CU has rejoined the Big 12 and broken college football - talking out asses continues

[PhillyBuff]

That’s 12 yrs ago! live in the moment.

Wait.... um.... the response was to a post about Texas and OU being courted by the Pac-10 (12 years ago) and most of us were totally against that. We wanted to get away from Texas- that was the prevailing view back then. None of us wanted to believe that we actually need to be with some "big dogs"....

It is just that THAT big dog (Texas) happens to be the worst type of "partner" to be in a conference with. I say that because Texas wanted to be their own independent entity by creating the Longhorn network but they completely lose sight of the fact that YOU NEED OTHER TEAMS TO PLAY.

We aren't wrong in wanting to get away from Texas, but if they realized that their livelihood also depends on OTHER TEAMS playing, then being in a Super Conference with them would be more palatable. But that school really only thinks of themselves.

In retro spect, it has worked out for them because they are in the SEC and can't get any bigger than that. They won't dominate the SEC like Florida did, Alabama, and now Georgia, but I think they realize that they can't be an island.

This is literally becoming the English Priemer League model where you can stack your team with monetary resources. NCAA football is approaching true capitalism with no regulation. I prefer the NFL model where each team has rules and limitations on what they can do in the interest of a better collective product.

All of this depends on how you view the NCAA football economic model. Either you believe that everyone is free to pursue what is in their best interest, then you ave uneven resources and the school with the most resources is eventually going to win and be the lone team standing. It is what happens if you play monopoly all the way through- one person will have everything at the end (and then a revolt happens and the resources are distributed to a new group and the same thing will happen over again).

OR

a group of teams will create a product that they see as completely dependent on each other to survive and the product will last much longer. It will benefit more people. IMO, this is the capitalism model with regulation that will ensure more long term stability. It is more like the NFL model.... and guess what product seems to be more stable... it's the NFL.

I don't know how I got on this economic policy rant related to NCAA Football, but this is how I see this turbulent time playing out.

 

[BuffsAlways]

We are witnessing this very concept play out in real time with the Big12 vs Pac12. This is ESPNs calculated play to avoid paying for the entire remaining 10 pac in favor of paying just 4 of them in a reconstituted Conference USA

ESPN and Fox are sorting the P12 out now, this will happen to the SEC and B1G during the 2030 negotiations. The money is drying up, and they can’t afford to keep paying Indiana, Rutgers, Miss State, Vandy, etc. $100 million a year while FSU, WA, Clemson, OR, CU sit at 1/2 that.

 

[ScreamingBeagle]

I know you believe this could get paid off but since the local reporters didn’t ask we have no idea how CU thinks about paying $100M or how they would go about doing so or even their long term aspirations.

In terms of making more in the B12, I don’t see how that’s a factor. CU is not going to apply the extra revenue to a rainy day fund (they’ll spend it) and they probably won’t view it as an opportunity cost had they stayed. That extra revenue is what they get and use to compete today.

I agree on the reduced payout. That’s the most likely.

Let’s say the total reduced payout is $70M
They make $50M in the B12
$20M is left over to apply to the exit fee
But they’ll likely need some of that to compete
So let’s say $10M/yr is the true net differential
It would take 10 years to pay that off (interest?)

The only way they pull any of this off is w/ help from the university to cover the initial exit fee which will be due after leaving.

Which brings me back to the original point, we don’t know how CU admins views this which is a problem bc the athletic dept will need their help.

While I think CU has an opportunity to move up, I don't think it's worth overanalyzing exit fees and GOR at this time. It's going to take some major rework to get there and that probability isn't something to get to worked up about yet.

CU is in good shape in the B12. It's not optimal, buts it not terrible. Are there possible futures, yes I think so, but there are more important things to focus on before we get there.

Don't see CU in the B1G. Though I could be wrong. Depends on how ACC splits, and what the BIG10 takes out of that.

But I could see the SEC being forced by networks to stretch a little out of their traditional markets to grab and maybe have CU to pair with KU and growing importance of basketball. Though this scenario to get KU could also playout for B1G.

If you start doing math to 24 for B1G/SEC there isn't enough in current ACC/PAC12 to make that happen

 

[PhillyBuff]

Edit- But it can no longer afford letting the kings of sport rule their own fiefdoms. They need compelling matchups, and they need to force more of them to get more eyeballs on screen. They can't afford a big 8 where Nebraska or OU just blow everybody out for boring games all season. Or UT dominating an uninteresting SWC.

THIS....

A school (like Texas) can't operate like they are in a bubble. You need another team to play, and our society has proven that we have an appetite to watch MANY games per week. A 24 SEC SuperConference is not enough football to consume. We want more.

 

[ScreamingBeagle]

ESPN and Fox are sorting the P12 out now, this will happen to the SEC and B1G during the 2030 negotiations. The money is drying up, and they can’t afford to keep paying Indiana, Rutgers, Miss State, Vandy, etc. $100 million a year while FSU, WA, Clemson, OR, CU sit at 1/2 that.

We are a ways out from that. I could see something like this happening once we get to 3, 24 school conferences. Nobody is dropping anybody. Maybe in 20 years the 24 leagues become too burdensom and you see new leagues form from Bama, USC, UT, FSU, OU, tOSU getting thier heads together.

 

[Buffnik]

Yeah, I can appreciate the idea that people like CFB over the NFL because of true rivalries, stadium entrances, traditions, pageantry, regional matchups, etc but those aspects were born from meaningful games between great players and programs, not the bottom feeders.

Some people really enjoy G5, FCS and D2 level football but that is certainly a small minority. I also think the narrative that all the things that made CFB great are completely gone is a little dramatic. The only thing I don’t particularly like about the current state of the sport is that instead of 10-12 programs traditionally dominating, it’s been reduced to 3-4.

I think CFB has to be very careful not to lose meaningful rivalries. Nebraska is a great case study here. How much passion and identity did they lose by not playing Oklahoma, Colorado and Missouri every year? UConn MBB & WBB slid when they took the AAC football money and left the Big East with those games its fans are passionate about.

I want my WVU vs Pitt. I want my Syracuse vs Georgetown. I want my USC vs Stanford. I want my Maryland vs Virginia. I want my Oklahoma vs Oklahoma State. I want my Kansas vs Missouri. Some are coming back together with realignment like Texas vs Texas A&M. That's great. But we may also be losing some fun ones like Oregon vs Oregon State, Washington vs Washington State and Arizona vs Arizona State. We could lose Florida State vs Miami.

I think that I want to get to a place where we have one national league with regional rival divisions and a full playoff where, maybe, Colorado, Nebraska and Oklahoma all find themselves in different divisions but we'd still maybe need to get through each other to make the CFB Superbowl. And I damn well want to make sure there's always room in scheduling for traditional in-state and border rivalry games even if one of the teams doesn't get invited to the CFB League.

 

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

ESPN and Fox are sorting the P12 out now, this will happen to the SEC and B1G during the 2030 negotiations. The money is drying up, and they can’t afford to keep paying Indiana, Rutgers, Miss State, Vandy, etc. $100 million a year while FSU, WA, Clemson, OR, CU sit at 1/2 that.

Perhaps the future includes a relegation model of sorts. One that doesn't fully fund the bottom 1/4 of the conferences, but gives them non monetary benefits of some sort to give them a chance to improve and get into the full share group.

 

[Buffnik]

Get rid of stopping the clock after first downs, reduce the hash marks, and get rid of the dumbest overtime rule and it might make college football more enjoyable

If it goes to streaming, we may see a huge change with shortening of games. Football owes a lot of its success to being perfectly designed for commercial television. Take out the need for so many advertiser timeouts / game stoppages along with ideas like you're proposing and it could easily go to something more enticing to modern consumers who can't stand commercial interruptions.

Average CFB game in 2022 took 3h22m to play. The game clock is only 1h. NFL has a 12m halftime but college has a 20m. Why? So many things which could package it better. Link Then you can compare with other sports. NBA games are 48m of clock and done in 2h12m. That's a 2.75 ratio of real time to play vs game clock time to play. CFB is at 3.37. Soccer is the most popular sport in the world and fits 90 minutes of game clock into a 2 hour viewing window and is able to command media rates which make its athletes the highest paid in the world along with packed stadiums and very positive trends with young viewers.

Football has to re-organize around the market trends on demographics and distribution. It's going to be hard, though, because commercial tv was what the sport and its popularity was built upon and is still the revenue driver in the short term.

 

[PhillyBuff]

We are a ways out from that. I could see something like this happening once we get to 3, 24 school conferences. Nobody is dropping anybody. Maybe in 20 years the 24 leagues become too burdensom and you see new leagues form from Bama, USC, UT, FSU, OU, tOSU getting thier heads together.

I just read one of the articles posted on the main webpage of AllBuffs...

it basically analyzed what is happening now and how it will evolve into 4 Big Conferences of 20-24 teams and then they will further breakdown into regional divisions only to look like what college football looked like in its infancy...

No one is staying put anytime soon and there will be changes every few years.

I will check back in 10 years and I bet we are in a Big 12 conference division that looks like this:

The Big 12 West Division:

Colorado
Colorado State
Arizona
Arizona State
Kansas
Kansas State
BYU
Utah

Compare to the Big 10 West Division:

USC
UCLA
Oregon
Washington
Nebraska
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Iowa

I know it sounds crazy. I just think if the Super Conference goes to 24 teams, it almost has to look like this by default.

 

[Victory]

While I think CU has an opportunity to move up, I don't think it's worth overanalyzing exit fees and GOR at this time. It's going to take some major rework to get there and that probability isn't something to get to worked up about yet.

CU is in good shape in the B12. It's not optimal, buts it not terrible. Are there possible futures, yes I think so, but there are more important things to focus on before we get there.

Don't see CU in the B1G. Though I could be wrong. Depends on how ACC splits, and what the BIG10 takes out of that.

But I could see the SEC being forced by networks to stretch a little out of their traditional markets to grab and maybe have CU to pair with KU and growing importance of basketball. Though this scenario to get KU could also playout for B1G.

If you start doing math to 24 for B1G/SEC there isn't enough in current ACC/PAC12 to make that happen

There’s always going to be a large group of CU alumni that are going to force this conversation about moving up. CU has moved conferences twice in the last 12 years. Admins would be naive to think we’re in this b12 for good and that the discussion is not worth having. What irritates me is the lack of vision from CU. This move - hopefully - was forward looking from a temporary perspective but CU needs to be thinking 2 steps ahead going forward, especially in our situation (not in the B1G/SEC and making 1/2 of those teams).

Will the next move be in 12 years? No one knows but this set up will not last, just as the P12 didn’t last and the B12 before that.

 

[ScreamingBeagle]

I just read one of the articles posted on the main webpage of AllBuffs...

it basically analyzed what is happening now and how it will evolve into 4 Big Conferences of 20-24 teams and then they will further breakdown into regional divisions only to look like what college football looked like in its infancy...

No one is staying put anytime soon and there will be changes every few years.

I will check back in 10 years and I bet we are in a Big 12 conference division that looks like this:

The Big 12 West Division:

Colorado
Colorado State
Arizona
Arizona State
Kansas
Kansas State
BYU
Utah

Compare to the Big 10 West Division:

USC
UCLA
Oregon
Washington
Nebraska
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Iowa

I know it sounds crazy. I just think if the Super Conference goes to 24 teams, it almost has to look like this by default.

This is pretty much how I envision those breaking. Regional pods within super conferences organizing cross conference games of intrigue.

It's either 3 - 24 team leagues or 4 20 team leagues.

There are pro/cons to both

However I think at some point the conferences will start enforcing the rules. Fewer conferences and it's easier to enforce bowl bans and scholarships on your own teams.

Right now conferences are concerned with competitive advantages and trying maximizing teams in playoffs. At some point those fears will subsidize and I can see conferences doing more to encourage 'fair play'.

What college football wants is indirect capitalism. Not the all out pay for best talent of international soccer or the regulated NFL.

They want schools/institutions to grow into thier status and to differentiate themselves through institutional $$$s, but they don't want schools paying out the most money for actual talent.

This is where NIL threatens the model. Somehow the schools need to compensate players or allow players to be compensated for NIL, but nobody wants certain schools buying the best players.

Instead they want to see players choose schools on prestige, facilities, recent successes and the institution as a whole as opposed to how much an important individual can get paid.

Unlimited institutional growth (to extent), equal player compensation. This is problematic from economic model and is why I think you will see huge pushback on player compensation and more emphasizes on fair non-university orientated/backed NIL

 

[ScreamingBeagle]

There’s always going to be a large group of CU alumni that are going to force this conversation about moving up. CU has moved conferences twice in the last 12 years. Admins would be naive to think we’re in this b12 for good and that the discussion is not worth having. What irritates me is the lack of vision from CU. This move - hopefully - was forward looking from a temporary perspective but CU needs to be thinking 2 steps ahead going forward, especially in our situation (not in the B1G/SEC and making 1/2 of those teams).

Will the next move be in 12 years? No one knows but this set up will not last, just as the P12 didn’t last and the B12 before that.

My point is CU needs to focus on the 'right' things for moving up. Not on exit fees and GORs. Prime is the start, but CU needs to focus on facility upgrades, stadium enhancements, and winning. That's how you move up. Focus on that and the GOR and exit fees will work themselves out.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

The clock no longer stops after a first down except within 2 minutes. They also removed the ability to call consecutive timeouts

 

[BerkeleyBuff]

From a different board, take it FWIW:

BIG expansion info from a poster on the PSU 247 board who seems to be connected and is well-respected by their board:

I want to share a few things regarding expansion.
1. Neither the Presidents or AD's are looking for any more expansion for the next few years. Folks should expect 4-6 years of the new scheduling format before any changes are made. The new Commish is really focused on this and fully integrating USC/UCLA into the conference.
2. My expectation is the next wave of expansion will likely hit around 2029/2030. I don't expect any more west coast expansion from the Big Ten. Warren could not find any media partners willing to pay enough to make it work and nobody thinks that changes any time soon. USC/UCLA does not want any more PAC teams. Travelling to Oregon and Washington is pretty much the same for them as travelling to Mid-west so the theory that they want more Pacific Coast programs to lower travel cost is bunk. The next round of expansion will focus on ND and ACC teams down the Atlantic Coast.
3. My info comes from PSU so it may be skewed toward their preferences but everything I hear suggests UVA and UNC would be the first targets. Younger, growing metro areas down the I-95 corridor with lots of B1G alumn transplants living and moving in that direction. FSU is another strong possibility. In the past, I was told that the B1G was not at all interested in Miami but very recently was told that their admission to the AAU is a game changer. I was told that VA Tech and GA Tech were long-shot possibilities to round out expansion. From what I understand, Clemson is not on the radar unless a media partner really, really pushes it. My prediction would be that as we get closer to 2030 the next round of expansion will be UVA, UNC, FSU & Miami + Notre Dame.
4. That gets us back to Notre Dame. The expectation of AD's and Presidents is that ND will finalize a deal wiht NBC that takes them out to roughly the same time as the B1G media deal. At that point, if they are not willing to jump into conference completely, the thought is that B1G will move forward with poaching the ACC and that ND at that point will set up a scheduling agreement with Big Ten. The example of what that would look like was given to me was: 8 games, 4 home, 4 away and would be against big brands that the networks want. Something like PSU, OSU, UM, MSU, Wiscy, NW, Neb, USC. Apparently one of the big snags with NBC negotiations has been ND's terrible schedule when it comes to ratings. NBC wants more games against Big Ten teams which would be much better for ratings than just a bunch of scrub ACC teams and the service academies. (GO NAVY!)
5. Bonus PSU content: this is not completely about expansion but relevant to the topic: PSU folks have been very pleasantly surprised by how enthusiastic NBC (also CBS to a lesser extent) is about Penn State and even the new Commish has taken notice as he has been smoothing over the TV schedule stuff. NBC wants as many PSU games as possible and their execs have told the Commish that they feel Penn State is the key to big ratings in the large metro areas of the East Coast. The reason I bring it up in this thread is that it has been suggested to me that the next round of expansion will be focused on finding good pairings with PSU down the I-95 corridor. Essentially the status quo is now becoming USC, OSU, UM and PSU as the 4 major national brands with USC anchoring the west coast, OSU and UM the midwest and PSU anchoring the East Coast, with those 4 schools kind of elevating the TV ratings when they match up with the "lesser" programs in their regions. That dynamic will probably shape the next round of expansion quite a bit.

 

[LesGrossman]

From a different board, take it FWIW:

BIG expansion info from a poster on the PSU 247 board who seems to be connected and is well-respected by their board:

A B12 with Oregon, Washington, Arizona, and a few of the ACC schools would be great

 

[BerkeleyBuff]

A B12 with Oregon, Washington, Arizona, and a few of the ACC schools would be great

Agreed with that. Big XII obviously wouldn't get the big brands of the ACC, but Pitt + Louisville + couple others would work. Possibly one of VTech/ GTech/ NCSt is left if none can independently add $70+ million to either the SEC or B1G.

 

[Victory]

My point is CU needs to focus on the 'right' things for moving up. Not on exit fees and GORs. Prime is the start, but CU needs to focus on facility upgrades, stadium enhancements, and winning. That's how you move up. Focus on that and the GOR and exit fees will work themselves out.

I love ”just win, baby”. It’s not a vision though. And it’s nothing against what you are saying bc of course I agree we need to win. My point is if Oregon moves to the b12 I fully expect them to say they’ll reevaluate the landscape moving forward bc that’s what you have to do in this day and age. They’ll say that bc their alumni would riot if they showed complacency. And the b12 would suck it up and take it and thank them for their presence.

It’s because Oregon acts like a big dog. I don’t like them but it’s true. CU acts like a rescue dog with a confidence problem. Maybe if we win we’ll get our confidence back. Maybe Prime’s vision is to win in the b12 then move out.

But what I do know is that the people in charge - Phil and RG - have proven so far to be losers. They have a just happy to be there look on their face. I don’t like that. And I don’t like calling RG that but it’s true. Prime could cure all but for now I don’t trust any of them to know what to do next.

 

[BuffsNYC]

From a different board, take it FWIW:

BIG expansion info from a poster on the PSU 247 board who seems to be connected and is well-respected by their board:

Posting a message from a PSU insider sort of makes me need to throw up.

 

[Buffnik]

The way I'm seeing this is that while a Big 16 of potentially **** bailer, BYU, Cincy, CU, UH, ISU, KU, KSU, OSU, TCU, TTU, , UA, UO, UW, UCF and WVU doesn't have the marquee firepower of the Elite 4 in the B1G of OSU, PSU, UM and USC but the passion and quality of matchups of our 16 is better than what they have with their other 12.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

That’s a fine theory and all great for B1G expansion, even though he only insinuates adding 5 (UNC, UVA, FSU, UM and ND), which obviously won’t happen, but also suggests the B1G is going to get all the premium brands from the ACC except Clemson (because they aren’t good enough for the B1G apparently).

So even playing that out, Clemson goes SEC and then what? B1G is at 21 and SEC is at 17. At that point there would almost assuredly be another 3 added to the B1G and 7 to the SEC.

I simply don’t buy the idea that there is no further expansion westward, where there are some passionate fanbases in the fastest growing metros in the country.

 

[Big Jim]

Get rid of stopping the clock after first downs, reduce the hash marks, and get rid of the dumbest overtime rule and it might make college football more enjoyable

Between this and your post on preferring a relegation model it sure looks like you are pushing some sort of bull**** Euro model. The EU should be adapting to our games and rules.

 

[BerkeleyBuff]

That’s a fine theory and all great for B1G expansion, even though he only insinuates adding 5 (UNC, UVA, FSU, UM and ND), which obviously won’t happen, but also suggests the B1G is going to get all the premium brands from the ACC except Clemson (because they aren’t good enough for the B1G apparently).

So even playing that out, Clemson goes SEC and then what? B1G is at 21 and SEC is at 17. At that point there would almost assuredly be another 3 added to the B1G and 7 to the SEC.

I simply don’t buy the idea that there is no further expansion westward, where there are some passionate fanbases in the fastest growing metros in the country.

Why would there then be another 3 added to the B1G? You only add as many as can pay for themselves/ keep everyone else whole, and at the prices the SEC and B1G are commanding, precious few schools can do that. Even the 5 he suggests for the B1G might be stretching it (double dipping Florida may not work).

Let's say the B1G does take those 5. I can't be convinced there's another school in the country that brings enough money to add value to that now 21 member B1G.

Let's then say the SEC wants to equal the B1G. If the B1G can't absorb both Florida schools, maaaaaybe the SEC takes one. If not, the SEC will want a slice of NC and Virginia - so let's say VT and NCSU. Clemson is #3. Who's left that could possibly be valuable enough to make every other member of a 19-member SEC more money? Even imaging there is one, some combo of Pitt, Louisville, Duke, GTech, etc is going to be left out there.

 

[rynobuff]

When do the lower level schools in the B1G and SEC need to start worrying about being dropped? What does Indiana, Illinois, Vandy, Miss St, etc actually bring to the table?

 

[BlackNGold]

I think CFB has to be very careful not to lose meaningful rivalries. Nebraska is a great case study here. How much passion and identity did they lose by not playing Oklahoma, Colorado and Missouri every year? UConn MBB & WBB slid when they took the AAC football money and left the Big East with those games its fans are passionate about.

I want my WVU vs Pitt. I want my Syracuse vs Georgetown. I want my USC vs Stanford. I want my Maryland vs Virginia. I want my Oklahoma vs Oklahoma State. I want my Kansas vs Missouri. Some are coming back together with realignment like Texas vs Texas A&M. That's great. But we may also be losing some fun ones like Oregon vs Oregon State, Washington vs Washington State and Arizona vs Arizona State. We could lose Florida State vs Miami.

I think that I want to get to a place where we have one national league with regional rival divisions and a full playoff where, maybe, Colorado, Nebraska and Oklahoma all find themselves in different divisions but we'd still maybe need to get through each other to make the CFB Superbowl. And I damn well want to make sure there's always room in scheduling for traditional in-state and border rivalry games even if one of the teams doesn't get invited to the CFB League.

I don't buy the UCONN example. When they were in the AAC in WBB they won 3 national championships and made the final 4 every year. The men also won a National Championship in the AAC.

 

[BlackNGold]

When do the lower level schools in the B1G and SEC need to start worrying about being dropped? What does Indiana, Illinois, Vandy, Miss St, etc actually bring to the table?

You can dissolve a conference and reform (see the old South West Conference) but kicking schools out who have done nothing wrong would be difficult. You would be facing lawsuits and they would be brought by state governments. I don't think many conferences could survive that nor would they have the stomach for it.

 

[Sammy11]

Why would they owe a “big exit fee” if they leave when the next contract ends? Isn’t that exactly what CU is doing right now (and not paying the PAC anything)?

Big 12 has an exit fee that's 99 years.

The GOR however is a separate issue and tied to the media deal.

 

[Buffnik]

That’s a fine theory and all great for B1G expansion, even though he only insinuates adding 5 (UNC, UVA, FSU, UM and ND), which obviously won’t happen, but also suggests the B1G is going to get all the premium brands from the ACC except Clemson (because they aren’t good enough for the B1G apparently).

So even playing that out, Clemson goes SEC and then what? B1G is at 21 and SEC is at 17. At that point there would almost assuredly be another 3 added to the B1G and 7 to the SEC.

I simply don’t buy the idea that there is no further expansion westward, where there are some passionate fanbases in the fastest growing metros in the country.

I don't know. Considering ROI for football national broadcasts, if we look at Pacific and Mountain Time Zones, let's say you have the following in a new CFB league which separates from the NCAA:

USC, UCLA, Oregon, Stanford, Washington, Arizona, BYU and Colorado.

That's an 8-team division and while there may be substitutes like Cal, Utah or ASU which could do relatively equal to their alternatives there's no fiscal reason to go beyond 8 because 2 from the same market doesn't add value unless we're talking about LA with a population larger than like 45 states. It captures every major market.

So we're at 8.

FL and TX are the only other states which command more than 2 - and I still don't think you need more than 3 in any. UT, aTm & TCU hit the 3 Texas population centers. Same for UF, FSU & Miami in Florida.

That's another 6 for 14 total.

As far as states with populations which justify more than 1, the only other is NY and that's not a good CFB market.

Then, CFB is different from pro because it doesn't have to be in the big city and there's a valid argument that it actually is more of a hindrance than help to be in one. So you look at which schools can represent a state, region or national audience.

From the B1G region, you want Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland and Rutgers. You add Notre Dame to this and you secure both Chicagoland and IN along with national marquee. So you don't need Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana or Michigan State since they won't increase ROI.

That adds 11 for 25 total.

From SEC country (beyond FL and TX which had already been addressed), you want Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, LSU, Kentucky, Ole Miss, Georgia and Alabama plus Auburn being such a marquee national brand that you take 2 from AL despite not needing based on population & markets.

That adds another 9 for 34 total.

From the ACC in addition to the 2 FL schools, Clemson is the choice over South Carolina for that state, plus you want to have North Carolina and Virginia.

That's another 3 for 37 total.

From the Big 12, in addition to what I mentioned in the PTZ & MTZ and TCU, you would want Kansas.

That's 1 more for 38.

If you go to 40, you could make the case that New England is too large of a market to ignore and that while none of the programs (Boston College, Syracuse and UConn) are national draws you still need to be in the region. I'd pick UConn since it has the highest engagement due to its basketball programs, ESPN in its backyard and can do a bit to get more of a foot in the door in that lucrative NYC market which Rutgers doesn't come close to owning.

We're now at 39.

For #40, I think the best cases can be made for GA Tech (GA is massive), Michigan State and South Carolina. With the latter 2, you don't fill a 75k+ stadium unless you have a very engaged fan base.

Take all 3 and you're at 42.

Beyond that, maybe Indiana as a flagship (since Notre Dame isn't really that state's school), West Virginia to represent a region and its passionate fans, Pitt for its history and regional clout, etc.

It's hard to get to 48 (even if I brain farted and missed a couple as I was going through this) and I have trouble finding an argument to go beyond 48. Beyond 48 doesn't seem accretive to ROI and maintaining fan engagement across the country.

 

[Buffnik]

I don't buy the UCONN example. When they were in the AAC in WBB they won 3 national championships and made the final 4 every year. The men also won a National Championship in the AAC.

Why do you think they took less money and orphaned their football program to go back to the Big East?

 

[H.E. Pennypacker]

No to change the subject, but I just realized we only have one year left we have to endure PAC-12 referees.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

Why would there then be another 3 added to the B1G? You only add as many as can pay for themselves/ keep everyone else whole, and at the prices the SEC and B1G are commanding, precious few schools can do that. Even the 5 he suggests for the B1G might be stretching it (double dipping Florida may not work).

Let's say the B1G does take those 5. I can't be convinced there's another school in the country that brings enough money to add value to that now 21 member B1G.

Let's then say the SEC wants to equal the B1G. If the B1G can't absorb both Florida schools, maaaaaybe the SEC takes one. If not, the SEC will want a slice of NC and Virginia - so let's say VT and NCSU. Clemson is #3. Who's left that could possibly be valuable enough to make every other member of a 19-member SEC more money? Even imaging there is one, some combo of Pitt, Louisville, Duke, GTech, etc is going to be left out there.

I don’t see an odd number being acceptable, but is suppose they could go to 22 instead of 24.

I also don’t think it’s always coming down to whether a program adds $70m+ in Tv revenue by themselves because if it is, the networks will ask the conferences to remove the bottom half at some point. Also, if Oregon and Washington (and maybe Stanford, Utah and Colorado) don’t bring the requisite value, then Louisville, VT, NC State, Pitt, Duke, and GT certainly don’t either.

However, I look at the NFL and see a league that has an $11B/year TV deal. Do the Jags or Texans bring $350m/year of media value to the league? Of course not, but it’s about the league as a whole and how it engages the entire country. IMO, that’s probably the only way CFB media deal $$ continues to grow, and where the networks will usher the the sport over the next 10-15 years.