![]() If the Big Ten had “acquired” all 4 of the top programs, it would have been the equivalent of a company buying a competitor and selling off the rest for scraps.īut in conference realignment, you don’t need to overpay to but the entire company to eliminate them as competition, you actually can just “buy” the most important parts. Had they included Oregon and Washington, the PAC-12 would be left at a near MWC level. While it’s clear that they severely hurt the Pac-12, they didn’t completely end it. Like in any business, it will require not just being a disrupter like the Big Ten has been by taking 2 Pac-12 schools and 1 ACC. It can be never ending, but for that to be the case, two things need to happen:ġ. It’s important to review the patterns…they added Rutgers and Maryland for their markets first and foremost.Īnd then we have the Pete Thamel quote about the Big Ten and SEC basically doing this react/counter react process.Ĭonference realignment comes down to 1 basic premise: if more revenue is there per school, or at worst equal revenue with no reduction by adding a school, and that school increases the conferences financial value for future negotiations, then a conference will expand. And maybe the next 2 would be Georgia Tech and UNC to add Atlanta and Raleigh/Charlotte as markets. Florida State and Miami might be the top options, as a strategic move to get into Florida. The thing is, even if they were able to invite ACC schools today, it might not be the mix everyone assumes. Some things seem inevitable such as the Big Ten at least adding the 2 more west coast schools in Oregon and Washington, and eventually entering the southeast with ACC schools.Īnd for the Big Ten, we know the logistics of making that happen today: it would take inviting 8 schools, which is not an option. We have already hit the saturation point in network/streaming dollars available. In other words, conference realignment can only be “never ending” and the Big Ten and SEC can only have an arms race if they free up money currently tied into the other 3 conferences, because money is not an unlimited commodity. Because as long as there exist those 3 competitors in the Pac-12, ACC, and Big 12, it will be impossible to find more revenue. But eventually, for both the Big Ten and SEC to complete their financial dominance mission, they will have to then turn to the Big 12…however it looks in 5-10 years, and destroy them as well. And while it will(has) started with the PAC-12, the ACC will have to be next. ![]() So I’m order for the Big Ten and SEC to continue the arms race for financial dominance, both will require eliminating the current other competitors to free up those revenue dollars. The other article by Joel Klatt, discussed that conference realignment will be never ending.īut there is a variable to consider, the most important factor in all of expansion: there does exist a financial saturation point because there are only so many dollars currently available. One included a quote from Pete Thamel, regarding his belief that going forward, conference realignment will be an arms race between the Big Ten and SEC, where each will react to the other, as we saw with the Big Ten adding USC and UCLA to counteract the SEC additions of Texas and Oklahoma. ![]() There were a couple of articles the past two months that touched on something I wrote about recently: is there a conference realignment breaking point? Conference Realignment News, NCAA School Message Board Directory & Conference Realignment Forum Community
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |