The Algorithm For Conference Realignment, Part 2

i'vegotwinners

Hall of Famer
Dec 1, 2006
11,545
3,833
113
in part 1, i discussed how the object of conference consolidation was to limit the number of negotiating conferences/cartels selling telecast/streaming rights as much as possible, thus so that schools or conferences are competing with each other as little as possible, to maximize the fees they can extract for said rights.

the fewer sellers to a static number of buyers, the more a seller can get for their rights.

that dynamic is enhanced even further, if one can get the number of sellers to less than the number of buyers.

(a housing market with 3 sellers and 4 buyers, brings a bidding war and much higher price than one with 5 sellers and 4 buyers, or even 4 sellers and 4 buyers).

here in part 2, we will discuss phase 2 of the process.

once we have consolidated the number of conference sellers of rights as much as possible, there are still per school gains to be had by eliminating all but one of any and all schools that share a tv market.

or are needed to secure a market. (the NFL doesn't need a team in every tv market, to still command that market).

only one of MSU/Mich, IU/PU, Northwestern/ILL, UT/TAM, Miss St/Ole Miss, Auburn/Bama, Cal/Stanford, etc/etc, is needed to secure a market.

the natural progression phase 2 of realignment, would be discarding any duplicate beta schools in a market.

no need to kick anyone out, that can be accomplished by all but the beta schools just leaving and starting a new conf, minus the dup market beta schools.

and while no doubt the alpha schools themselves would never instigate that, at least not openly, the networks who pay them would, and the alpha schools can just blame the terrible networks and say they had no choice but to submit.

in fact they just already did basically just that, when they did phase 1 of conference realignment, did they not. (they've now already killed off the Big East and B12, and Delany tried to kill off the ACC, but failed).

and if schools would do phase one of "realignment" for self financial gain at the expense of their brothers, would it not be naive to assume they wouldn't do the same in phase 2.

as for the beta schools crying foul, were they crying "foul" when "their" conference/cartel was killing off somebody else's conference?

it's not personal, it's just business. even for "non profits".

right?
 
Last edited:

ThreeToMakeTwo

All-Big Ten
Oct 2, 2001
4,162
1,352
113
The Big Ten is an academic conference above all. It is unlikely the presidents would wantKansas or W Va but instead pick two California schools (all four Cal schools are academic schools) probably USC and Stanford.
(You might have said this but I just skimmed the article because of its many words)
 
  • Like
Reactions: vesuvius13

Champs1976

Benchwarmer
May 18, 2020
312
433
63
The Big Ten is an academic conference above all. It is unlikely the presidents would wantKansas or W Va but instead pick two California schools (all four Cal schools are academic schools) probably USC and Stanford.
(You might have said this but I just skimmed the article because of its many words)
Good point. The university presidents still call the shots. While there may be some support for movement by UM and OSU within their athletic communities, neither of these schools is hurting financially today by the B1G affiliation. Unless the money is hugely beneficial what would be the motivation. Theoretically, OSU might even make more money by going alone (like ND) although their national following isn't near the ND draw but who knows given the types of matchups they might be able to draw. The B1G presidents are committed to the AAU and their support to partner with lesser academic institutions is probably quite low (academic snobs). In any event what transpires next should be interesting.