Question for the Board | The Boneyard

Question for the Board

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
194
Reaction Score
208
In the not too distant past, FB conferences moved to membership of 12 because that facilitated a playoff championship game - i.e. it generated significant extra $$$$. A little over a year ago we heard and continue to hear talk of Super Conferences with 16 members. I don't understand the incentive to go to 16 members. Twelve members seems optimal to me - but it's also obvious that I'm probably missing something. Appreciate your input. Thanks
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
5,293
Reaction Score
4,657
Since there is no actual question in your post, I'm assuming it is "What are you missing?" Besides an actual question in a post titled "question for the board" :D I don't htink you're missing anything. Apparentyl 16 may become the new 12, and it is all about $$$$ and survival. Despite what the Father Leahy's of the world will have you believe, conference realignment is purely motivated by either greed for the "haves" and survival mode for the rest of us.
 

jbdphi

Aussie Aussie Aussie!
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
1,483
Reaction Score
1,362
One thing I'm not sure about it the scheduling element. In a 12 team league you are forced to play an unbalanced schedule in that no teams will have the directly comparable conference schedules. It would be their 5 divisional mates and a few other from the other side (which would vary by school) and then the non-conference schedule.

In a 16 team superconference, you could theoretically have much more comparability in the conference schedule. Each team plays 7 games in its own division, maybe one annual "rival" game with the other division and then the non-conference schedule. I'm not sure this is a real benefit but it is definitely a difference.

Last thing is the concept of economies of scale for the conference. Just like in business, the larger you are, there are benefits in terms of perceived and actual value. For instance, a B1G Network that passes 70 million homes instead of one that passes 40 million homes is not only worth more on an absolute basis (since it has more eyeballs) but is likely more valuable even on a per team basis since a larger network that is more national in scope attracts more interest from advertisers, etc. The key is that the additions that are made need to be accretive to the existing members (even though there is one more mouth to feed, they end up contributing more to the whole than they take).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
689
Guests online
1,810
Total visitors
2,499

Forum statistics

Threads
172,053
Messages
4,268,585
Members
9,211
Latest member
Hype Cat
Top Bottom