Even though the games have started for the 2011 College Football season, there is a lot of talk about continued conference realignment going on, especially around the Big 12 (which is already down to ten teams). Our own take on the matter is that because so much of this is being played out in the press, whether or not Texas A&M is finally able to join the SEC, we think the bulk of the Big 12 will remain intact. We see a lot of the public discussion as merely posturing within the conference for teams like Oklahoma to try and gain more power and a bigger piece of the financial pie in what has already shown to be an historically unbalanced league. If the proposed PAC 16 were really such a great idea, it would already have happened, in our opinion. Nevertheless, it is because of the unbalanced sharing of power and revenue in the Big 12 that the league has a reputation of being unstable. Any team invited to join that conference would be wise to be wary and to use any leverage that they have to get as good a position within the conference as possible - even as a new entry.
We especially like BYU's position in that regard, since independence gives them both the freedom to make a move whenever they want and the leverage to be able to hold out for a better position within the conference - at least for being able to keep the best parts of the advantages they gained through the move to indepence - the ESPN contract and BYUtv programming. BYU seems to be in a position where the Big 12 might need BYU as much or even more than BYU needs the Big 12, since the addition of BYU can help to stabilize the league and lessen the impact of the departure of Texas A&M.
Right now, there are too many scenarios being talked about to provide a good analysis of how all this shifting might impact our conference power rankings. Instead, we intend to spend the next few posts focusing on another topic of discussion that keeps getting bounced around - the inevitability of the formation of four 16-team superconferences (whether the PAC 16 becomes the first of these or not). We don't share the sentiment that such conferences are inevitable. Having observed the formation and downfall of various large conferences over the years (remember the 16-team WAC?), it does seem that there are a number of drawbacks to this scenario which might keep such actions from happening. And, in fact, this is one reason why we don't believe the PAC 12 will actually take on four new teams in the very near future.
The fact is that in every conference, there are a few teams that are the money makers for the conference and the rest of the teams in the conference rely on those power teams, essentially hitching a ride. This fact has become apparent in the Big 12, where Texas and Oklahoma have taken advantage of their position as money teams in the conference to gain a bigger share of the pie, and in the Mountain West Conference, where BYU got fed up with being the primary money team without being allowed to even rebroadcast (on tape delay!) its games on its own television network and left for independence.
The way decisions are made in a conference can have a huge impact on the relationships within that conference. Most conferences lean toward an equitable sharing of income, often leading to dissatisfaction for the money teams in that conference. The Big 12's decision-making process seems to have allowed greater freedom for the money teams, leaving the middle-tier teams frustrated with the inequity and eager to jump into another conference with a more equitable sharing plan in place if the opportunity arises. The problem with 16-team conferences is that it is hard to imagine an arrangement where this doesn't mean a smaller ratio of money teams to other teams within a conference. There just aren't that many teams with a large enough national following to make a split between 16 teams better than a split between 12 teams. To get to 16 from 12, you might add one more money team to your conference. But you're also adding three also-rans (financially speaking).
The argument against this problem is that this is the reason there will only be four conferences. Fewer money teams are needed with four power conferences than with six. Another point is that this is about increasing the "footprint" of the conference - bringing in televisions. The reason increasing the footprint of a conference would increase the income of a conference (whether the team brought in was a money team or not) is that it apparently doesn't matter how many people are actually watching the games in that area to a conference network. Because of how cable and satellite television billing works, you might be paying for a conference network subscription, even if you don't want it. If it's offered and you purchase the tier that the subscription is found on (even to watch something else), the conference network will get its money. Advertising dollars (which are influenced by actual viewship ratings) have become secondary.
Financially, there is some merit to this model, but we still have to wonder if this is enough to overcome the problems that also result from such large conferences. Again, if 16-team conferences are so great, the idea has been around long enough, you would think it would have happened already.
That being said, and putting aside finances and the idea of money teams for the moment, we ask this question: Strictly in terms of football performance, which teams ought to be included or excluded in a four-conference 64-team system to get the best arrangement (again, in terms of football)? We've tackled this before. At the time, our suggestions were based on 40 years of analysis. Now that we've completed 99 years of analysis, we intend to update our suggestion based on the complete program rankings in the coming days.
First, however, we want to explore the idea that these four superconferences, if they happen, will probably evolve from the existing six power conferences in some way. Of course, this leaves out some worthy programs that do not belong to power conferences, and we would like to think that somehow, along the way, worthy teams that don't belong to one of the six power conferences will find their way into the mix. Of course, there are already more than 64 teams among the six conferences with an automatic BCS bid (67 to be exact, counting TCU which joins the Big East next year). So even if these other programs are not let in, some teams that are already in will be left out. Unfortunately, we think the left out teams will actually be the bottom feeders in the two conferences that will disappear, because they simply won't be invited into one of the other four conferences, leaving some even worse teams in simply because they happened to belong to the right league and not because of their football worthiness. But if the decision were actually based on football worthiness, which five teams currently not belonging to one of these conferences would be most worthy of an invitation to join? And which eight teams from the power conferences (remember, we have to get rid of three just to reach 64) should be kicked out, even though they already belong to the club?
Here's our list, based on the most recent program power ratings calculated from 99 years of historical data (and of course giving greater weight to recent success):
Top Five teams to add to the field of 64:
1. Notre Dame Fighting Irish (of course - they won't be left out unless they are determined to remain independent)
2. Boise State Broncos
3. BYU Cougars
4. Southern Miss Golden Eagles
5. Air Force Falcons
Note that three of these teams (Notre Dame, BYU and Air Force) have the national profile for a "money team". It seems to us that, financially speaking, these three teams MUST be included among the list of 64 to maximize income that is to be spread out among 16 teams in a conference. (Now the question is if the university presidents who will make the decisions agree.)
Top Eight teams to drop from the field of 64:
1. Vanderbilt Commodores
2. Indiana Hoosiers
3. Duke Blue Devils
4. Iowa State Cyclones
5. Wake Forest Demon Deacons
6. Northwestern Wildcats
7. Rutgers Scarlet Knights
8. Connecticut Huskies
That Vanderbilt, Indiana and Northwestern would not be included in the final field of 64 seems unlikely, since it is almost a sure thing that the SEC and Big 10 will be among the conferences expanding to 16 teams, not among the conferences that disappear. Iowa State is the only team in this list from the Big 12, yet that seems to be the conference most likely to disband. (Baylor would have been #9 on this list.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment