- 01/25/2012, 12:48PM ET
UB bulls said 01/25, 12:48 PM
In computers, Moore's law is roughly stated as the speed of computers will double every two years. Now Gordon Moore, co-founder of Intel, is a very smart man, and history has proven him right.
With all the conference shuffling, it seems that CFB has a corollary: conference size will grow inexorably. Call it Slive's law. Now SEC commissioner Mike Slive is also a very smart man and so far it seems that conferences growth has been a good idea--pretty much every conference is doing it.
The SEC began with 10 teams, grew to 12, and will soon become a 14 team league.
The ACC has grown from 8 teams to 14 since the 1990s.
The Pac8 begat the Pac10 begat the Pac12. A Pac16 was a very real possibility until negotiations with Texas broke down.
The 8 team SWC and Big8 got swallowed up, seemingly too small to survive.
But I think Slive and Swofford have made a mistake growing to 14 teams for football.
The ideal BCS conference size is 12; growing beyond that threatens traditional conference rivalries that alumni care about, makes counter-productive 9 game conference schedules necessary, and threatens to dilute the brand.
Good luck WAMU.
W_A_M_U? said 01/25, 07:17 PM
I'll start by saying that I'm a bit suprised that you didn't mention the single most important reason as to why conferences must have at least 12 teams...no conference with less than 12 members can have a conference championship game. Just look at the BigTen and the Big XII this past year.
And with that being said I will argue that four 16 team conferences not only would be ideal but probably the future of college football.
As much as I hate that idea it has already been mentioned though. And to me it's not a matter of if but when that actually happens. So the question now is what former conferences will comprise these 4 super conferences? And the way CFB is going now I'm thinking that the Big East and Big XII might not be around much longer. To me the Big East just looks desperate, going all over the country to keep enough teams in that conference. So bye-bye Big East! And let's just face it, the ACC has not been good in BCS bowl games. I'll breakdown the numbers to that next.
So that would leave the BigTen/SEC/ACC and 12 Pac. The question is which teams will end up where? I'll get to that next as well.
Thanks for the TD and good luck UB!
UB bulls said 01/26, 04:04 PM
To decide the ideal BCS conference size, I think there are several competing factors
Each team wants to maximize its own revenue
At high-profile schools, revenue from tickets, alumni donations, etc. is between 3x and 6x more than revenue from conference TV deals and bowl money. Playing home games maximizes ticket revenue; winning them maximizes alumni revenue. That's why so many teams schedule 3 or even 4 body bag OOC home games--it's smart business.
Preserve rivalries in the conference
With a 12 team conference, you can schedule 8 conference games and still face everyone at least every other year (5 games in your division, 3 against the other division; 2 years to face all 6 teams in the other division)
Moving to 16 team conference means 7 games against your division and only 1 against the other division. Eight years to face everyone in the conference, 16 years to visit every campus. It's hard to have a rival when no one can remember the last time you played them.
You could go to a nine game conference schedule, but that costs a chance for a home OOC game and half the teams in the conference pick up an extra loss, since they play each other.
W_A_M_U? said 01/26, 06:59 PM
I want to start by saying while I did mess up and said the ACC when I meant to say the Big XII and here is the one stat that backs-up what I was going to say: 2-13. That would be the ACC's record in bs-BCS bowl games. Now moving on.
And the reason I say get rid of the Big XII is the coming and going of the teams ever since Nebraska and Colorado originally took off. So of the four remaing conferences I mentioned here is how I would realign them. And yes I am totally disregarding where some teams are right now conference wise...
BigTen: Ill/IU/Iowa/um/MSU/Minn/Neb/NW/OSU/PSU/Pur/Wis. Add WV/Pitt/Missouri/Rutgers.
SEC: Ala/Ark/Aub/Fla/UGa/UK/LSU/Ole Miss/Miss St/S.Car/Tenn/Van. Add Tex/T & M/Texas Tech/Baylor.
ACC: BC/Clem/duke/FSU/GT/Mary/The U/UNC/NCSU/Vir/VT/WF. Add ND/Syr/Lville/Cincy.
12 Pac: Arz/ASU/Cal/CU/Ore/Ore St/stan/UCLA/USC/Utah/Wash/Wash St. Add OU/Okie St/Boise St/TCU.
Now the remaining teams from the Big East and Big XII, well I don't know and for this TD I don't care. Consider them the leftovers for smaller conferences, like the Mountain West I guess?
UB bulls said 01/26, 11:32 PM
I think adding the wrong teams--no matter how good on the field--is bad financially.
Consider the Big10. From bowl revenue and TV deals, the conference earns and distributes $20m per school. To make it worthwhile to add a school, that school would have to be able to generate at least $20 additional money for the conference, just to pull their weight.
Rutgers is near NYC, but it's a pro sports city. How many would be calling their cable company demanding the Big10 Network? I'm sure Delaney crunched the numbers and concluded adding any of the BE teams would not help the conference.
The same math applies to adding teams for the SEC: one team from Texas (TAMU) may make sense, but tiny Baylor or Tech would dilute the overall conference revenue. Sure, adding the Longhorns would be nice but they aren't interested in revenue sharing or giving up their TV network, both non-starters with other conferences. IMO, if the SEC wanted to add Texas, it would have happened already.
A 12 team conference offer a CCG, a reasonable conference scheduling scenario and avoids diminishing returns of adding teams that can't pull their weight financially. It is the ideal size.
W_A_M_U? said 01/27, 06:04 PM
Funny you would mention the BigTen. If I remember correctly when some teams were looking for a conference join (Missouri as an example) the BigTen said they were not not interested in expansion at that time. Which leads me to believe that at least the BigTen (if not others) will in fact be expanding sometime in the near future. And that is why I think four 16 team mega conferences is inevitable.
The reason I put Rutgers in the BigTen is so that conference could have a team on the east coast and the conference could maybe tap into that high school market a little easier.
And I don't see how four Texas schools could hurt the revenue of the SEC. Before teams started leaving the Big XII those Texas schools didn't seem to hurt the Big XII financially. Although I could be wrong about that, did not look that info up.
Because of greed the best solution for CFB won't be happening anytime soon, which would be a playoff system. So since money is the driving force behind the bs-BCS four sixteen team mega conferences are really the way to go.
- Awful Announcing
- Free Darko
- Pro Football Talk
- The Big Lead
- Joe Posnanski
- The Sporting Blog
- Big League Stew
- Bugs and Cranks
- Every day Should Be Saturday
- Mr. Irrelevant
- With Leather
- The Sports Hernia