BroadwayVik
Active member
Now we see conferences expanding membership to well beyond 12 teams. I understand the situation in which both Missouri and Texas A&M wanted to get the hell out of the Big XII Conference in that it is dominated in an ugly way for them by the University of Texas. The change for good for Baylor though as they have been completely reinvented and re-energized.
The baseball movie, Moneyball, showed one means in which teams that did not have the lion's share could compete successfully with those that did given that they could find value in ways the weathly teams were not yet aware. But once the wealthy find out these means, the system goes back to being an unfair game. Those with money dominate and make the game boringly predictable.
Expanding to beyond-12 teams, just when the Pac-12 finally capitulated to expanding to 12 teams, most likely has a dark financial incentive behind it. For example, if a conference has, say, 15 teams, would they not be likely to be awarded a greater share of bowl game participation than a conference with 12 teams? And, again, with distortions worked into the equation, such as SEC #3 versus Big XII #2. This is a perverse reward to the larger conference simply for being more populated.
We need to get back to uniformity of participation in the NCAA structure, preferably with 12-team conferences as the maximal number. Where are things likely go if, for example, the SEC kept right on growing its membership numbers? Would they eventually split into separate conferences, as the old WAC did, perhaps this time with each being controlled by SEC oversight? Is that what the race is for? What body controls NCAA sports through athletics monetary competition among the various conferences with majority affiliation and television contracts ruling?
There is something undoubtedly very impure about such a state of affairs.
hno: People will act according to where the rewards are placed. The NCAA can arrange the placement of rewards and incentives. Does their love of money exceed their honorable intentions? Do they equate these as being synonymous?
The baseball movie, Moneyball, showed one means in which teams that did not have the lion's share could compete successfully with those that did given that they could find value in ways the weathly teams were not yet aware. But once the wealthy find out these means, the system goes back to being an unfair game. Those with money dominate and make the game boringly predictable.
Expanding to beyond-12 teams, just when the Pac-12 finally capitulated to expanding to 12 teams, most likely has a dark financial incentive behind it. For example, if a conference has, say, 15 teams, would they not be likely to be awarded a greater share of bowl game participation than a conference with 12 teams? And, again, with distortions worked into the equation, such as SEC #3 versus Big XII #2. This is a perverse reward to the larger conference simply for being more populated.
We need to get back to uniformity of participation in the NCAA structure, preferably with 12-team conferences as the maximal number. Where are things likely go if, for example, the SEC kept right on growing its membership numbers? Would they eventually split into separate conferences, as the old WAC did, perhaps this time with each being controlled by SEC oversight? Is that what the race is for? What body controls NCAA sports through athletics monetary competition among the various conferences with majority affiliation and television contracts ruling?
There is something undoubtedly very impure about such a state of affairs.
hno: People will act according to where the rewards are placed. The NCAA can arrange the placement of rewards and incentives. Does their love of money exceed their honorable intentions? Do they equate these as being synonymous?
