEC/B12
Peach B12/B1G
Orange B1G/SEC

Every major conference plays each other and obviously we could work the semi finals into this system.

Using my conference realignment predictions above and the final BCS rankings (prior to the bowls) as an example we could have had these match-ups. Sub 15. NILL above the lowest ranked team

Rose PAC12/B1G 13. Oregon St v 18. Michigan (sub 16 Neb if tOSU eligible) 15. NILL would play here
Fiesta B12/PAC12 6. Stanford v 12. Florida St (as a B12 school)
Cotton PAC12/SEC 2. Bama v 4. Oregon (SEMI FINAL)
Sugar SEC/B12 3. Florida v 11. Oklahoma
Peach B12/B1G 1. ND (as a B1G school) v 5. K State (SEMI FINAL)
Orange B1G/SEC 7. Georgia v 16. Nebraska (or undefeated Ohio St if eligible)

This way every conference has 3 BCS games (I'd be fine with putting a clause that the lowest ranked BCS team must forfeit its spot to a nonAQ if ranked higher that way 15/ NILL would replace 18. Michigan in the Rose or 16. Nebraska if tOSU was eligible)

So you consolidate power to 4 conferences who have more negotiating power and secures the best bowls, TV deals, and even things like educational/research grants for their members over other conferences and add plenty of inventory for these networks to show upto 2-3 fb games most Saturdays ntm basketball/baseball and sports like Hockey/LAX.

Then again, this might repeat in 2025 (when the Big 12 GOR is up) and we might end up with a PAC20, Big20, and SEC (of 20) where everyone gets 4 BCS games.

Rose PAC12/B1G
Fiesta PAC12/B1G
Cotton PAC12/SEC
Sugar B1G/SEC
Peach PAC12/SEC
Orange B1G/SEC

Then who knows maybe the B1G/P12 merge and join forces culminating in a raid of the SEC.

Wow I really started rambling...

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

Ultimately here's the biggest problem I see. If the SEC and Big 10 are making 25 million (these are going to be rough numbers so take this with a grain of salt). Expansion is supposedly going to take them to around 35 million a year. If you add 2 to 16 you'll need to add 210 million to reach 35/school/year, which means each school is worth 105 million EACH! If a school is worth that they should be calling all the shots.

So either that's impossible or the ACC is DRASTICALLY undervalued. If 2 schools can bring in 210 million that split 15 ways (even giving ND a full share) already gives the ACC 14 million PER SCHOOL without factoring in any other school. And if there are 4 schools worth that the ACC should be the wealthiest conference in NCAA.

And finally, we currently have 5 major conferences with a total of 64 schools (12, 10, 14, 14, 14). From what we've been told, we should expect 12, 16, 16, 18 or 62 schools total. So instead of splitting all the money among the 5 conferences and 64 major schools (who control most of the wealth already), they will give the money to the 4 major conferences making up 60-62 schools. So am I to believe that there are 2-4 schools in the ACC that are so bad that they are dragging everyone else down? Wake Forest is not that bad.

Expansion will add more inventory which in turn means either 3rd tier games for their networks AND give them bigger TV deals all around.

Adding Maryland and Rutger was less about their status as AAU institutions in contiguous states (that justed help them sell it to the college presidents) and more about markets and inventory.

The Big Ten thinks they can sell their network to more areas (i.e. get Time Warner to carry it in NYC and DC) thanks to these schools and by sheer population numbers of Maryland/DC and NJ/NYC they stand to make a pretty penny if successful.

While adding markets brings some value, its still probably not enough to warrant the 200 million a year increase on their own, its increasing the inventory of Big Ten live programing which is what will make them the most money.

By increasing the inventory from 6 games a week (in conference play assuming they move to a 9 game conference schedule) to 7 games a week is where that increase in money comes from. Also if you consider OOC play most schools will have 2 home OOC games a year which means MD/Rutger bring in an additional 9 in-conference games and 4 home OOC games a year to the Big Ten's upcoming TV negotiations and (for those lesser games) the Big Ten network.

Add in that now at 14 the Big Ten is moving from an 8 game conference schedule to a 9 game conference schedule, meaning higher quality games and less MAC that a fully controlled by the conference,and the fact that the Big Ten get go negotiate after every else and will probably make more money based on that alone, and you can see how MD/Rutgers can bring in 200 million a year using this model, which is also why Delaney think 16 or 18 could be even more profitable especially if they get ND, UNC, UVA, BC (for the market), GA Tech (for the market), or FSU (for everything).

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

No I cannot see it. The games are no more interesting to the people in the region, if anything MD vs Purdue is going to be far less interesting than an ACC matchup. Maryland and Rutgers will not be playing in any more games. And technically the number of games per school will be decreased as there is still only one CCG for 16 schools as there is for 12. The CCG is no more valuable now than it was before.

Are you telling me that MD is worth 100 million and there are several other ACC schools that will be worth just as much but ONLY if they move conferences? You're telling me there is a half a billion dollars per year to be made among 6 ACC schools but only the Big 10 and SEC will be able to figure out how to get it? All because they're going to have 16 teams instead of 14? If that's all it takes UConn and Cincy would join right now and the ACC would be freaking rich.

If it's just one school that the Big 10 takes then I can see how it makes sense. MD somehow could be the most valuable school being pulled down by the NC schools. But if there are 4 schools the B1G can bring in and they all bring 70 million plus each, then the ACC is completely screwed up. If there are really 5 schools in the ACC that can bring in 250-300 million per year and the ACC leadership is unable to get it then a lot of people need to be fired. They have just as much inventory as the Big 10 and they are in larger states so they have more people that would watch an ACC network.

I stick by it. And I was told I would be eating crow by now, but the ACC will remain intact. There is a lot more money to be made in a coastal conference since those states are much larger.

Here's what you're missing. The Big Ten is in a good spot to make money while the ACC is not. FB drives the bus, and ACC fb has been bad. Up until this year ESPN had been talking about who played or should have played for a title and they've mentioned more WAC, MWC, and Big East teams than ACC teams. No network wants to pay for that despite having a solid grouping of schools they just can't seem to turn it into an attractive product. So how could they get more money per school than the Big 4 or sell a network in these areas when fan support is so low.

The Big Ten on the other hand has rabid fans that travel and watch which gets their network picked up nationally and will land one of the largest TV deals in a few years because people watch.

You can make the same argument for the SEC.

The ACC schools (other than Wake) are attractive pieces but as a whole are very blah. The ACC has its TV/Bowl deals and they are not impressive. It's like Texas A&M wasn't all that important or valuable to the Big12 but is a hell of a lot more valuable to the SEC as a foothold in a large media market that helps recruiting and spreading the brand.

Let me also point out how the SEC with more teams was able to place 6 in the top 12 this year since they don't all play each other like the Big12, I think that also will help boost ratings and thus possible TV dollars in the future as in the 14 team SEC its possible to have more 1-2 loss teams and flood the ranking while in smaller leagues its harder if not impossible (which is another reason I see future expansion coming to copy this).

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

Great discussion !

I can see that SJSU is buying into the "law of diminishing returns" (that sec mentions) kicking in.

I think we're close to that point, but I honestly don't know whether things will settle down in the current alignment or whether the ACC gets devoured by the SEC / Big XII / B1G.
I think it ultimately comes down to whether UVa and UNC hold the line or decide to make he move.
I feel like there is a lot of political resistance to UVa and UNC leading the exodus. However, if the ACC starts to get picked apart from around the edges, that cahnges the equation.

If you believe that Notre Dame has a strong preference for the ACC over the Big Ten, then Notre Dame football could wind up being leaned on...
If the ACC were about to be gobbbled up, Notre Dame (independence be damned !!) will NOT want to be left on the outside of the 4 Super-Conferences, looking in.
So the ACC could approach them and insist that they go "all in" with the ACC, or they will fall into Delany's arms.
Adding Notre Dame football on a shared revenue basis could allow the ACC to renegotiate TV contracts or make an ACC Network much more viable.

Yeah there has to be a point where that happens, it's simple economics. TV networks can't give each school another 5 million a year for each school a conference adds or you'd never stop expanding. The market has deemed around 25 million to be an average amount per school among the Big 5 (that's factoring bowls, tv, tourney shares etc). There are some schools worth more and some less (and that's true in every conference). The B1G and SEC are apparently trying to weed out the schools that are worth more which will bring up their average at the expense of the ACC's average. In theory, 7 ACC schools should be above the 25 million (or whatever their exact per school number is) and 7 below. If the B1G takes 4 and SEC takes 2, the Big 12 adding the leftovers should decrease their average (that's simple math).

MD coming to the B1G does not result in more games being played. There are still 12 games whether they are televised on the ACC's contract or the B1G's. Why are they worth more if they are televised on the B1G's network or on an ACC network? The answer is obvious, they aren't. The same is true for the other ACC schools. And more than likely MD games vs regional opponents are probably more valuable than MD vs Iowa for example.

What I'm getting at is if it is possible for all those ACC schools to leave for those three conferences and all three conferences see an increase in revenue per school then the ACC is being dramatically undervalued currently. And having more inventory doesn't equal more money or every conference would already be at 16 regardless of who was available.

Now if someone wanted to say the ACC isn't getting their fair share or did a poor job with their tv contracts I'd entertain that as a reason for schools leaving. From what I've read it sounds like none of the conferences get their fair share from the tv companies (who are making tons of money) so perhaps the B1G, SEC, and Big 12 just have better partners than the ACC has.

So ultimately I think the ACC schools realize how valuable they are/can be, stick together, form an ACC network, probably go to 16 with ND and UConn, and in 10 years look like geniuses.

Most years, PSU-UMD is going to be a regional game. Even if it is not the same emotional or traditional sort of rivalry with someone like UVA or UNC, PSU-UMD is going to be seen on more sets than those old ACC games ever would. It's the regional ties, the alumni bases, and cities in the game's scope that will make it more profitable than anything UMD had in the past.

The same is going to be true for PSU-Rutgers and OSU-Rutgers. Rutgers being seen anywhere was a big deal and a rare occurance. Now, it gets two regional games that will be available on 20-30m sets easily.

The ACC picked up some good schools in its expansion, but to what extent their rivalries go with the core of the conference, I'm unsure it pays out. However, seeing almost the entire old Big East with occasional ACC and Notre Dame cameos is going to make the ACC very rich because of that inventory. For the Big XII, who I know wants the cookies in the jar AND the jar behind it, it's more in their interest to get schools that at least share some sort of history with the conference, if just to solidify its base.

Dang Tute! You said in two sentences here that sums much up. I've (and some others) been trying to say this, but suppose rambled too much on it when speculation gets injected.

The ACC is vulnerable around the edges--to the B1G and the SEC. We saw this with Maryland. Schools such as Pitt, BC, GT, 'Cuse, Miami, etc., could get extracted given the ultimate Maryland terms, and how much is put on the table.
But, does the B1G want to take a couple or more of the schools on the edge next, in hopes to also extract the real targeted schools of UNC & UVA which would break or majorly diminish the ACC?
The B1G may have more ambition than power to do it; and the SEC shows more power (at least getting certain choice picks initially), than they are showing ambition for it (now).
And UNC and UVA, could play one suitor off against the other. And if they had to break, go with regional loyalties or who offers the best "package with friends".

UNC and UVA are very historical and prestigious flagship schools in two mid-atlantic/southern states. They have sister schools and a couple of private schools bonded with them. Even Clemson, in SC, has charter & rivalry ties to it. GT is on the tail of it too. If the SEC broke from not taking in-state/footprint schools, it's the SEC that could really do damage to the ACC core. The SEC may not do the B1G any favors my moving next and giving the B1G an easy path. The SEC would rather have a viable ACC, than have the B1G with the top schools in both NC & VA and also in Atlanta. While money drives; other money and politics play defense.

Louisville would certainly leave for the B12.
FSU ,Clemson and Mami would leave for the B12.
That gives the B12 14 schools and leaves the ACC with 10 and ND.
If the ACC is still alive they go for UConn,Cinn,USF and UCF and looks the BE.
Can they get more tv money for that group? Certainly not
Then what happens? NC St and Va Tech go SEC and UVA,UNC,GaTech,and Pitt /ND have a choice of staying or going to the B10.

The ACC may be vulnerable around the edges, but who wants those edges, other than FSU and VT? I think the ACC would only care if VT left if FSU threw a hissy fit about it. FSU, we know, has had EVERY opportunity to leave the conference, and has acted on nothing.

Maybe Syracuse...but if the ACC needed them that bad, the conference should have told the Virginia legislature where to shove it back in '03. The B1G already house a "disgraced" former AAU school in Nebraska...no way does the B1G become a hospital by taking in Syracuse as well.

UMD was put out and neglected. The ACC had it coming to them when UMD walked. I don't see any other "core" member in this boat, though. NCSU and Clemson come to mind, but those aren't the chasers in the ACC. The SEC would rather have other schools, and the Big XII isn't worth it.

On the flip side, the Big XII is safest at its fringes (although Iowa State would bolt to the B1G before the question was even finished), and has a leaky core. I'm more curious how stable and legitimate the GoR is given that it was synced to this particular media deal. If the conference expands, can GoR dissolve because of the change of terms?

Just to clear up a point, what happened in 2003 with the Virginia Legislature is that the legislature pretty much dictated how the University of Virginia was to vote on ACC expansion.

Swofford had everything set up for the ACC to invite Miami, Syracuse, and BC, and it required a 3/4 majority of the ACC's 9 members (= 7 of the 9) to approve it.
Two schools were against the expansion (I think it was Duke and UNC, due to the bad press from raiding the Big East in sneaky fashion, and because this was football-motivated,
and those schools cared more about basketball). So it looked like the vote to approve would still pass at 7-2.
At that point, (if I recall corectly) the Governor of Virginia realized an opportunity existed.
Because the state government controls funding of UVa, the state government could easily manipulate UVa's vote.
So the President / Chancellor / Provost whomever of UVa was told: "DO NOT vote to approve any ACC expansion that doesn't include Virginia Tech (a/k/a VPI).
So UVa was the swing vote, and the guy told the other college presidents what his directive was, so they quickly decided to approve by 7-2 vote a two-team expansion (to 11)
involving Miami and Virginia Tech. The ACC then petitioned the NCAA to be able to hold a CCG with only 11 schools, and the NCAA said NO.

So Syracuse and BC sheepishly limped back to the BE FB schools (Pitt, WVU, Rutgers, UConn (set to join after upgrading from 1-AA), and they sued the ACC for injuctions / damages.
Meanwhile BC was engaged in back-door negotiations with the ACC to become #12, and one day they dropped out of the suit, and the next day they were invited and accepted as ACC #12.

POINT BEING - although the Virginia state government manipulated one vote in this process, what gets glossed over is that Duke's and UNC's "NO" vote made all that possible.