Super Conferences

So there would be 64 teams. 16 X 4.



Right now I think there are 67 members of "the club." That means three will have to be dropped. This means byu and bsu have nearly zero chance of being a part of the club if super conferences happen.



I think they would if everything blew up and completely new conferences were formed all together. but because some are already part of a conference that cannot be left out if they expand to 16, byu will be left out along with three others taht are already part of the club.



basically the big 12 collapes and then the big east collapses. after that acc, sec, and big10 pick up the more valuable leftovers minus three.



i see no feasible way byu is involved unless the big12 was able to pull a miracle and be the first to 16. i don't see that happening unless notre dame hops on board.

You are absolutely right. That is why Baylor isn't giving in to Texas A&M on the SEC thing. They know that they might be the first team to be left behind.

Not to mention that Notre Dame will get added to that 64.



Issue is what happens to Big XII and Big East, because those leagues are most likely to be left out. Which means SEC, Big 10, PAC-12 and ACC would be the 4. Teams would need to be added to each, and from a geography perspective, it is PAC or bust for BYU, and the PAC would screw us in a heartbeat and enjoy it. Our position is really poor, unless Big XII makes a play to be a power league.

If this happens - the Super 4 Conferences becoming a reality. The PAC-12 will never invite BYU. The Conference President intensely dislikes BYU & all our standards. Oh well, so sad, too bad. It will be interesting to watch evolve.

8)

As sad as the possibility of super-conferences is for BYU fans, my heart really goes out to the programs that are currently seated at the table who'd get forced out. Largely because it's going to be totally arbitrary and based on current conference affiliation. Cellar-dwellers like Duke, Kentucky, Indiana and Washington State will be fine because they're in with the right group of friends. Meanwhile, Baylor, Iowa State, and about half of the Big East might be pushed into a humiliating downward realignment despite not being any worse than the aforementioned programs.



I'm a little curious has to how stable a super-conference system would be. Just based on the above alone, there's no way that the 64 teams that find a seat at the table are necessarily going to be the 64 best teams, year in and year out. What happens when one conference finds itself at the bottom of the pecking order with the other three, and this lower conference happens to find enticing tier-two outsider schools in its backyard? What happens when 8 teams in one conference form a distinct hierarchy in talent and popularity over the other 8, a la WAC/MWC? The super-conference system is going to be a bad idea (IMO) for a lot of reasons, but one particular aspect really bothers me: it comes across as a final solution for a sports league that really needs an acceptable degree of flexibility in order to function.



Sad how, after all the chatter of wanting playoffs, the sport is moving in a direction that's even less equitable.

For the Big XII (and BYU) to come out on top, they would need to:

1) make the case that there is room for 5 superconferences

2) kill their competition (the Big East) by pulling 4-5 teams from there (and a couple of their midwestern basketball schools to make KU happy)

3) turn their main liability (UT and LHN) into an asset (UT, ND, and BYU will help everyone make their own regional networks)

4) in exchange for #3, get UT to relinquish on revenue sharing, with something like "we'll let you make whatever money you want on the side, but conference money needs to be shared equally to save the Big XII"

5) pull only BCS (and BYU) and Carnegie RU/H+ schools (maybe Boise) to keep up your standards, forcing other conferences to scrounge to get 16. Try to score one big steal, like Arkansas or Illinois.



I think this would be the dream scenario for BYU and everyone in the Big XII (except perhaps OU), but I don't see it happening. Beebe and the Big XII just seems to be sitting in a corner waiting for the world to do something to it.



Then again, if the Big XII adopts a "Go big or go home" strategy, would they bother with BYU?

jonnylingo wrote:
So there would be 64 teams. 16 X 4.



Right now I think there are 67 members of "the club." That means three will have to be dropped. This means byu and bsu have nearly zero chance of being a part of the club if super conferences happen...

Would super conferences be limited to 16 teams? They could have 2 divisions of 9 each making 18 X 4 = 72.



However, I think the idea of super conferences is exclusion not inclusion.

I just can't wrap my head around the idea that Texas or Oklahoma would want to get on board a super conference when they practically have a direct path to the BCS right now. Why jump into a conference where they must now go through a bigger group to get to the championship game. It seems like there is plenty of money being thrown around but maybe the billions of the PAC 12 is enough to offset the competition.

I agree for this and for other reasons. I dont think the Supers are emerging this year. Way too many variables to nail down. And what of the Media. The are usually driving stuff like this these days. Im not sure supers are a great fit for the media.

Dcr36 wrote:
As sad as the possibility of super-conferences is for BYU fans, my heart really goes out to the programs that are currently seated at the table who'd get forced out. Largely because it's going to be totally arbitrary and based on current conference affiliation. Cellar-dwellers like Duke, Kentucky, Indiana and Washington State will be fine because they're in with the right group of friends. Meanwhile, Baylor, Iowa State, and about half of the Big East might be pushed into a humiliating downward realignment despite not being any worse than the aforementioned programs.



I'm a little curious has to how stable a super-conference system would be. Just based on the above alone, there's no way that the 64 teams that find a seat at the table are necessarily going to be the 64 best teams, year in and year out. What happens when one conference finds itself at the bottom of the pecking order with the other three, and this lower conference happens to find enticing tier-two outsider schools in its backyard? What happens when 8 teams in one conference form a distinct hierarchy in talent and popularity over the other 8, a la WAC/MWC? The super-conference system is going to be a bad idea (IMO) for a lot of reasons, but one particular aspect really bothers me: it comes across as a final solution for a sports league that really needs an acceptable degree of flexibility in order to function.



Sad how, after all the chatter of wanting playoffs, the sport is moving in a direction that's even less equitable.

I would think super conferences would lead to a play off.

billbillbillbill wrote:
I just can't wrap my head around the idea that Texas or Oklahoma would want to get on board a super conference when they practically have a direct path to the BCS right now. Why jump into a conference where they must now go through a bigger group to get to the championship game. It seems like there is plenty of money being thrown around but maybe the billions of the PAC 12 is enough to offset the competition.

I agree. first choice for texas is to keep big12. that is obvious. but if pac16 can take the valuue of hte big 12 (texas and ou) without the leaches (baylor, iowa state, etc.) then they get to add value without splitting it uncessarily. that equals major increase in money. some have said each school could get getting 40 million each if that happens.



that is why this will happen if it does. No other reason, just money.

I don't see 4 superconferences. I see at most 3. If the Pac-12, Big 10+2, and SEC pick off Big 12-2, ACC, and Big East teams to make superconferences for themselves there is nothing "super" about the leftovers. An ACC/Big East conglomerate will not be in the same class as the other 3 conferences in terms of prestige or revenue. It will not be in the best interests of the so called leftover schools to make a 16 team conference. Two 12 team conferences would maximize revenue for the leftover schools.



Assuming that Texas, Texas Tech, OU, and OSU go to the Pac-12; Syracuse, Rutgers, Notre Dame and Maryland go to the Big 10; Texas A&M, Missouri, Florida St. and Virginia Tech go to the SEC; there will be a "new" Big 12 and a "new" ACC.



The "new" ACC would be Miami, GT, Clemson, Wake Forest, UNC, Duke, NC St., Virginia, B.C., UConn, USF, East Carolina



The "new" Big 12 would be Pitt, WVA, Louisville, Cincy, Kansas, KSU, Iowa St., Baylor, TCU, BSU, AF, BYU



Both conferences will still be automatic qualifiers.

billbillbillbill wrote:
I just can't wrap my head around the idea that Texas or Oklahoma would want to get on board a super conference when they practically have a direct path to the BCS right now. Why jump into a conference where they must now go through a bigger group to get to the championship game. It seems like there is plenty of money being thrown around but maybe the billions of the PAC 12 is enough to offset the competition.

Because they are on the edge of not having enough teams to be a BCS AQ.

Are the Super Conferences going to be football only?



I also have a tough time seeing Rasta's "new" ACC and Big XII being auto qualifiers. If Super Conferences are formed, the BCS will dissolve. They'd start over.

SpiffCoug wrote:
Are the Super Conferences going to be football only?



I also have a tough time seeing Rasta's "new" ACC and Big XII being auto qualifiers. If Super Conferences are formed, the BCS will dissolve. They'd start over.

Is the Big East still an AQ? The new 12 team conferences would be stronger than the current Big East. Plus, Superconferences would not make the BCS go away. It might be slightly modified such as adding the Cotton Bowl and allowing for 3 teams from a Superconference participate, but the University Presidents still favor the bowl system, hence the BCS remains.

There would be 4 Supers, and the 4 conf champs would play a 4 man play off, to the NC.



to think 3 supers, and 2 normal, is just wishful thinking.



PS travel would be a nightmare for BYU if we joined the Big least.

Why would the PAC-Whatever be willing to take Texas? Wouldn't the PAC members object to the TV deal that Texas has just as much as the Big XII teams? Why would Oklahoma go to the PAC with them, when their main reason for wanting to leave the Big XII is the Texas TV deal? I'm not finding any logic here. I still think the Big XII could work around the TV deal problem by opening up their agreement to allow any team to negotiate its own deal. The "poorer" teams may not be real happy initially, but they'd be a lot better off than if the conference just fell apart.

IowaCougar wrote:
Why would the PAC-Whatever be willing to take Texas? Wouldn't the PAC members object to the TV deal that Texas has just as much as the Big XII teams? Why would Oklahoma go to the PAC with them, when their main reason for wanting to leave the Big XII is the Texas TV deal? I'm not finding any logic here. I still think the Big XII could work around the TV deal problem by opening up their agreement to allow any team to negotiate its own deal. The "poorer" teams may not be real happy initially, but they'd be a lot better off than if the conference just fell apart.

the main reason the Big XII has problems is Texas gets 1.5 shares of the money, to everyone's 1 share.

BYUROCKS wrote:

Why would the PAC-Whatever be willing to take Texas? Wouldn't the PAC members object to the TV deal that Texas has just as much as the Big XII teams? Why would Oklahoma go to the PAC with them, when their main reason for wanting to leave the Big XII is the Texas TV deal? I'm not finding any logic here. I still think the Big XII could work around the TV deal problem by opening up their agreement to allow any team to negotiate its own deal. The "poorer" teams may not be real happy initially, but they'd be a lot better off than if the conference just fell apart.

the main reason the Big XII has problems is Texas gets 1.5 shares of the money, to everyone's 1 share.

It's kind of like BYU was upset at getting a 1 share but bringing 3 times the money (only in reverse) Of course BYU also had issues with TV exposure.

Your math is a little deceiving--you assume that the four surviving superconferences will pick only look to the BCS schools to fill in the blanks. If the surviving conferences are the Big10, SEC, PAC12, and the Big East, they have their original 46 or 47 teams as of this year (depending on the A&M situation). The other 17-18 teams would be selected from all other schools. There is no reason to assume that all the other BCS teams would be given preferential treatment--every conference would be looking out for #1. Rather than choosing three schools out of 20 to sideline, instead each is looking to add the 4-7 schools that best suit their needs out of the available 70ish FBS teams.



BYU will have difficulty in finding a superconference regardless of BigXII affiliation for the same reasons BYU has a hard time finding a BCS conference--the administrative headaches for a conference to accomodate BYU's TV demands, Sunday/Monday play restrictions, and "cultural" differences only become more severe when you are dealing with bigger conferences that will be looking at ways to spread games out and get more games on TV. Sunday college FB games are becoming more and more common as it is, and that will only get worse with the superconferences looking to get as many games on TV as possible, but with 8-16 games a weekend, they are going to start playing around with time slots to make more opportunities to make that happen. The recruiting advantage of your own TV network has brought the BigXII to its knees--no one's going to be terrible excited to try to negotiate a compromise with 15 other conference members to accomodate BYU's TV network. These problems will exist regardless of whether BYU is in the Big XII or not.



My gut feeling at this point is that expansions are going to stop at 14 for the SEC, and that it will be quiet for a while. While this had been pie-in-the-sky for a while, the A&M situation is showing the world how messy these moves will be, even for a school that bends over backwards to do it the right way and avoid stepping on toes on the way out the dorr. No one seems to be excited about superconferences other than doomsday pundits. University presidents don't like their voices being diluted that far, conferences don't want to split revenues any farther and deal with the administrative headaches, and TV networks don't want to reduce the number of contracts they compete for because skyrocketing costs for TV contracts will explode again. The only way these superconferences come to fruition is if the BCS anti-trust allegations move forward, and then the superconferences just replace the BCS.



If they do come to fruition, there is no reason why BYU and ND can't continue as superconference-independents just as ND has been a BCS-independent team to this point.