Will the networks drive the next round of realignment?

[Buffnik]

With all the cord cutting going on and all the cost cutting at the sports networks, I believe that the major media companies are going to make some big demands in the next round of contracts with the NCAA conferences.

I think this will change the landscape more than anything we've seen before and that college football is going to be structured a lot more like the NFL.

• 16-team conferences that deliver a semifinal round in their conference playoffs (adding 2 marquee broadcast games to the portfolio)
• All conferences playing 9-game conference seasons (better content). I expect pod scheduling to generate the most geographic rivalry games.
• No games against G5 opponents, let alone FCS opponents (much better content).
• Spring games turned into scrimmages (G5 or FCS team brought in as a ticketed & broadcasted event).
• A preseason game at the end of fall camp, maybe 2, against G5 or FCS team(s) brought in as a ticketed and broadcasted event.
• Forcing the conferences to go to 16 teams by contracting to a P4 with the dissolution of the Big 12.
• 8 team playoff. That's 7 games, which fits so well with the fact that there are 6 bowl games currently part of the CFP with a rotating final to the highest bidder that it's almost like they've been planning for this. Rose, Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, Cotton & Peach.

At the end of the day, this makes the networks more money by delivering more and better content. In the current environment, I believe that all or most of this will happen in the next 5-6 years.

 

[hawg1]

With all the cord cutting going on and all the cost cutting at the sports networks, I believe that the major media companies are going to make some big demands in the next round of contracts with the NCAA conferences.

I think this will change the landscape more than anything we've seen before and that college football is going to be structured a lot more like the NFL.

• 16-team conference that deliver a semifinal round in their conference playoffs (adding 2 marquee broadcast games to the portfolio)
• All conferences playing 9-game conference seasons (better content). I expect pod scheduling to generate the most geographic rivalry games.
• No games against G5 opponents, let alone FCS opponents (much better content).
• Spring games turned into scrimmages (G5 or FCS team brought in as a ticketed & broadcasted event).
• A preseason game at the end of fall camp, maybe 2, against G5 or FCS team(s) brought in as a ticketed and broadcasted event.
• Forcing the conferences to go to 16 teams by contracting to a P4 with the dissolution of the Big 12.
• 8 team playoff. That's 7 games, which fits so well with the fact that there are 6 bowl games currently part of the CFP with a rotating final to the highest bidder that it's almost like they've been planning for this. Rose, Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, Cotton & Peach.

At the end of the day, this makes the networks more money by delivering more and better content. In the current environment, I believe that all or most of this will happen in the next 5-6 years.

I like it all except 8 for playoff.

Amazon, FB, etc will have something to say potentially about next round of realignment.

 

[Kuratz]

Keep current alignments roughly the same

8-team playoff:
- Autobids for P5 champs
-Best-of-G5 (with minimum ranking requirement)
-2/3 at large (pending if G5 gets in)
-Quarterfinals at higher-seed campus stadium
-Semis and Finals at neutral bowl sites

 

[Alfred91]

Why would there have to be an 8 team playoff, if there were 4 conferences and two tier conference championships?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that essentially a 16 team playoff?

 

[Buffnik]

Why would there have to be an 8 team playoff, if there were 4 conferences and two tier conference championships?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that essentially a 16 team playoff?

Could certainly do 4 with that format with the conference champions playing for the title. I'd prefer that.

However, there has to be some reason to play non-conference games. Having wildcards for the national playoff gives meaning to the 3 non-conference games as more than exhibition matchups. Unless you want to have 12-game conference schedules. I think that would be kind of lame.

 

[DBT]

We just need the Boomers to die off so tha.....wait! What am I saying?!!

 

[MiamiBuffs]

The NFLifacation of the college game can be summed up by the opening post. Forget any of that traditional stuff. We want compelling TV and we'll give you money for it. Yawn...

 

[BerkeleyBuff]

Please god never let the playoffs expand. Bowl season is at the heart of what makes college football great. 7 of the top 8 teams in the country end the year with a loss? No thanks.

 

[azbuff]

Please god never let the playoffs expand. Bowl season is at the heart of what makes college football great. 7 of the top 8 teams in the country end the year with a loss? No thanks.

Disagree. With the exception of the 1990 Orange Bowl, 94 Fiesta and maybe 96 Cotton, I can't think of any really memorable CU bowl games. (Probably 89 as well, but I honestly don't remember that Orange Bowl - I was six. My sports memories begin with my Mom yelling there was a flag on the field after Rocket's punt return.) Last year's regular season alone gave me three or four games I'll remember far better than whatever bowl game we played in after the 2005 season.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

But, but, people would rather have an excuse not to hang out with family during the holidays than see an actual meaningful playoff tournament for college football.

 

[Highlander]

Conference Championships moved to the week of Thanksgiving for P5 and G5
10 conference championships played over 5 days - Tuesday x1, Wednesday x1, Thursday x2, Friday x2, and Saturday x4

32 team tourney

16 games over 2 weeks
Christmas Week is Wave 1 - leaving Sunday and Monday for the NFL

• Friday x1 (before Xmas), Saturday x1, Tuesday x1, Wednesday x1, Thursday x1 , Friday x1, Saturday x2 games (8 games)

New Year's Week is Wave 2 - leaving Sunday and Monday for the NFL

• 1 game on Tuesday x1, Wednesday x1, Thursday x1, Friday x2 games, Saturday x3 games (8 games) (adjustable based on what day of the week is NY's Day)

That takes you down to 16 teams/8 games over 2 weeks

• 1st full Week of January - 1 game on Friday x 1, Saturday x 3
• 2nd full week of January - 1 game on Friday x 1, Saturday x 3

8 teams left for the week of the NFL Pro Bowl

• 3rd full week of January - Friday x1, Saturday x 3

4 teams left for the week of the Super Bowl

• 1 game on Friday & 1 game on Saturday

2 teams left the week after the Super Bowl

• 1 game on Saturday or Sunday

Who gets in?

• Conference Championship Winners of all FBS conferences: 10 teams
• Conference Championship Losers of P5 Conferences: 5 teams
• 17 wild cards
• Each P5 conference gets no less than 2 teams each
• Remaining 7 open to ranking
• Seeding done based off current measurement system

Benefits

• Nobody ever gets less than 7 days rest
• Gives a solid break for finals
• Leaves room for the NFL schedule to run as is, more or less
• No congressional inquiries on excluding G5 teams like the BCS almost went through before caving to the pressure of including G5 teams
• Currently 41 bowl games - this cuts it to 31 games, which is probably the right attrition. It could continue at neutral sites - not sure about playing at home Thanksgiving, Xmas, and New Years weeks as not a lot of student around

 

[sackman]

Dammit. Is there a limit we can establish on Niks use of the term "pod"?

 

[Darth Snow]

Dammit. Is there a limit we can establish on Niks use of the term "pod"?

That, and he should only be allowed to start these threads during the offseason.

 

[Buffnik]

That, and he should only be allowed to start these threads during the offseason.

I was kind of thinking we didn't have much in the way of real football for the next 2 weeks.

 

[Darth Snow]

I was kind of thinking we didn't have much in the way of real football for the next 2 weeks.

We don't, but there are lots and lots of other programs to point and laugh at until the team with the least-funny fans in the pac 12 get here.

Anyway, just teasing. We all have our kicks. Yours just happens to be expansion, which is something we all miss as we age I guess.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

That, and he should only be allowed to start these threads during the offseason.

 

[Buffnik]

One last thing that I should have put in the OP:

I have been thinking in terms of 4 or 5 power conferences going to 16 teams.

There's also a very real possibility of it going to a P4, but with the ACC, B1G, P12 and SEC each expanding to 18 teams split into two 9-team divisions. That would expand the P5 from 65 teams to 72 teams.

The B1G might be pushing that, actually, and they've got the resources to cause a lot of dominoes to fall. If they decided to take ISU, KU, OU and MU, what could stop them?
B1G West: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Iowa State, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Illinois.
B1G East: Maryland, Rutgers, Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue, Northwestern.

 

[BerkeleyBuff]

There's not enough teams who can bring in enough money for every conference to go to 18.

 

[Buffnik]

There's not enough teams who can bring in enough money for every conference to go to 18.

I agree. But I don't think that the B1G or SEC will worry about killing the Big 12, poaching the ACC and leaving mostly G5 scraps for the P12 & ACC if it makes them more money. So they might go to 18 or even 20 while the ACC and PAC stay somewhere between 12 and 14. That's a real possibility.

 

[BerkeleyBuff]

I hope the PAC either never expands, or takes 4 that include OU and UT. There's nothing left on this half of the continent that is worth it, save perhaps BYU, and we know that's not going to happen.

 

[dio]

Has bringing Utah been a win for the P12? If so, then I don't see why they wouldn't move on UNLV, SDSU and UNM to maximize the western footprint.

 

[BerkeleyBuff]

I think Utah would be a marginal add at best (though to be clear I'm very glad we have them), but was valuable enough with CU to get us some more content and the championship game. I don't think UNLV or especially SDSU bring enough new interest to generate so much money that everyone's wallet gets fatter.

 

[Buffnik]

Has bringing Utah been a win for the P12? If so, then I don't see why they wouldn't move on UNLV, SDSU and UNM to maximize the western footprint.

Most people who have no idea about the politics of the Pac-12 cannot understand at all why BYU and Boise State aren't members right now.

Both would bring value, I think. It's also hard for me to see either happening. (I assume you're there with me since you didn't mention either.)

UNLV and SDSU would seem to make the most sense from the standpoint of big western metro populations. All the areas mentioned in our posts are growing like crazy (economically and population) except for Albuquerque/ New Mexico. All have good enough facilities and they'd pretty much all have better basketball arenas than most of the current Pac-12.

SDSU and Boise State would be the most painful for the MWC (would cripple that conference financially) and do the most for our next contract if we assume expansion through G5 and no BYU.

 

[BerkeleyBuff]

Athletically, BYU would be a tremendous addition. Athletically.

 

[Buffnik]

Athletically, BYU would be a tremendous addition. Athletically.

I haven't checked into this, but I read something very interesting about BYU last time around. Report was that the vote was 7-3 against them at the time the Pac-10 opted instead for Utah.

The important thing here is that the old Pac-10 rules were allegedly that expansion had to be by unanimous vote but once we became the Pac-12 that was changed to a 75% vote. Therefore, a 9-3 vote is all it would take to add a member. BYU could conceivably have the votes if it showed that it was in good shape on academic freedom.

That surprised me a bit and made me think that politics are maybe not as big of an obstacle as we had thought.

 

[Highlander]

I haven't checked into this, but I read something very interesting about BYU last time around. Report was that the vote was 7-3 against them at the time the Pac-10 opted instead for Utah.

The important thing here is that the old Pac-10 rules were allegedly that expansion had to be by unanimous vote but once we became the Pac-12 that was changed to a 75% vote. Therefore, a 9-3 vote is all it would take to add a member. BYU could conceivably have the votes if it showed that it was in good shape on academic freedom.

That surprised me a bit and made me think that politics are maybe not as big of an obstacle as we had thought.

Utah probably votes no to go with the other 3 and they don't get in. It would be like us voting for CSU to get in - not going to happen.

Edit - just realized you said the down vote was 7 to 3 for BYU. That's a pretty healthy no vote.

 

[MtnBuff]

I hope the PAC either never expands, or takes 4 that include OU and UT. There's nothing left on this half of the continent that is worth it, save perhaps BYU, and we know that's not going to happen.

Paging @sackman in 5. . . 4. . . 3. . . 2. . .

BYU is an absolute non-starter. Their religious beliefs and school policies would get them voted down every time by the PAC Presidents.

Texas is financially a huge prize but they destroy every conference they touch. They don't believe that anyone is their equal and that they thus deserve to call the shots. They are usually able to convince enough hangers on to vote with them that they manage to get away with it.

If they ended up in the PAC I don't see USC, UW, UCLA, Oregon or others going along with their garbage. CU has already dealt with them and likely won't fall for it again.

Even with all this I still would hesitate to want to deal with Texas. OU would add to the footprint, even if they had to bring OSU with them. We might even go mid-west and take a Kansas. Lousy at football but automatically moves our standing as a basketball conference up (and stuffs the mouths of the Zona fans who think this conference is theirs.) Kansas would though be without K-State.

 

[Always BUFF]

Paging @sackman in 5. . . 4. . . 3. . . 2. . .

BYU is an absolute non-starter. Their religious beliefs and school policies would get them voted down every time by the PAC Presidents.

Texas is financially a huge prize but they destroy every conference they touch. They don't believe that anyone is their equal and that they thus deserve to call the shots. They are usually able to convince enough hangers on to vote with them that they manage to get away with it.

If they ended up in the PAC I don't see USC, UW, UCLA, Oregon or others going along with their garbage. CU has already dealt with them and likely won't fall for it again.

Even with all this I still would hesitate to want to deal with Texas. OU would add to the footprint, even if they had to bring OSU with them. We might even go mid-west and take a Kansas. Lousy at football but automatically moves our standing as a basketball conference up (and stuffs the mouths of the Zona fans who think this conference is theirs.) Kansas would though be without K-State.

I would agree with this 98%, UT is a beast that consumes anyone in it's path. To go beyond the SEC's of the world it make take a beast. My only point...get UT to "play ball" and the PAC becomes a whole new animal, UT is the lynch pin and every HS player West of the Miss worth their salt will be playing in the PAC...the B12/10 will be nothing more than a MW.

 

[MtnBuff]

I would agree with this 98%, UT is a beast that consumes anyone in it's path. To go beyond the SEC's of the world it make take a beast. My only point...get UT to "play ball" and the PAC becomes a whole new animal, UT is the lynch pin and every HS player West of the Miss worth their salt will be playing in the PAC...the B12/10 will be nothing more than a MW.

That's the big if.

Texas would bring you the biggest chunk of the TV market in the huge and college football mad state of Texas. Texas would also give you another one of the national draws. They would likely not only generate enough additional revenue potential to pay for their own share but to also cover any deficit from the other schools added at the same time plus some. The PAC would go from being a west coast league to a national league in terms of attention

 

[BerkeleyBuff]

Ya, the additions of Texas and OU completely transform the league.

Definitely "risks" with Texas, but I fear them less over here in the PAC, because this is one place where UT might finally feel like they have some near equals in Stanford, USC, UW, and Cal.

Texas' reputation for "destroying leagues" is also a bit exaggerated, IMO. When the Big XII started falling apart, Missouri really got the ball rolling by flirting with the B1G. Then the PAC made their huge push to get 6 Big XII teams.

I don't actually blame UT for taking the LHN deal. They had pushed to get a Big XII network going years earlier but nobody bought in. They then tried to get A&M to partner on a Texas sports channel but still no-go. If ESPN wants to throw money at them, why wouldn't they take it.

But those are all just, like, opinions, man.