Thursday, September 8, 2011
Bigger Doesn't Always Mean Better
I for one can understand Texas A&M's beef with Texas and can understand why they want to head to the SEC.
With that said what frustrates the hell out of me is hearing the chatter of 4 16 school conferences. (Personally I'd rather see the Big XII rebuild and rebrand itself.)
Once conferences reach 12 I just don't see the "need" to expand. Conferences already has that lucrative championship game for one. So for schools to be added they have to at least bring in enough TV value so that the rest of the league's schools at least break even. If I'm a Florida and I'm making 20M a year why would I want to split the pie more and end up making 19M a year, for example.
Another thing to look at is Bowl Revenue. If a conference is generating say 46M on 8 Bowls. With 12 schools they'd be generating about .479 in Bowl revenue per school. If a Bowl ISN'T ADDED, they'd be generating about $410,714 per school. Say a Bowl game is added worth 3M, they'd be making $389,000 per school. So unless you're averaging 2 BCS bids per year Schools would be making less money in Bowl revenue. And if Conferences end up going to 16 schools, Bowl Payouts per school would even be worse. Part of this is the reason why the Big East's Bowl Payouts per School is much higher than the rest of the Nation, because the Big East is splitting the pie 8(soon to be 9) instead of 12.
So with lower payouts due to Bowl Money distribution per school, that is even more money a given school needs to bring to the table for TV money to offset the losses.
Everything boils down to dollars and cents. And to be frank, I just don't see the financial benefits in 16 school superleagues especially when the big fish in the sea really is only Notre Dame and Texas. Schools like Florida State would bring intriguing matchups made for TV if it was added to the SEC. But what real incentive would it be for the ACC to follow the SEC to 14 or 16 schools. If Texas and Notre Dame don't go to the B1G 10, what incentive would it be for them to head to 14 or 16 schools.
I heard a four 20 scenario and that absolutely made no sense to me. Say the Pac 12 added Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State, who would the other 4 schools be that made expansion worthwhile. Boise State, and BYU would almost have to be considered. But who would the other 2 be. When we're talking about schools like Colorado State or Air Force(not to pick on those schools) being added to a 20 team conferences, that tells me how much sense this does not make.
Now say Conferences head to 16 anyways but then schools learn they could make the same amount of money per school if they was in say a 8,9, or 10 team conferences. I could see a trend back to smaller leagues in the long term future, and not to a ridiculously huge 20 school Conferences.
9 or 12 school conferences makes the most sense to me. 9 because of scheduling and higher bowl payouts per team, and 12 because of the lucrative championship game. Anything above 12 just doesn't make sense; for reasons stated above.