That’s some lull we’re having.

USA Today notes this

Of the 128 schools to play at the FBS level this season, more than 40 percent have made at least one move over the past decade. That figure doesn’t even include the shake-ups of the mid-to-late 1990s that produced the Big 12, Conference USA and the Mountain West. Flip the calendar back 25 years and find only 48 teams that have stayed put. That means more than 62 percent of them switched during that span.

… and wonders if we’re gonna get a breather on the conference realignment front.  Surely you jest, fellas.  They’re just taking a time out until the next TV deal shows up.

“To strive and thrive, you’ve got to get bigger. Conference realignment is about exactly that: having more economic value when you get bigger,” said Chris Bevilacqua, a sports media consultant. “It’s not going to stop, because the market forces are going to continue to incentivize and reward size. It’s not just college. It’s everything in the ecosystem. So will it settle down and pause for a while? My guess is probably. Will there be further consolidation and realignment? I think most definitely. When will that happen? That’s hard to say.”


Filed under College Football

9 responses to “That’s some lull we’re having.

  1. David

    That guy has to have a fake name. Otherwise I expect to see Jerry and Duncan Meyer racing again


  2. Why is bigger better in this case? College football is a regional sport. I rarely watch a Pac 12 game. I would rather watch paint dry than a B1G game. The SEC doesn’t need to get bigger. I would suggest that the league should go back to 12 to keep the traditions alive and produce the product that we love and everyone else loves to hate.


  3. Aubiece

    Bigger SEC means less West vs East matchups, so no thanks.
    AU v UF at home every blue moon is bad, add 2 more teams will make
    those games even rarer
    Here is a second to a 12 team league


    • PTC DAWG

      I think the league will have to go to 9 games soon…what is the point of adding TAM if most if the East never sees them.


  4. Macallanlover

    I feel the current issues facing universities and the NCAA will/could cause such significant changes that it is difficult to see what emerges. How many programs will be able to afford what will be required, or allowed? What is the geography of those programs? With a huge change in divisions of the NCAA does that mean all the TV contracts have to be rewritten and thus change the economics of the sport?

    Hard to speculate based on the past paradigm if all the “big boys” separate themselves and play by different rules. I am not against a “Top 64” division that plays by rules that fit them better than a one size fits all approach but their costs of operation will go up and they will command a different level of interest from advertisers. It is also possible that this goers a different direction and a development league takes all the top talent. Either way, I expect major changes in the immediate future and don’t feel speculation based on the past model can be accurate. Three years ago I would have bet we would have the four sixteen team model in place today.


  5. James

    Yeah I’m with everyone on the meah. ESPN deals are based on quality inventory, not footprint (they’re already everywhere on basic). So that only gets better if we start doing serious megaconferences, which I think hurts the product (an SEC set of matchups is more interesting to everyone than some kind of weird Big Ten/SEC mash up).

    The conference networks want footprint, but you get diminishing returns, and I think the natural stop we saw in this last round ended for a reasons.

    I’m surprised there isn’t more talk about moving to the NFL tv model.


    • Macallanlover

      If that TV model you refer to is a “CFB GameDay Ticket” with access to all games, and possibly a RedZone channel for all rated teams, I am all-in if that becomes available. I pay $130 a season now for ESPN’s Game Plan (rarely even flip to it) and would gladly pay 2-3 times that for open access.