Conference Realignment is Done: Some Lessons

Submitted by oakapple on September 27th, 2012 at 5:39 PM

The tidal wave of major conference expansion and re-alignment is complete. The “Big Five” conferences – the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC, and Pac-12 – have reached equilibrium. None are likely to grow within the next ten years.

The have nots will continue to jockey for position. The so-called mid-major conferences (the Big East, Sun Belt, C-USA, MAC, and Mountain West) are on the outside looking in. They are destined to remain there for many years to come. You will see additional shifts into or between these conferences, as each hopes to gate-crash the forthcoming playoff.

Every mid-major school hopes that it can be the next Utah or TCU, both of which punched their ticket up to the Big Five in the last round of realignment. It isn’t going to be easy. For crucial structural reasons, it will be extremely difficult for any of the have nots to make a persuasive case for admission to the Big Five.

Many fans make the glib assumption that the conferences that are still at 10 or 12 teams (the Big Ten, Big 12, and Pac-12) will need to get up to 14 or 15 teams, as the ACC and SEC have done. This is not so. These conferences are all in a position of strength. Any change needs to be extremely compelling, and it is difficult to come up with plausible scenarios where that would be the case.

The Four Axioms of Conference Re-alignment

To understand this, you need to know the four axioms of Conference Re-Alignment

  • Money
  • Football
  • Academics
  • Geography

They work in the following ways:

  • Money. No school willingly changes conferences to make less money. No conference accepts a school if its existing members will lose money.
  • Football. No school moves willingly to a weaker football conference. No conference accepts a school that is below the league average in football.
  • Academics. No school moves willingly to an academically weaker conference. No conference accepts a school that is drastically weaker academically than the rest of the league.
  • Geography. The less sense a move makes geographically, the weaker the contracting parties.

There is no wiggle room in the first two rules. No one makes moves that lose money, and no one makes moves unless they are good for football. To those two axioms I cannot think of any modern exceptions.

The third rule has a bit of wiggle room. The Big Ten added Nebraska, which is slightly weaker academically than any other Big Ten school, but not drastically weaker. Nebraska is still a better “worst” school than the bottom of any other Big Five league, even the relatively strong Pac-12 and ACC. But there are limits to how low the Big Ten will go. On academic grounds alone, if for no other reason, you’ll never see a Cincinnati or a Louisville in the Big Ten.

Conferences occasionally accept schools with academics below the league average, but schools never voluntarily take an academic step down. In every modern move, the destination conference was better academically than the conference the school came from. This is a factor seldom considered by fans, who are only thinking about the football field. Conference moves are approved by school presidents, who are professors first and sports fans second.

The geography axiom has the most wiggle room of all, and it’s correlated with weakness. When the contracting parties are weak, they’re more likely to accept moves that make little or no geographic sense, if the other three axioms are satisfied. The Big 12, as the only net loser in the re-alignment derby, needed to find a tenth member, and with its options dwindling, took West Virginia, the best football school available. They rejected Louisville, which is geographically closer to the Big 12 footprint, but worse at football. West Virginia wanted to escape the collapsing Big East, and was willing to accept worse geography in order to do so.

The ACC accepted Notre Dame, their first member not on or near the Atlantic coast. But as the weakest of the Big Five leagues, the ACC needed to improve its football product, and Notre Dame needed access to the post-season. Here too, it was only because the parties were weak that they accepted a geographically nonsensical arrangement. (Notre Dame, it must be noted, was already in a geographically odd conference, the Big East; for them, the ACC has all upside. For many other reasons, the ACC was a better fit for Notre Dame than the Big Ten.)

Of course, the Gang of Five (i.e., mid-major) leagues have long ignored geography. The Big East is now the Big Everywhere. Conference USA wisely took a name attached to no fixed domicile. That they’re two of the weakest parties in FBS football hardly needs further explanation.

Applying the Axioms to the Big Five Leagues

With these axioms in mind, it is clear that the Big Five are done expanding. Let’s consider the three relevant cases:

  • Teams moving up from “mid-major” status to the Big Five
  • Continued exodus from the Big East
  • Re-alignment within the Big Five

Teams moving up to the Big Five. In the previous round of re-alignment, only two schools managed to do this, and both were special cases. TCU joined the Big 12, but TCU was a former member of the Big 12’s predecessor, the Southwest Conference. Furthermore, the Big 12 had an urgent need to get back to ten teams, after losing Texas A&M and Missouri to the SEC, and before that Colorado to the Pac-12 and Nebraska to the Big Ten.

After accepting Colorado, the Pac-12 needed a twelfth school, so that it could add a conference championship game. Plans to absorb several Big 12 schools fell through, leaving Utah as the only logical twelfth team available. Now that the Pac-12 has a conference championship game, the hurdle for any 13th or 14th school will be much harder to clear. The only Big Five leagues that have gone to 14 football schools had very compelling reasons for doing so—the ACC to bolster a weak football product, the SEC to get access to the Texas recruiting market.

No remaining “mid-major” is even remotely suitable for admission to the Big Five. All are academically weak (by Big Five standards), lack significant football traditions, or come from small markets that would not bring much TV revenue with them. Most are more than one of the above.

Continued Exodus from the Big East. The Big East was considered a peer league of the Big Five for many years, before the mass exodus that saw Boston College, Miami, Virginia Tech, Syracuse, Pitt, and Notre Dame, all leaving for the ACC, and West Virginia for the Big 12.

Of the Big East’s original football-playing members, only Rutgers remains. Everyone in the country knows that Rutgers would leave the Big East in a heartbeat. Therefore, the lack of an invitation from the major conferences is telling. No conference commissioner believes that Rutgers can deliver the New York/New Jersey television market. (I live in that area, and I can assure you that no one talks about Rutgers football.) Without a television audience or a large football fan base, there is simply no reason for any conference to take Rutgers.

All of the Big East’s remaining football members are arrivistes—former mid-majors who hoped the Big East was their ticket to the Big Time, only to realize that as they arrived, the league was taking a hard fall. None of them have the combination of a large market, a strong football tradition, and strong academics that the Big Five are looking for.

Realignment within the Big Five.This is the most complex case to consider. Let’s begin with some background. Except for the Big 12 and its predecessor, the Southwest Conference, no Big Five league has lost a member since South Carolina left the ACC in 1971. These leagues are incredibly stable.

The Big 12 was the one unstable major conference, due to fundamental mistakes when it was assembled in 1996 and poor management afterward. As now constituted, the Big 12 is what the Big Ten used to be, and to an even greater degree: a Big Two (Texas and Oklahoma), and a Little Eight. None of the Little Eight are useful to the remaining Big Five leagues, and the Big Two like having a sandbox they can dominate. Nothing will happen in the Big 12 unless Texas and Oklahoma want it. Both schools know that there is no other league where they would have that kind of power. Any potential new member would know that the rest of the league plays second fiddle to those two schools.

Among the Big Five leagues, only the Big 12 is leaving money on the table by remaining at ten teams, and depriving themselves of a conference championship game. As such, the Big 12 is the only Big Five league with an obvious reason to expand. Any other league, such as the Big Ten, would need a school, or more likely a pair of schools, which that brings sufficient revenue on their own, a condition that is hard to satisfy.

Texas and Oklahoma (the Big Two) strongly prefer the Big 12 to remain at 10 teams. The original Big 12 had a divisional split, but the South Division (in which both Big Two teams resided) was usually much stronger than the north, which had only Nebraska as a perennial power. In the 15 years that a championship game was played, Texas or Oklahoma represented the South 13 times, and the only other representative, Texas A&M, is no longer in the league. The South team won the game 11 out of 15 times, including the last seven times, and often by lopsided margins. Kansas State is the only team in the current Big 12, other than the Big Two, that ever won the game.

Because the Big 12 is so competitively lopsided, Texas and Oklahoma prefer to have the conference championship decided by a regular-season round robin, which they figure to dominate 75 to 80 percent of the time. Neither one is comfortable with putting a regular-season crown on the line in a conference championship game, where an upset could knock them out of the top-tier bowls. No doubt there are teams in other leagues that feel the same way, but no other league is dominated by two schools to anywhere near that extent.

Of course, the Big 12 has an additional problem. It is highly unlikely that the league would attract two powerhouse teams comparable to Texas and Oklahoma, which means that almost any conceivable divisional split would be competitively unbalanced unless the Big Two were split up. The Big Two want no part of this, as their annual rivalry is the conference’s biggest game, and they don’t want to dilute it by (potentially) playing it twice.

 (I realize that the Big Ten put its two marquee teams, Michigan and Ohio State into separate divisions, a decision that many fans still regret. But Michigan and Ohio State do not dominate the Big Ten the way Texas and Oklahoma dominate the Big 12. Until the recent scandal decimated Penn State, the Big Ten had four premier programs and several others that are frequently strong, a situation the Big 12 cannot replicate.)

A while back, sources from Florida State and Clemson hinted—I stress, hinted—that they might be open to exploring a move to another conference. The FSU president quickly poured cold water on that idea, and that was before the ACC added Notre Dame and instituted a $50 million-per-school exit fee. The newly constituted ACC will probably have a TV package approaching the Big 12’s package in value, thus negating whatever merit some Florida State fans might have seen in moving.

FSU partisans might salivate over annual games against Oklahoma and Texas, but in most years they’d face only one of those teams, along with a steady diet of less desirable opponents like Iowa State, the two Kansas schools, and Baylor. Take another look at Florida State’s ACC schedule, especially with Notre Dame now in the mix, and the Big 12 does not look so good, monetarily or competitively. On top of that, the Big 12 would be a significant step down academically from the ACC, and once again I refer you to the four axioms: in the modern era, no school has moved to an academically less-prestigious conference.

If the Big Ten wanted to expand to 14 teams, he ACC is home to the only schools that might plausibly be available someday, and that might contribute enough television revenue to be considered worthy expansion candidates. But only three current ACC schools have been national powers in the last fifty years: Clemson, Florida State and Miami. Even if the Big Ten wanted them (a dubious proposition in itself), those schools are far more likely to see a path to the national championship through the weaker ACC, than to be playing November football games in places like Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin.

In addition to Texas—which is clearly not available—you can be sure that the Big Ten looked at every remotely possible school that met its criteria. That the Big Ten has chosen to remain at 12 teams is a pretty good indication that no team is available that the Big Ten wants.

Conclusions

Fans toss out realignment scenarios as if they were trading players in a fantasy football game. The conference commissioners and university presidents who make these decisions are far more ruthless. Any move has to be consistent with the four axioms: money, football, academics, and geography. It’s hard to find moves that meet those criteria, because the Big Five leagues are already very strong and stable, and have no burning need to grow.

Notre Dame was the last big prize remaining unclaimed. The Irish have now made their decision, one that suited their priorities better than any other available option, including the Big Ten. Now that all of the major programs have what they want, look for them to sit tight for a long, long time.

Comments

Mr Miggle

September 27th, 2012 at 7:23 PM ^

You've done a lot of work here, but trying to take a definitive look ten years down the road strikes me as overly ambitious.

Your first axiom is really the dominant one. Academics seem to be a sticking point for the Big Ten and maybe the ACC. I don't think the other three much care. If ESPN, BTN, SEC or other networks come up with an analysis showing further expansion will be very profitable, then I expect it to happen. Otherwise, I agree that the major conferences look pretty stable right now.

BlueHills

September 27th, 2012 at 7:50 PM ^

Much was made of the problems with Texas' network demands, but I think it's likely that the PAC-12 didn't want the Oklahoma schools or Texas Tech for reasons having to do with academics.

Then again, that whole thing with Baylor, and the Texas legislature, was just plain weird, and the PAC-12 probably didn't want to get involved in Texas politics, either.

Mr Miggle

September 28th, 2012 at 6:16 AM ^

were well below the PAC-10 average academically, roughly on par with the Oklahoma schools. Getting Texas is so attractive for academics that taking them plus Texas Tech would be a no-brainer.

Utah and Colorado didn't add to their football strength either. That expansion was 100% driven by money, as were all of the others. The SEC didn't take Missouri over West Virginia because that were better at football or academics, but because they brought a bigger market.

2plankr

September 27th, 2012 at 7:50 PM ^

I don't think Mizzou, A&M, or especially Colorado are above average in football for the leagues they entered. Utah maybe. If there are no moves in the next ten year I'll eat my shoes

oakapple

September 28th, 2012 at 12:44 PM ^

Among FBS schools, Texas A&M is a top-20 program in all-time wins, ahead of all but five SEC schools (Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, LSU, and Auburn).

In all-time wins, Colorado is ahead of every Pac-12 team except USC. I realize they're terrible this year, but these types of moves are 20, 30-year decisions.

Mizzou on its own doesn't quite meet the league average in SEC football, although they're ahead (historically) of a number of SEC teams. However, Texas A&M and Mizzou were pretty clearly a package deal. Considered together, they certainly did not dilute the league.

EGD

September 27th, 2012 at 8:07 PM ^

Terrific job on the diary.  However, your own analysis suggests to me that the Big XII does seem more likely than not to consider additional expansion since restoring a conference championship game brings the money and gives the league's best team an additional win--a possible factor in gaining access to the playoffs in the future. For Texas and OU, being the dominant powers in their resepctive divisions would also seem desirable under your Big XII oligarchy model.  If the Big XII does expand, there appear to be numerous logical teams it could choose from, probably by raiding the Mountain West or C-USA--which, in turn, potetentially sets additional dominoes in motion.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

September 27th, 2012 at 9:36 PM ^

Yes and no.  The OP says Big Five realignment is over.  I think this is mostly true.  Notre Dame was the last real wild card.  IMO there are three more spots left.  The ACC will probably take a 16th once ND becomes a football member.  The Big 12 will probably look for two more teams so they can get back to CCG status.  But that is essentially it.  I think we're done seeing teams move from a Big Five conference to another Big Five conference.  No more Nebraskas or A&Ms.

Realignment elsewhere, however, below the Big Five and in the basketball conferences, will continue unabated for a while longer.

MGlobules

September 27th, 2012 at 9:30 PM ^

of your prediction. May well be true. I especially think the B10 stands pat, and that despite these lean times for the league there is considerable long-term upside. Two things your very rational analysis cannot account for, however: stupidity, and greed. These may drive further change in the ACC, B12, or from and two the Big East.

jshclhn

September 27th, 2012 at 9:59 PM ^

You say there are no mid-majors left that the big conferences would want, but I would not rule out Boise State so quickly.  They are not quite as strong this year, but I think they will still be in the national conversation for the forseeable future.

On another note, I still don't fully understand why Notre Dame doesn't want to be in the Big Ten - it just seems to make way too much sense logically.  But that could be it's own diary in and of itself.

 

oakapple

September 28th, 2012 at 8:14 AM ^

Boise State has had a nice run in football, but they're academically weaker than most of the Big Five schools, they come from a small market that wouldn't add many TV viewers, and they're not a good geographic fit for most of the major conferences. A lot would need to change for Boise to be considered compelling. I could see them as a potential 12th team in the Big 12, if that conference decided to expand. In the post, I gave the reasons why I don't think the Big 12 will expand anytime soon.

The ACC is actually a far better fit for Notre Dame. They want to be a national team, not a regional one. Notre Dame will never have trouble recruiting the midwest. The ACC gives them a presence along the Eastern seaboard, where ND has always recruited well. The ACC is also a better cultural fit: it has several other private schools (unlike the Big Ten, which has only Northwestern), including the only other Catholic school that plays FBS football, Boston College. The ACC is also a better home for Notre Dame's non-revenue sports, e.g., the ACC sponsors lacrosse and the Big Ten does not.

Of course, the elephant in the room is that the ACC allows Notre Dame to remain independent in football, and the Big Ten would not. But even if the Big Ten admitted Notre Dame on the identical terms, I suspect the Irish would prefer the ACC, for the reasons I've given above.

maizeonblueaction

September 29th, 2012 at 12:16 AM ^

I actually kind of wanted to see us do something crazy and pick up some ACC schools eventually. However, now with the buyout cost, I guess that makes little sense. I'm still waiting for football series like the ACC-Big Ten challenge to actually get going.

noassemblyreqrd

October 2nd, 2012 at 1:12 AM ^

 

This article gives short shritft to the Big East.  The fact is that the Big East is loaded with fine institutions, and the potential in football is enormous.  This article reads as though the college world is static, and unless you're in a "power" conference, you're on the outside looking in.  The reality is that the world is changing. 

The Big East is a power conference.  Get used to it.  The Big East will provide an excellent platform for success for multiple teams.  Overlooking the Big East is like the "cool kids" overlooking the kids who end up outshining them at the high school reunion.  Right now, four teams from the reconfigured Big East are in the top 25.  The ACC can't say that. 

And there are plenty of schools who could be future Big East members.  Take Stony Brook for example.  I know, you laugh.  Don't.  Stony Brook started in about 1955 with about 350 students.  It now has about 25,000.  It is a large state university and is squarely in the NYC/Long Island market, a market that has Rutgers and Syracuse looking into from the outside. 

Despite it's humble beginnings, Stony Brook is a member of the AAU.  This is the same AAU that booted out Nebraska.  It is also the same AAU that Syracuse withdrew from, rather than be booted out of.  And a majority of SEC, Big 12, ACC, and PAC12  teams also do not qualify for membership in the AAU.

The point?  If, in a relatively short time, Stony Brook can surpass Nebraska and Syracuse, and a majority of "power conference" teams in academics, Stony Brook certainly can do it in football.  If you look at the history of Stony Brook football, its not hard to imagine. The world is changing, and college football will change with it. 

Stony Brook is not on anyone's radar.  The fact is that in ten or twenty years the top-25 will likely consist of lots of schools that aren't on anyone's radar.  One of these days, your elitist, "you can't sit at the cool kids' table," attitude is going to be in for a rude awakening, just like Michigan after the Appalac ian State game.  This year, just ask Arkansas, Penn State, Georgia Tech, and a host of others.  Next year, ask anyone who thinks that the Big East is not a "power" conference.  They too will be in for a surprise.