They are subsidizing them because they have to have someone to beat. In order to be a powerhouse program you have to win. If the top 32 teams break off and overwhelmingly play each other, 1/2 are going to be losers and others mediocre. After a few years of losing they will no longer have the feel of a powerhouse. If, for instance, Michigan can no longer count on at least 9 wins and is staring at 5-7 or 6-6 years, do they still draw 100K to the Big House? Can they still recruit fast top-rated WRs and DBs from Florida to play in cold mediocrity? People under-estimate the value also-rans give to conference powers.
Sort of. My theory on why conferences are worth more than the sum of their parts is about mindshare. Mostly TV mindshare, but in general it drives fans and students. Rutgers brings the Big Ten brand to NY. That means that a Michigan - Wisconsin game is now more relevant to more people in NY/NJ. Maryland does the same in DC. Both markets are split, but they gain mindshare. They also recruit students more effectively in those places. More kids in DC and NJ consider going to Indiana or Purdue than otherwise would have. U Miami wanted in the Big East and later ACC for this reason, they recruit the Boston to DC corridor for students.
Look at the shifts. PAC poached Colorado. Big poached Nebraska. SEC poached Mizzou and A&M. Morons on Twitter talk about “adding value” or “bringing $x”. It’s a short sighted view. You add A&M to the SEC and it means more people in Houston choose to watch LSU play Ole Miss instead of Ok State playing TCU.
Look at our own discussion on the basketball side. People say they will be watching more Big East games now, less AAC. That’s what matters. That’s what Fox wants. They know the CT market will watch UConn wherever they are. Will we watch Cinci vs Houston or PC vs. Xavier? If you flip those eyeballs, you flip them for everything you are selling, not just the local team. That’s why conferences have grown so much from the old days.
