Dallas Morning News: Big 12 Source said "We Might Be Moving Toward 4 Superconferences"
Well I guess it's that time of year again to play, "Superconference rumors sprouting from Big 12 country".
At least it's not OrangeBloods.com again.
Remember the idea of the superconference? When conference realignment first started to take off two summers ago, there was talk of college football eventually cannabilizing itself to create four 16-team super-conferences.
Well, following the news that the SEC and Big 12 have gotten together and agreed on a plan to have their conference champions face off in a bowl game should they not be involved in the new playoff, much like the Big Ten and Pac-12 do in the Rose Bowl, it seems the idea of superconferences has been rekindled.
In fact, one Big 12 source even told the Dallas Morning News' Chuck Carlton that he thinks that's exactly where the sport is headed.
"I really can't believe I'm saying this," the source told the paper. "We might be moving to four super-conferences -- and the Big 12 would be one of those."
The other three, obviously, would be the SEC, Big Ten and Pac-12. Those four conferences distanced themselves from the ACC and Big East with this latest bowl announcement, and the fact that this announcement came after rumors that Florida State was interested in jumping from the ACC to the Big 12 doesn't help the situation.
At the moment the ACC and Big East, along with independents like Notre Dame face an uncertain future. Sure, the odds of both the Big 12 champion and SEC champion not being involved in whatever format playoff is decided upon aren't great, but the plan also includes conference runner-ups.
Which means that if the playoffs aren't a part of the current bowl system, a bowl like the Fiesta Bowl or Sugar Bowl could become the defacto host of this new bowl game. Which would eliminate ACC and Big East teams from consideration.
None of this makes super-conferences a certainty by any means, but anybody who is paying attention has to realize that the concept is a lot more likely now than it was even a week ago.
No matter what happens Chuck Neinas, the acting Big 12 commissioner, has done a compete 180 for that conference. Just a few months ago the Big 12 was about to explode now they have a seat at the big boys table and are rumored to thinking about poaching FSU. That guy has sure earned his paychecks.
but I think it has more to do with Texas than Neinas. Once Texas recommitted to the Big 12, the conference was essentially safe. Texas had nowhere else to go as the Pac 12 would not give in to their demands, and the SEC would be way too competitive for them.
The strange thing is if this conference realighment had happened 10 years ago, the ACC would be holding a lot more power than they do now. The downturn in FSU and Miami football has given the ACC no leverage at all. And 10 years ago, Texas was nowhere near the superpower it is today. Timing is everything.
Texas recommitting to the Big 12 has nothing to do with the Big 12 commissioner?
Texas was looking out for themselves, and the Big 12 ended up being their only option. The Big 12 pretty much caved to all their demands to make them happy.
The only other move I see that Neinas made was the grant of rights to force all the teams to stay in the conference for the foreseeable future, but I saw that as the only option for the teams other than Texas left in the conference as they had just hemorrhaged 4 teams in the last year and had no other landing place, and Texas couldn't risk letting the Big 12 fall apart as it didn't find other conference options palatable.
Neinas couldn't keep Texas A&M and Missouri in conference after Nebraska & Colorado left, and I think people are overlooking the depth the conference has lost. I don't see the Big 12 as the superpower that other people are making it out to be. It is essentially Texas, Oklahoma, and a lot of mediocre football. The Big 12 lost 3 of its 5 most valuable properties when Nebraska, Colorado, & Texas A&M left. They almost need FSU & Miami as much as FSU & Miami need them.
If he wouldn't have agreed to all of Texas' conditions, they might have left.
There was nowhere for Texas to go if they wanted to keep the Longhorn Network. The Pac-12, SEC, and Big Ten would never have allowed that to happen (all 3 share revenue equally). Texas overplayed their hand. If anything, the Big 12 didn't need to cave completely (which they did).
He wasn't able to keep Texas A&M or MIssouri after Nebraska and Colorado left. I think that shows that he had very little power over where these schools were going. Texas was going to do what they wanted to do.
If the Big 12 doesn't cave to their demands, they join the Pac-12 or Big Ten and get the same situation as the Big 12 but way more money. If you're giving Neinas credit for stabilizing the league after they caved, then fine.
Neinas has done a great job but let's not kid ourselves; Texas is still running the show.
Also, Beebe was still commish when those teams left. I don't blame either team for leaving. The Big 12 is a legend in it's own mind
Miami was invited to the ACC in early 2003.
2002 Miami was a member of the Big East
It was obvious that his point was that Miami and FSU were major players a decade ago, where Texas was just starting to transition out of years of mediocrity.
9 years is close to 10. My point was about a decade ago the roles were reversed, and the ACC looked like the new superpower. FSU, VT, and Miami had together accounted for a total of 6 appearances in BCS Championship games from 1999-2003 (winning 2 titles), and at that point in 2003, all those teams were going to be in the ACC.
Well, they are a recruiting and TV superpower
I'd like to see how this 4 team playoff turns out before forming like Voltron and moving to 4 super conferences. Dave Brandon’s head will explode if that does come to fruition.
If you cut through Brandon's rhetoric, the bottom line is the BCS is too big. His argument is that you can't have a meaningful champion when you start with more than 120 teams and play only 12 games.
So I think he would be in favor of a reorganization of Division I that would result in a top division with 64 teams or whatever.
but none of the other divisions seem to think they don't have a meaningful champion at the end of their playoff. And it's hard to explain the results in D3 if your assumption is that the playoff is a crapshoot.
Meh, I really like where the Big 10 is now. 12 teams is perfect, I wouldn't want to add 4 shit teams that have no business being in the Big 10 just because we are going to super conferences. That would also mean we go years without playing traditional Big 10 teams. Just keep it how it is.
Assuming each conference goes to 14-16 teams, you would have to play about 6-7 games in your division with only room for 1-2 crossover games. Actually going to 16 teams would be better for the B1G than 14 teams because it may be easier to keep more of the original B1G together. It would almost be like reforming the old Big Ten minus 2 members, and then putting PSU, Nebraska, and the new additions in the new division.
Assuming the B1G absorbed some East coast schools like UVa, Maryland, and UNC:
OSU, MIchigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, Northwestern
PSU, Nebraska, MSU, Iowa, UVa, Maryland, UNC, Georgia Tech
The only problem is 2 old school B1G teams would get screwed though. I think PSU and Nebraska are new enough that they would adapt (PSU would welcome more East Coast schools like Maryland and UVa actually).
i doubt the schoos, would agree to it. I would think that the conference and schools would want to see a blend of new and old B1G schools (or whatever it would be called). Maryland would want to be able to host Michigan or Ohio more than once every 6 years or whatever it would be. Also, i doubt Michigan would want to travel to Maryland every 6 years.
I agree with everything everyone else is saying, this would just be a bad idea to have 4 superconferences. I like the idea of the B1G being 12 teams, it is just the right size.
sigh
4 pods of 4 so you play every team within 3 years
I don't see Nebraska or Iowa agreeing to those divisions; they aren't going to travel to the East Coast 2 or three times a year when no team in the other division has to travel more than a couple hundred miles. Switch Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern and Minnesota with Maryland, UNC, Georgia Tech and UVA.
I agree and love the conference as it is currently but if we had to go to 16 teams I wouldn't mind seeing Virginia Tech, Virginia, Notre Dame and one of Pitt, UNC, Duke or Georgia Tech added. Then we could split into 2 divisions with one being Michigan, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan State, Purdue, Indiana and Minnesota and the other being Notre Dame, Penn State, Virginia Tech, Nebraska, Virginia, Northwestern, Illinois and Georgia Tech. We could have a 9 game conference schedule and play 2 crossover games per year + a very interesting B1G Championship game. An added bonus is that Michigan and Ohio State would be able to play once a year basically for the "old" Big ten title and the winner would play the winner of the other division, probably a very good ND, PSU or VT team.
Would prefer to stick to the way things are but I wouldnt hate seeing something along those lines.
Don't worry, no matter what morans on the internet will still be upset with the outcome!
Is that a Bugsy Moran?
I would be okay going to 16 team conferences if it meant overhauling the schedule & playing 10 or 11 conference games (and all 7 other teams in your division).
Schools need to maintain model with 7-8 home games a year for revenue. 10-11 game conference schedule will force teams to play 5-6 road games a year. Unless the TV deals make up for it, I don't see it happening.
Realistically with 16 team conferences, you are probably looking at 4 4-team divisions.
3 games within your division
6 games across division (2 per division)
best team from each division goes to the conference play off. 4 team seeded playoff with semis hosted at high ranked and final in indy or chicago.
Total conference games: 9-11
Plus 2-3 non-conference games: 12-14
Plus 0-2 post conference games: 12-16
With 4 16 team conferences, the conference playoff + interconference playoff effectively becomes a 16 team play off.
This would, effectively, create our 8 team playoff. Four conferences holding their championship game, winners advance to Rose for the B1G and PAC 16 and B12, SEC champ game (Sugar). Winners of the Rose and Sugar play in National Championship game. Now speculation on what schools go where begins.
I see the B1G making a play for UVA, VT, ND (their hand would be forced), and some random 4th (Syracuse? Pitt? Rutgers?)
B12 will look at FSU, Clemson, Louisville, and. a 4th (Duke, UNC, NCST?)
SEC only needing two, Miami and a 2nd (GT?)
PAC would seem to be the most obvious fit for Kansas, Kstate (if they would go, opening 2 more slots for the B12 (Duke and UNC?). Then they need to add two more...Boise? BYU?
My suggestions would leave some quite interesting teams high and dry...BC, Wake, Md, Uconn among others. Do they become the default basketball conference and are they relegated to never having a chance at the national championship in football??
I need a beer...
How is the Pac 12 the "most obvious fit for Kansas, KState?" Why would they leave the Big 12? Why wouldn't it make more sense for Boise and BYU to go to the Pac 12? You lost me...
I'm just drinking and forgetting about their B12 status. I was just thinking geography, which like, if they Pac 12 has to go to 16, where are they finding 4 more quality schools on the west coast? It just seems Kansas and Kstate would be the best prepared B12 schools to more for some semblance of geography continuity.
BYU to the Pac 12 would likely be a no go for the same reason Baylor to the Pac 12
Baylor to the Pac 12 was a political thing with the Texas state legislature...how is it the same as if it were BYU? Am I missing something?
I think this has been the trajectory of college football since the BCS started, so nothing new here. It will be interesting to see how the Big 12-SEC matchup works the first couple of times. We always presume that these two conferences will produce elite squads, but outside of Texas and Oklahoma in the Big 12 and Alabama, LSU, Florida, and sometimes Auburn, I don't see where the diversity will come in. And how is this any different than the current situation? All the super-conferences will do is eliminate WVa and Clemson from meaningless bowl games after NYD; we've had a four-league college football for 5+ years.
I could definitely see a situation where the ACC and Big East and independents, for starters, feel compelled to think about their status as coherent entities if the traditional bowls rework their arrangements in a new playoff system to host runner-ups for the conferences in a given year's playoff field.
That would definitely knock the perennial "middling" conferences, if you will, down another peg or two,and given other articles that have come out recently, I don't think any of them want to be out of the revenue picture if they can help it.
If it came to bowls that weren't hosting playoff games being the consolation prizes for the second (or third even) place teams in a conference, then I see merger pressures if revenue is going to be an issue.
That being said, it would be amusing for all the conferences to eventually collapse into InterFirstSouthWestNorthConference, leaving Notre Dame to schedule home-and-home series with the high schools in Walkerton, Mishakawa and Lakeville.
...The punchline is, none of the four will be the Big 12.
Forget geography and Notre Dame. (Neither position may be reasonable ... just run with it for a second.) I say we take UVA, UNC, Duke, and Georgia Tech. Leave the weaker academic schools to the SEC. None of those four would be logical additions to the Big 12.
Yes, because academics is the sector of the university system which is driving all this change...
I am being sarcastic if you cannot tell from the italicized text above.
-Herm
COULD go another route. Lose the football teams: Miami, V. Tech, Clemson, FSU. Keep the core of the original ACC and a few Big East castoffs: G. Tech, Duke, UNC, Wake Forest, Maryland, Virginia, Syracuse, BC--maybe NC State, Pitt, Rutgers. Commit to being a great conference in everything BUT football. Still eligible to go to a 4-team football playoff, but probably stuck in Citrus Bowl or something like it champion isn't top 4.
In other words, the ACC could go back to being what it was some 20, 30, and 40 years ago minus Clemson.
I'm not sure it's monetarily feasible--is it worth it to get $10 million less a year than an SEC school?--but it's probably worth exploring.
I actually did a report on whether ND should stay independent or join a big conference for football for a Sports Management class in college. I think they will stay independent as long as it is possible for them to do so at a profit. It comes down to simple numbers. They make WAY more money as an independent. TV contract, no revenue sharing, media exposure, etc. The profit margin isn't even close if you compare what they make at independent status with what they would make if they joined a BCS conference. Unless it comes down to competitive advantage, I think they will stay indepedent. But a four super-conference format will probably eventually force them into a conference. Which is good for the B10 because it will probably be us and that makes our conference even stronger. As for the four super-conference format I wasn't intially in favor. But as I thought about it more I started to think that maybe for football that will make the best teams each year more clear to everyone. Think about it. Less BS games against weak compeition with more conference games on the schedule each year. New rivalry games. And even better compeition for teams in the four super-conferences. Obviously, it won't make a lot of traditional fans happy but its a progressive world. And I think all and all it will help us determine who the best teams are year by year. And who really has the elite programs. At least in football.
In terms of money from football broadcasts? I thought Michigan got the ESPN and the BigTen money and that is more than what ND gets. I belive that is correct.
ND would latch on to the BigXII before they would stick with the BIG. Had the ACC not, apparently, imploded they would be heading there. If pushed to do so.
Sticking in the BIG means that ND has folded and is happy to be a regional team. By going BigXII, they'll be able to recruit almost coast to coast while playing in all those venues.
ND to the BIG makes a ton of sense, simply for the money it would bring with it. BIG teams make on average $21mill per team right now? Imagine adding ND, I could see that bumping closer to $30 per team. There is no doubt that the BIG did it up right with their network etc etc. The ACC tripped over its stupidity and the BigXII looks to cash in big time.
This of course hinges on the rules of the game. There are 2 ways ND is hurt. #1 is the most important, that is scheduling. If these super conference teams don't have much room to manouvre then ND gets frozen out because they won't be able to schedule the super conference teams. #2 is if the playoff only includes the 4 conference champions, I could see an addendum here, if ND is top4 they are auto-bidded. Of course they could be frozen out here as well.
I wish they would just pull the trigger and get it done with. For any of the tradionalists, the bus left the station long ago, never to return. Tradition is dead, get over it. 4 conferences of 16 teams. And get rid of the divisions in the conferences as well, top2 teams are in the championship.
Everyone wants expanded playoffs, more than 4 teams. But consider the ACC, BIG, PAC and SEC play championship games, you are already starting at 8.
“@GSwaim: #ND to #Big12 has more teeth today than I ever thought it could just a few weeks ago. The Irish are already going through proper channels.”
“@GSwaim: With #FSU & #ND quite possibly to the #Big12, and their precedent setting deal with the #SEC, the #B1G won't want to sit around long either.”
“@GSwaim: I'm told that #ND will jump in #Big12 very soon with Olympic sports, and then football joins after TV contract expires. #BlowsMyMind”
“@GSwaim: The #ND deal apparently was a catalyst for getting #FSU aboard all along. This thing is happening fast now for the #Big12...”
“@GSwaim:I don't know exactly how fast, but am told in the #ND athletic department that today things were "all go" for the move. #Surreal”
“@GSwaim: The time frame for #ND phasing in football could allow them to phase out contracts with #Purdue, #MSU, #GoBlue, #USC, #Stanford or #Navy.”
“@GSwaim: Virtually insure two more teams, in addition to #FSU & #ND. With #VaTech possibly #SEC bound, #Clemson is top #Big12 choice. Who's next?”
RuhRoh, gonna miss you guys.
I work in college athletics and this seems inevitable. During our senior staff meeting last week our AD said that for at least football...there will be super conferences within the next 5-7 years.
Everyone else would basically stay, but becoming D-1AA (or whatever they want to call it) and the 1-AA/FCS would becoming 1-AAA (or whatever they want to call it).
What a lot of people don't realize is that a lot of the top FCS schools are pushing for this.
They know they're not going to compete with the big boys, so if you take 48-64 teams out of FBS and let them create their own league...the thought is some of those spots will be filled with your App St., Richmond, Eastern Washington and Deleware's.
App St. now finds itself in the same conference as the bottom of the Big East or Sun Belt teams. And TV will broadcast these games waaay more than they'd broadcast a regular season FCS game today. And if it's 48 teams, App St. may find itself playing league games with schools like Duke, Wake Forest and Rutgers.
.....my personal preference is (4) conferences of (16) teams...then each conference has (2) divisions of (8) teams.
Play everyone in your division once (7 games), plus (2) conference games outside of your division. (9 total)
Schedule (3) non-conference games...(1) per conference.
So that's (12) regular season games + (1) conference championship game + an 8-team BCS Tournament ((4) conf. championship game winners and (4) at-large). The Quarterfinals would be at the site of the high-seeded team. The semifinals sites would predetermined like basketball, but they would always be split east/west or north/south and the highest remaining seed would get to pick where they wanted to play (ala #1 Michigan in Indianapolis or Detroit or #1 USC in St. Louis or Pasadena). The national championship would bounce around like the Super Bowl.
This would also help eliminate "home sites." Because let's say you did East/West and your semifinal sites were Miami and Phoenix. #1 Michigan is playing #4 Florida...Michigan may want to play that game in Phoenix rather than Miami, make both teams travel.
Yes, it's 16 games, but you can build in plenty of rest...you'd play you last regular season game the week of Thanksgiving. Conference Championship would be the week after. Same as it is now...
Then bye, quarterfinals, bye, semifinals, bye championship...you'd still finish up by the 2nd weekend in January like we do now, you just wouldn't get that 40+ day lay off in the middle.
Everyone else would play in a bowl, no matter the record.
Everyone would play 13-16 games, with only (2) teams having a chance to play 16 (you could miss your conference championship game, get an At-Large and get to the championship game with 15 games). The majority of the league wouldn't play more than 14 games...which is what teams play now even before the playoff.
There would be flaws in every idea, but this is what I like most. The revenue it would generate would absolutely be worth an 8-team tournament rather than a 4. It would also cover the cost of some of the shitty bowls teams would be in. But I like having everyone go to a bowl because it allows everyone to continue practicing in December. I think it's dumb now that so many schools can't practice, meanwhile the elite teams in bowls get better all winter.
Mock Schedule (* = division game):
Sept 1. vs. Washington
Sept 8. vs. Virginia
Sept 15. @ Oklahoma
Sept 22 vs. Notre Dame*
Sept 29 @ Syracuse
Oct 6 @ MSU*
BYE
Oct 20 vs. Wisconsin*
Oct 27 vs. Cincinnati*
Nov 3 @ Illinois*
Nov 10 vs. Indiana*
Nov 17 @ Louisville*
Nov 24 vs. Ohio
*Conference Championship Game*
Dec 1 vs. Maryland (@ Ford Field - Detroit, MI)
*BCS Quarterfinals*
Dec 15 vs. #8 Missouri (@ Michigan Stadium - Ann Arbor, MI)
*BCS Semifinals*
Jan 1 vs. #4 Texas (@ Georgia Dome - Atlanta, GA)
*BCS National Championship Game*
Jan 14 vs. #2 Florida (@ Cowboys Stadium - Dallas, TX)
16-0...National Champions!
probably why all those no-name FCS schools are jumping to FBS lately
I don't want to seem like a conspiracy theorist, but I'm willing to bet that the news about the SEC-Big12 deal was hardly a surprise to our conference's wily pro, Jim Delaney.
After the PAC 12 realized that they had no business getting into bed with Texas and Oklahoma, it must have been abundantly clear to them that there were no expansion candidates for their conference that made sense.
The Big Ten certainly reached the same conclusion, and this was demonstrated when it passed on Mizzou (and very probably other Big 12 schools that inquired at the time the Big 12 seemed to be melting down).
So for these two conferences, the idea of a strategic partnership was a clear solution to any need for growth, better TV deals, etc.
I'm sure that Delaney knew that the SEC and Big 12 had to have reached similar conclusions. And it wouldn't surprise me if the B1G withdrew its "playoffs on home sites" thing because Delaney was well aware that the Big12-SEC Bowl would make the bowl model for a playoff that much easier to digest.
But I don't think we're in for superconferences at this point. There's no reason the ACC and Big East can't do the same thing, have their own bowl, and then it's just a matter of designating which two out of the three big bowls are going to be the playoff bowls based on polls or some combination of bowls and a committee, etc.
It's brilliant, really, because it makes everything so much simpler.
The problem will come for the independents like Notre Dame, because if the ACC and Big East do an annual bowl, ND will be stuck forever in second tier bowls. In the case of Notre Dame, I wouldn't mind seeing that, as I basically don't like Notre Dame, but they'll eventually join the ACC and put that issue to rest. Now that Nebraska has upped the ante in the Big Ten, ND knows that it isn't going to beat UM, OSU, MSU, Nebraska and Wiscy on a regular basis, and I'm sure they'd rather not try.