| HolyHandgernade |
06-07-2010 12:34 AM |
I still think what you are seeing is a lot of misdirection for a lot of various reasons. Here's my "conspiracy theory".
I think most conferences, privately (some publicly), are actually convinced 12 teams is the "right" size for a conference and that 16 is just too unweildly and actually begins to dilute your product. I also believe most conferences believe there are only two real "prizes" out there - Notre Dame and Texas. Most of the "scenarios" that are "leaked" to the public are actually attempts to see if a poaching conference can get one of those two to jump to them or at least shake one out of its current conference bond. But, Notre Dame seems hell bent on maintaining neutrality and Texas either feels handcuffed about its options (a Longhorn Network and weighted vs shared revenue splits) or its sister institutions (A&M, Tech and Baylor). That said, I see this as the scenario that unfolds, not saying it will, this is just my prediction:
What is really motivating Big 10 expansion? If you already make all that money, why do you want to split it up even more? Sure, viewership of the network is important, but are there really that many more viewers that Missouri actually delivers to justify another cut in the pie? What the Big 10 (and PAC-10) really craves is a football championship game to market. The Big 10 doesn't really want Missouri or Nebraska (Mizzou delivers a decent population number but not a lot of program prestige, Nebraska is the opposite). Rutgers doesn't really add that "wow" factor. So, although its football program is currently "down", I think they want Syracuse and that Syracuse actually delivers a greater New York viewership than Rutgers ever can, even if its only draw is basketball, they believe that amount of viewership alone can offset their cut of the network pie. With the increased revenue, Syracuse believes it can get its football program back to at least a mid level competitive BCS program. If this falls through, I predict the Big 10 will go South, inviting either Maryland, Miami or Florida State.
The PAC-10 has had a long standing relationship with the Big-10 and also craves a football championship game. Plus, they're still interested in maintaining the "tradition" of the Rose Bowl arrangement. Thus, they want to mirror the Big-10, not over size it. The PAC-10 is tight because each team in the conference has a natural rival, so it makes sense to continue this trend. Colorado doesn't really give them that. Texas-Texas A&M could, but they run into the same "Tech" problem the Big 10 can't shake loose either. This makes Utah-BYU the most natural fit for the conference even if the programs aren't traditional BCS powers. It also makes more sense geographically grouping the "states" of Utah, Arizona, and Southern California in the the South division and Washington, Oregon, and and Northern California in the the North.
The only problem with this is that it might not be enough in order to launch the other aspect they would like to mirror the Big 10 in, a dedicated conference network. But, while the PAC-10 likes to mirror and has a relationship with the Big-10 it also has developed a strong working relationship with the Big 12. This would make the Partnership approach between these two conferences the most logical answer. By instituting a "cross-schedule" to replace the "noncon" portion of the schedule, the Partnership would be able to sell an attractive package for a new network with each conference retaining its individual identity. Whereas a "PAC-12" could only sell its conference slate, some bowl games, a championship game and between 1-3 BCS slots, a Partnership can market the cross-conference schedule, the conference slate, a whole slew of minor bowls, 2 championship games, and between 2 and 6 BCS slots. When one couples that with the collective "footprint" the partnership would cover, the revenue would probably match the Big 10 despite having 24 members in the partnership. This seems like the no-brainer option, until we come back to the original problem:
Missouri wants to go to the Big 10 if offered and Nebraska might. So, how do you negotiate a Partnership when you're not sure all your members are on board to do so? This is where the relationships between the Big 12 brass and the PAC-10 brass begin to cause some "calculated worries". A story "leaks" that six Big 12 teams might be invited to join the PAC-10. This creates a panic scenario where Beebe now has to appear as though he will try and save the conference but he needs commitments from wavering institutions. While Missouri and Nebraska would probably go if the Big 10 asked them today, they have no assurances the invitation will ever come. This puts them in potentially the same boat as KU, KSU, Baylor and Iowa State. In other words, the rumor creates the leverage Beebe needs that he otherwise didn't have without the new PAC-10 "threat". The Big 12 probably feels as though they could lose one of the two, but not both to make the partnership work (by adding one new member) and the real member they want is Nebraska which is why you have seen an article or two that hints Nebraska, not Missouri, is the real key to the dominos falling despite the real prizes being Texas and Notre Dame.
So, the real holdup in all of this is not one scenario over another, its that there are so many moving parts to get stabalized in order for the optimal solution to be realized. Most conferences don't want to go to 16 teams, they just want a conference championship game to market.
So, if you didn't want to read the long drawn out reasonings, here's the short answer: Most of the conferences will expand, but not as drastically as we think, The Big 10/11 will actually get a 12th team and no more. The SEC will remain status quo, the Big East and ACC may experience a minor shakeup. The PAC-10 will add Utah and BYU, becoming the PAC-12 which allows for a marketing partnership with the Big 12 as it is already made up. Missouri might go to the Big 10, in which case, the Big 12 will add one new institution.
|
