Do y'all think these huge conferences are going to be sustainable? or suffer the same problems and fate of the 16 team WAC of the late 90s?

Financially yes. For the purpose of sustaining the greatness of college athletics, they're a disaster.

There is list of teams, A&M included, who will continue to benefit from whatever chaos follows this chaos.

32 or so ADs? Maybe a few more?

For the rest, who knows…

Well you could brake them down into some sort of divisions. For instance the Big10 could put all the west coast teams into one division and call it the PAC10 or something

16? Yes. Anything above 16? Nope.

The more teams you have, the more watered down the product becomes. If you could have 16 blue bloods, that would be extremely strong, but you never do. You've always got a Vanderbilt or Northwestern in there to bring the product down.

18 can run a 9 game conference schedule with one permanent opponent and rest rotating every two years and home and home every four years. 20 can run a 10 game schedule with 1 permanent and 9 rotating. Both are stable for scheduling because even number of teams buy only leaving two for non-conf makes scheduling those games a little tight.

We're about to find out, whether we want to or not.

greg.w.h said:

---

18 can run a 9 game conference schedule with one permanent opponent and rest rotating every two years and home and home every four years. 20 can run a 10 game schedule with 1 permanent and 9 rotating. Both are stable for scheduling because even number of teams buy only leaving two for non-conf makes scheduling those games a little tight.

---

So, does Michigan play OSU or Michigan State every year? This is an example of how expansion dilutes the product.

Maybe that in-state rivalry doesn't get as much national attention but those are your hard core fans.

That is the exact same mistake NASCAR made.

I think the bigger conferences will have to go to more conference games to preserve rivalries and tv value.

The bowl games are going to get weird and diluted as the playoff expands and adjusts. The Big 10 and SEC may dictate a playoff that lets in the top 3 from each conference + 2 at large. They may insist for more bowl games against each other beyond that, too, to reduce opportunities for slip ups vs the ACC, Big 12 or smaller conferences.

You watched Marty and McGee this morning too?

I thought I was the only one.

Aggie_Journalist said:

---

I think the bigger conferences will have to go to more conference games to preserve rivalries and tv value.

The bowl games are going to get weird and diluted as the playoff expands and adjusts. The Big 10 and SEC may dictate a playoff that lets in the top 3 from each conference + 2 at large. They may insist for more bowl games against each other beyond that, too, to reduce opportunities for slip ups vs the ACC, Big 12 or smaller conferences.

---

I don't know who came up with the 12 team playoff format but it really sucks for several reasons. The SEC and B1G should have their own 4 team conference playoff with the winners automatically advancing to the semi-finals of the playoffs with a garaunteed seed of 1 and 2. Let the others fight it out for the final two spots.

The SEC and B1G would likely make more money that way.

amercer said:

---

Well you could brake them down into some sort of divisions. For instance the Big10 could put all the west coast teams into one division and call it the PAC10 or something

---

So theoretically…in the NIL and transfer portal world. Could the Big 12 create its own feeder pool from the PAC 12 leftovers and extras?

amercer said:

---

Well you could brake them down into some sort of divisions. For instance the Big10 could put all the west coast teams into one division and call it the PAC10 or something

---

In other words, essentially 2 "conferences" with one commissioner and a smaller fraction of the vote by each team's AD. I think these commissioners and conference front offices are just enriching themselves more than anything. Like one of the many corporate mergers engineered by CEOs that made them fabulously wealthy even though the resultant company failed 2 years later.

This is why I'm ok with the SEC not adding anyone else.

ntxVol said:

---

greg.w.h said:

---

18 can run a 9 game conference schedule with one permanent opponent and rest rotating every two years and home and home every four years. 20 can run a 10 game schedule with 1 permanent and 9 rotating. Both are stable for scheduling because even number of teams buy only leaving two for non-conf makes scheduling those games a little tight.

---

So, does Michigan play OSU or Michigan State every year? This is an example of how expansion dilutes the product.

Maybe that in-state rivalry doesn't get as much national attention but those are your hard core fans.

That is the exact same mistake NASCAR made.

---

Yeah, I really don't see the ~60-75 team superconference cluster being the dream everyone thinks it is. It will drive bigger contracts in the short run, but it's going to disincentivize smaller schools to have football programs in general and decimate the overall college football fan base.

Everyone dunks on smaller schools, but if 50+ suddenly vanish from major college sports that is a LOT of fans that no longer are going to tune in to games between larger teams. Casual fans also are a lot more likely to watch when they are familiar with both teams playing, and a lot of people are pretty oblivious to schools that aren't close to them geographically.

NattyOrBust said:

---

16? Yes. Anything above 16? Nope.

---

The B1G is now at 18 so stay tuned!!

A 16-team conference can run either an 8-game conference schedule that consists of 1 permanent opponent and 7 rotating opponents every two years or a 9-game conference schedule 3 permanent opponent and 6 rotating opponents every two years.

An 18-team conference can run an 8-game conference schedule that consists of 1 permanent opponent and 8 rotating opponents every two years.

SEC and B1G are going to blow up the 12-team playoff in a couple of years

they won't be happy when they only get 6 of the 12 playoff teams

If I was making up a 16 team Conference of the current best leftovers, I think I would do that crazy pod system some have discussed:

West - North
Oregon St
Washington St
Boise St
Air Force or Colorado State

West - California
Cal
Stanford
San Diego State
Fresno State

East Coast
USF
Navy or App State
East Carolina
UConn

Midsouth
Memphis
UAB
A Texas school
Another Texas school

IMO any league where you don't play every other team in the league every year is a bush league.

Yes, I know it's been that way for a long time.

But, since joining the SEC, we've played UGA what, once? Ridiculous.

As far as A&M goes the only thing really affecting us is that Texas was added and the recruiting implications.

However NIL in its current state (and no new fed laws regulations or antitrust actions) imo is going to long term put A&M near the top and keep em at the top with a couple handful of other schools in having the best opportunity to capitalize and win titles.

We've been heading this way since before the SWC broke up. It's all about following that television money. With the collapse of the regional Fox Sports channels and the move towards specialty conference networks there was no longer a "need" to keep conferences regional for select television markets.

Toss in increased access to streaming and other tech breakthroughs in broadcasting and this is where we end up.