One thing that I wonder about. Are other schools' fanbases as opposed to this as we are? I don't really care one way or another in terms of my belief that this is a bad decision, just wondering if we're alone in our anger towards Delaney.

So here is a potentially stupid question.  There will be the PAC12 (West Coast), SEC (Southeastern), B1G (Northeastern) and one other super conference.  Since it seems most likely that the East coast will be the other super conference with the Big12  being absorbed by the SEC and PAC12, what happens to the MWC, MAC, and C-USA?  There are some decent teams that play there (yes few and far between).  Will they also be absorbed or basically just become baby seals for us four to pick on?  Will we potentially see 20 team conferences in the future?

An excellent post and analysis.  The quality on this blog never ceases to amaze me.  It will be fun to see if your analysis comes true for your stated reasons.

As with any prior talks and happenings in conference realignment, it seems there has always been a significant domino effect.  It will be interesting to see what happens to other conferences especially with schools who feel their position is threatened.  

With all the anti-ND sentiment recently with their improbable complete F-ing BS lucky season (it makes me angry thinking about), if the ACC implodes I would have to believe that this will definitely leave them out in the cold.

At this point I don't care who wins the MNC or which conference they come from.... Please just NOT ND.

It's interesting to think about the role that the Big Ten Network has played in conference realignment.  Honestly, if BTN had flopped, are we anywhere near the superconference world we're in today?

The bluebloods of college sports are pairing up to form 4 super conferences (with at least 16 teams each) that will divide up the country like the market barons of old and extract every cent of TV money they can by creating sports networks to go along with those conferences.

OK, for one thing, the idea that 4 super conferences is inevitable is inherently flawed. For one thing, who is the Pac 12 going to add going forward? Unless the Big 12 falls apart, the answer is nobody, because the only sensible additions for the Pac 12 to make are Texas and Oklahoma. They'll take a couple other teams to make the move politically palatable for them (probably Texas Tech and Oklahoma State, although if Oklahoma went elsewhere, things might be different), but that's the only way they expand. What the Pac 12 will not do is take Texas as long as the LHN exists, because the Pac 12 uses the Pac 12 network to make a ton of money off second-tier rights.

Second, the SEC has little reason to expand further at present. They had a chance to get a foothold in Texas with Texas A&M and took it and added Missouri because they had to get to an even number. They'll need another highly attractive target before they expand further. And said target cannot be located in Florida, Georgia, or South Carolina because all three schools have stated that they are completely opposed to adding another team from their own state, undoubtedly because of the competitive advantage they have in said states at present.

Finally, it should be remembered that the conferences are not vying for power and money in a zero sum game against each other. Instead, ithe individual schools within each conference want to ensure that their conference is first and foremost, stable. Then, each individual school within the conferences want to increase their overall payout from the conference. The Big Ten is guessing that the additions of Rutgers and Maryland will increase the per school payout, meaning that the average amount of money a school brings into the conference with Rutgers and Maryland is greater than the average amount of money a school brings in without Rutgers and Maryland. This is questionable, as it relies on the Big Ten getting the BTN on basic cable in New York. There are a variety of reasons that this may or may not happen, but I will not go into them now. What I will say is that it is probable, but not certain.

Three of those 4 super conference are already set with B1G and its BTN, PAC and the west coast, and SEC, with its super lineup of football powerhouses, the lord of the southeast. The last open spot will be a battle royale between Big12 and ACC. But who is going to win that last spot? Most of you just shrug your shoulders and say “who cares?”

But Jim Delany certainly cares. He cares because there are were four seats available at the table and he wants to make sure those seats are filled by the biggest whales who can fill the B1G’s mighty coffer.

Again, why does there have to be 4 super-conferences and why 16 teams in each. At present, the ACC's weaker TV deal and questions about its stability may give the Big 12 the ability to pick off certain schools like FSU and Clemson. However, this issue is largely contingent on how much of the buyout Maryland winds up paying. Maryland can afford to put a lot of money from a Big Ten TV deal to the buyout. This might not be true for teams going to the lesser payout of the Big 12. And then there's the question of whether there exists 6 willing schools that can put the current Big 12 schools in a better position than they are now. I would argue that there aren't. Certainly the addition of FSU would help, but that's really it because the Big 12 cannot make a strong TV network as long as the LHN exists.

Big Ten Network is the teat that B1G suckles on. What is good for BTN is good for B1G (at least money wise). So, how does BTN make its money? From cable subscribers (more specifically, regional cable networks who offer BTN as part of a low tier package) – and more subscribers there are, more money B1G will make.

Nope, actually we make much more money from our first tier rights deals with ESPN, Fox, and CBS than the BTN.

Now, you also go on about how we need to attack the ACC and how we would not add GT because we'd be playing second fiddle to the SEC in Georgia and a number of other similar ideas. This is the wrong way to look at it. The Big Ten does not care aobut being the number 1 game in town in every market we have a presence in. In DC, for instance, I would not at all be surprised if the ACC gets better ratings than the Big Ten due the number of ACC teams clustered around the area relative to Big Ten teams. It doesn't matter, however, because we'll still be making money from there. Similarly, when the SEC took Texas A&M, they didn't care at all that the Big 12 would still be the dominant draw in the state. They just wanted to increase their presence in a series of highly-populated football-crazy markets.

Likewise, the Big Ten does not particularly care whether or not the ACC or Big 12 falls apart. If the Big 12 for whatever reason decides to raid the ACC of 6 teams (assuming they go to 16, which I don't see happening but whatever), there will still be enough important unaffiliated teams on the east coast to form a decent enough conference. We wouldn't pick them up because none of them are really worth it for the current member institutions. And if the Big 12 fell apart, it wouldn't really affect the Big Ten either all that much either because its not as if we really covet Kansas or anything.

I hope the ACC goes away and ND is forced to join the MAC.