Why keep conferences?

I

IrishAZ

Five-Star Recruit
I've always wondered about this.

As a lifelong Irish fan, I've never had to deal with either the good or bad of them - ND played whomever whenver, and have had a nice mix of opponents over the years while still retaining some of the long-standing rival games (UMich, USC, etc.).

I can see conferences being good in the way back days when travel was a chore, so that teams could find comparable competition that was only a bus or short train ride away. But I'm not sure they add much to the game anymore, especially after reading about the decay of the NU/OU rivalry in the Football forum.

Anyway, I'm curious as to what you all think about this. Do you like conference play? Do you think conferences in general (or the Big 12 specifically) still serve a purpose. or are they all just self-fulfilling organizations built around money and BCS births?

IRISH!

 
If you don't keep conferences, teams like Kansas St. would play a Division III schedule and act like their good\ and complain about no respect.

 
Not every school can sign huge TV deals like the Irish. Conferneces have to be around for the money, that's the bottom line.

 
Not every school can sign huge TV deals like the Irish. Conferneces have to be around for the money, that's the bottom line.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind. prior to 1997, ND was not in any national TV deal, and they've never been in a conference - yet they managed to go for 100+ years without conference play and survive financially (granted, they have a huge fan base, but even a ton of t-shirt sales can't amount to all that much money).

Perhaps you can help me, then - in what way does a conference help with the money? Is it purely revenue sharing from bowls and TV appearances?

And, money aside, is there a non-financial reason for maintaining conference membership?

IRISH!

 
Conferences arose primarily due to geographical considerations – the national travel industry was nascent during those times, and it was difficult to impossible to have many, if any, games outside your region. Most conferences were created for that reason. What always struck me as odd was how often most conferences seemed to be “The Big Two and the Little 6 or Little 8”. In the Big Ten, it was Michigan and Ohio St. In the Big 8, it was Nebraska and Oklahoma. In the Pac 8/10, it was USC and UCLA. In the old Southwest, it was Texas and Texas A&M (or, in the case of the ‘60s and early ‘70s, Texas and Arkansas). The SEC was the one notable exception.

Conferences have always been the result of the “shared risks, shared rewards” line of thought. If you’ll recall, prior to the lawsuit by Oklahoma and Georgia, the number of games – and who played in them – was extremely limited, and primarily set by the networks, particularly ABC.

After the lawsuit, that changed. All of a sudden, it became imperative for conferences to create the most attractive packages of games, since each conference had the ability to “cut its own deal” on TV packages. More TV, more revenue. That’s what led to the creation of the Big 12, the changes to the SEC, and the addition of Penn St. to the now-inappropriately named Big Ten. That’s still the case today – even more, actually. Not only do you have TV contracts tied to conferences, you have BCS considerations. All of that revenue is shared by conference members. Conferences act as a hedge against down years by any particular team – and as demonstrated by USC, Oklahoma and Miami in recent years and Nebraska now, a down period can hit anyone. That’s a primary reason Miami and Penn St., to name just two, joined conferences – it ensured that they would continue to have TV tie-ins and revenue even if they had a down year or three.

Notre Dame has long been the exception. With its national following, wealthy fan base (that has, in the past, been exceptionally generous with donations), and national rivalries, it was the one school that didn’t need that tie-in.

That may be changing for Notre Dame. Based on the last few years, I imagine a conference tie-in is more appealing. As I understand it, revenue is way down, and without a conference tie-in, Notre Dame is at a distinct disadvantage in trying to climb back up – which necessitates “keeping up with the Joneses”; i.e., constantly improving facilities.

Are there non-financial considerations for keeping conferences? Not really. No matter the reason someone might give, there’s a monetary consideration involved. For example, if someone said that it helps preserve rivalries, then one has to ask what is the benefit of the rivalry? Money. An opponent that ensures ticket sales and TV time.

 
Wow...very informative. Thank you AR :)

I was hoping for some non monetary reason like rivalries or regional identity so I can go to bed this evening not feeling cynical about the NCAA. No such luck though, huh? ;)

It just seemd strange that often times the pros and cons of one conference over another are debated with more heat by fans than a mere business consotrium would suggest.

I know money is important, crucial even, to a school but I still find that sort of saddening. Div 1A football is moving to the "mini Leagues" and that increase in commercialization seems to me to be an undermining factor to the sport's amatuerism.

I mean, Clarrett's arguments for paid collegiate players start making a little sense when you consider the schools are making serious $$$ off of the players' efforts.

And when "Slow" Mo Clarrett starts making sense, you know there's a problem.

IRISH!

 
I was hoping for some non monetary reason like rivalries or regional identity so I can go to bed this evening not feeling cynical about the NCAA. No such luck though, huh?

It just seemd strange that often times the pros and cons of one conference over another are debated with more heat by fans than a mere business consotrium would suggest.
Click to expand...
Well, the “my conference is better than your conference” bit is understandable. So often, the team (and hence, the conference to which the team belongs) becomes the identity of the fan.

I know money is important, crucial even, to a school but I still find that sort of saddening. Div 1A football is moving to the "mini Leagues" and that increase in commercialization seems to me to be an undermining factor to the sport's amatuerism.
I mean, Clarrett's arguments for paid collegiate players start making a little sense when you consider the schools are making serious $$$ off of the players' efforts.

And when "Slow" Mo Clarrett starts making sense, you know there's a problem.
Click to expand...
Hmmm…you might want to look at the state of college football prior to the formation of the NCAA. Talk about a “business first” mind-set. The level of criminal activity was staggering. And there were virtually no ethics – players jumped schools at a whim, coaches ran in ringers all the time – the list goes on. It’s always been about money, ultimately – sports are, after all, simply a different form of entertainment.

Having said that, I do agree with you. But it isn’t college football per se, IMHO – it’s society in general…

 
I think you're commentary on society in general is quite accurate - I keep hoping for some bastion of idealism out there that's untouched by the money machine but I think that's nearly impossible.

That's not to say all of collegiate athletics are driven by greed and not higher principles at some level, of course. I just never really considered the importance of conferences being a financial hedge like you suggested.

You know, I've never read a comparison about collegiate athletics before and after the formation of the NCAA. That seems an interesting topic to look into.

What did Billy Joel say? "The good old days weren't always good"? :)

IRISH!

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top