Big XII Conference Expansion 4.

Frank the Tank has a post specifically discussing Big XII conference realignment here. My thoughts are as follows.


I believe it is easier to prioritize values than to categorize values with a point based system. Lets then look at what will be valued.

1. Athletic power. When it comes down to it the number one reason a program would be considered is athletic value, which has two related components: competitiveness and commercial value. Regarding competitiveness the questions are: What have you done? (50 years analyzed by mcubed which really only quantify conventional impression), What have you done lately? (7 years by F+), and What are you doing now? (current BCS performance). Here only Boise State and BYU exceeds that of the Big XII average as determined by mcubed and F+ scores. Cincinnati, UCF and NIU could be considered if they win a BCS bowl game this season. Note the BCS win doesn't give get them the invite. The BCS win puts them on the radar for consideration.

2. Fandom. Fandom matters because it speaks to commercial value of the program. More fans means more attendance, more alumni contact and donation, more purchases of sport paraphernalia, and thus ultimately also more brand awareness. This is a measure of the program's commercial value. Here only BYU compares to the Big XII with game attendance and tv viewers (by Nate Silver's estimates in the NYT a year ago).

3. Demographic. Demographic here is about general population  size, population growth, and recruiting grounds. There are several programs here with the top two being UCF and USF for being in Florida. BYU gets listed here as Utah is a growing state. Cincinnati is a plus for Ohio (large state) and a minus (shrinking state).

4. Academic. Here the only real criteria will be AAU membership. Remember that the Big XII lost 3(4) AAU schools with Colorado, Missouri, aTm, (and Nebraska). Only two AAU schools would be Rice and Tulane, both programs doing pretty well this year with 6 wins thus.

5. Regionality. Here only proximity to ISU and WVU matters as the rest of the conference is already bunched up. For considerations might be NIU, Cincinnati, possibly ECU.


So in the end I agree with BYU as the top schools eligible placing with athletic power, fandom, and demographic. Then comes a huge gap for program #12 with choices from UCF, Cincinnati, possibly NIU or Boise State. The program able to win a BCS game this year will get the edge. Otherwise, i think it will be UCF before Cincinnati as Florida is a better state for the conference whereas Cincinnati is predominantly better for WVU.

Once back at 12, Big XII divisions should be zippered to allow "equivalent" access, exposure and travel. Each division should be anchored by OU and UT. There should be one to two annual cross division games to maintain rivalries. Each team will then play 5 division games, 2 annual cross division games, and 2 rotating cross division games. Listed are first annual cross division games.

WEST : EAST

• KSU : KU (2nd cross division game versus ISU to allow regional play for ISU)
• OU: OSU
• TTU: UT (2nd cross division game versus OU to maintain the Red River game)
• TCU: Baylor (2nd cross division game versus BYU so all the religious schools play each other)
• ISU : UCF
• BYU : WVU

Should the Big XII go to Big XIV (the Big XII already owns the rights to "Big XIV"), then it should be Rice and Tulane. Firstly why 14? The only reason would be to generate a dramatic increase in conference athletic volume and inventory for sales rather than just an incremental increase to 12 from 10. Rice and Tulane because they are both AAU programs and academics do matter to University Presidents. As #11 and #12 were taken based on competitiveness, there won't be a need to go to 14 for strength of schedule, but it will generate an opportunity to improve on academics. Never the less, a Big XIV is very unlikely.

• KSU : KU (2nd cross division game versus ISU to allow regional play for ISU)
• OU: OSU (2nd cross division game versus TCU?)
• TTU: UT (2nd cross division game versus OU to maintain the Red River game)
• TCU: Baylor (2nd cross division game versus BYU so all the religious schools play each other)
• ISU : UCF (2nd cross division game versus Rice)
• BYU : WVU (2nd cross division game versus TTU?)
• Rice : Tulane (2nd cross division game versus KSU?)

Each team would then play 6 division games, 2 annual cross division games and one rotating cross division games to keep conference games at 9 total.


The above discusses expansion candidates, not whether the Big XII should expand. Current TV contracts pay each Big XII schools $20M. No one knows for sure whether there is a contract clause that will increase payout for more games available with an expanded conference and a conference championship game. I suspect if there is one there has to be a reason why it has not been taken. It could be from the networks saying no teams available meets network's criteria for an increased payout of $40 millions to the conference. Thing is, if there is any program worth $20M the program would be getting it already, and so no need to join a power conference. And if the network already has that program in its stable for less, then why pay more for it?
Thus the only reason to expand would be if the conference loses out on post season revenue after the 2014 season when the new 2+1 "playoff" goes into affect. We will know more before June 1 2014. 

Big XII Expansion Candidates 3

In a previous post I analyzed potential candidates for Big XII expansion using stadium attendance and mcubed program ranking. But since mcubed ranking was program lifetime ranking, it might be more pertinent to look at the programs more recent record. So I went to Football Outsider and average their F/+ rating (higher is better) for the year 2005-2012. This a computed team performance rating and does not take anything else into account other than on field performance. I then posted this as Big XII expansion candidates part 2. However, I have since done a post on demographic and realized I did not consider Georgia Tech as a candidate for the Big XII. This post is an updated version of part 2 to include Georgia Tech.

For reference I will restate the Big XII mcubed rating (lower is better), and the potential candidates.

• Baylor = 63.2
• Iowa St = 68.7
• Kansas = 63
• Kansas St  = 67.1
• Oklahoma = 21.7
• Oklahoma St = 51.6
• TCU = 63.7
• Texas = 22.4
• Texas Tech = 48.4
• West Virginia = 40
• Big XII average = 50.98

• Expansion Candidates by MCubed.

1. Florida State = 27.6
2. Miami = 33.8
3. BYU = 42.6
4. Clemson = 44.3
5. Virginia Tech = 46.1
6. Georgia Tech = 48.5
7. Pittsburgh = 48.5
8. Syracuse = 49.5
9. South Florida = 50.1
10. Big XII average = 50.98
11. NC State = 52.8
12. Air Force = 57.1
13. Louisville = 63.4
14. Cincinnati = 66.4
15. Navy = 68.9
16. Connecticut = 71
17. Northern Illinois = 78.5

Now lets look at F/+ rating.

• Baylor = -2.3
• Iowa St = -5.4
• Kansas = -4.3
• Kansas St = 2.8
• Oklahoma = 21.2
• Oklahoma St = 12.1
• TCU = 17.9
• Texas = 18.1
• Texas Tech = 7.6
• West Virginia = 14.6
• Big XII average = 8.23

Once again the expansion candidates

1. Virginia Tech = 18
2. Florida State = 14.3
3. Clemson = 13.6
4. BYU = 10.2
5. Miami = 8.9
6. Big XII average = 8.23
7. Pittsburgh = 7.8
8. Georgia Tech = 7.3
9. Cincinnati = 7
10. Louisville = 6.3
11. South Florida = 5.4
12. Connecticut = 1.9
13. NC State = 1
14. Northern Illinois = -0.7
15. Navy = -1.8
16. Air Force = -3
17. Syracuse = -5.7

So looking at competitiveness alone, 5 teams are above the Big XII average: BYU, Clemson, FSU, Miami and Virginia Tech. Of these I believe Virginia Tech is least likely, being wedded to UVA and likely the ACC. Except for BYU, Clemson, FSU and Miami are all in the ACC as well and with a exit penalty of $50 millions, they may not be able to leave. It is estimated that the ACC pays each team $24.4 millions while the Big XII pays $26.2 millions (source). As is the difference is not enough, coupled with the fact that each team in the Big XII will likely make less with more members. That leaves BYU. So if somehow the ACC teams are available, then it might make sense for the Big XII to go to 14 with BYU, Clemson, FSU, and Miami. Wow what a conference that will be, but it seems unlikely.

The following six programs are below the Big XII on both lists: Air Force, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Louisville, Navy, and Northern Illinois and are thus unlikely candidates for Big XII expansion. Programs that are on either list are Georgia Tech, Pittsburgh, South Florida, and Syracuse. If the Big XII expands to 12, then BYU will be the 11th and a 12th will come from this group. Of these three, when ranked by the program's worth:

1. Georgia Tech = $188.4 millions
2. BYU = $136.1 millions
3. USF = $101.2 millions
4. Syracuse = $91.4 millions
5. Pittsburgh = $59.6 millions

When ranked by 2012 stadium attendance:

1. BYU = 61,161 (+1%)
2. USF = 44,130 (-1%)
3. Georgia Tech = 43,955 (-9%)
4. Pittsburgh = 41,494 (-10%)
5. Syracuse = 37,953 (-6%)

When ranked by NYT fan base:

1. Georgia Tech = 1,664,088
2. Pittsburgh = 831,496
3. Syracuse = 769,624
4. BYU = 709,864
5. USF = 520,627

When ranked by states with population changes (standardized to gains or losses of congressional seats) as a metric for the media market potential: 

1. USF (Florida) = +2 (also one of the top three states for football recruits)
2. BYU (Utah) = +1
3. Georgia Tech = +1
4. Pittsburgh (Pennsylvania) = -1
5. Syracuse (New York) = -2

By most metrics, but not all, the best available teams outside of the ACC are BYU and USF.

So even with the inclusion of Georgia Tech, the analysis doesn't change much. However, if the ACC teams are available, I don't think the Big XII should take both FSU and Miami, instead, I would take Clemson, FSU, and Georgia Tech from the ACC and BYU. I still hold that the ACC will hold these teams will not be available to the Big XII as the $50 millions dollar fee will be upheld. Maryland's lawsuit is different from WVU because WVU contested the time delay to leave the conference, not the fee. I predict the exit fee will be legally upheld. And again, BYU and USF are Big XII best bet. 

Conferences, Demographics, and Realignment

I want to look at the current demographics of the conferences and thus make some projection about their movement forward into the future, including realignments. Keep in mind that conferences are not the same as teams and on field performances, conferences are about (academic) institutions who seek to grow bigger, stronger, and more prosperous. Prosperity is key here so that yes, it is about money. Business of College Sport is an excellent source for more information on this topic. Ultimately institutions grow by having more members. They best do this by providing academic quality to attract students. But in any business, there has to be some marketing and broadcasted games are a good way of raising brand awareness in millions of home for several hours at a time. Sports however isn't just about raising brand awareness but also about maintaining brand awareness with graduates, linking them back to the four (or is it five now?) years spent on campus. This the circle is closed when you look at the goals of institutional growth, to attract applicants, to raise student enrollment, and to maintain alumni support. I understand that there is substantial mobility of people in the United States but for the most part, only a few institutions are truly national (or international) brands. Most institutions are regional at best and many are really just state wide brand in practical terms. By practical terms I mean most students are from instate (for the tuition discount) and most alumni remain in state. A good alumni base is important for their continued financial support, and nearby alumni are a valuable asset. Nearby alumni are more likely to attend the games, remain involved, and thus more likely to contribute to the institution financially. Only a few institutions have access to multimillion dollars donors so these should not be counted on for growth. For conferences, if their member institutions grow, so will the conference.

My hypothesis is that for regional (all non national or international institution) institutions, their potential for growth is higher when the institution is based in a growing state. Growth is driven best by economic, but population growth is a reasonable surrogate as people will move for better economic options. To compare one state's population against another, I will simply use the 2010 census and the resulting changes to the state's congressional seats. From the WSJ:

• States Losing Seats

1. New York: -2
2. Ohio: -2
3. Illinois: -1
4. Iowa: -1
5. Louisiana : -1
6. Massachusetts: -1
7. Michigan: -1
8. Missouri: -1
9. New Jersey: -1
10. Pennsylvania: -1

• States Gaining Seats

1. Texas: 4
2. Florida: 2
3. Arizona: 1
4. Georgia: 1
5. Nevada: 1
6. South Carolina: 1
7. Utah: 1
8. Washington:1

Now lets look at the individual conferences and their net change of congressional seats (CS). Since we are looking at population changes as a marker for potential growth, a state can impact more than one conferences. This is a qualitative measure rather than a quantitative measure though numbers are being used. Starting first with the Major Five then the Minor Five.

• ACC: +1 (for Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Pennsylvania and New York)
• B1G: -7 (for Ohio, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania)
• Big XII: +4 (for Texas)
• Pac12: +3 (for Arizona, Utah, and Washington)
• SEC: +6 (for Texas, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Louisiana and Missouri)
• Big East: +2 (for Texas, Florida, Ohio, Louisiana, and Pennsylvania)
• CUSA: +5 (for Texas, Florida and Louisiana)
• MAC: -6 (for New York, Ohio, Illinois, Michigan)
• MWC: +2 (for Nevada and Utah)
• Sun Belt: +4 (for Texas, Georgia and Louisiana)

Since I am proposing to use population growth as a potentiator for growth, I would be remiss not to consider the current state of the conference. For this I propose to use stability; after all nothing potentiate growth more than current stability. For stability I will just look at whether a conference has lost any members in the last 5 years. While some might argue that grants of rights (GoR) enhances stability and I agree, it doesn't factually provide stability as it has not been tested legally.

The ACC.  The ACC is unstable for having lost Maryland recently to the B1G. The ACC is also a risk per Internet rumors (yes I know that is the worse kind) of possibly losing Clemson, FSU, Georgia Tech, Miami, Duke, NC State, UNC, UVA, and VTech. While I remain skeptical that any of these teams will leave, I guess it can happen still. And if the 4 North Carolina schools stay, I think UVA and VTech will as well and thus the conference will survive. However, losing the southern schools like FSU, Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Miami will mean losing all four states with growing population, leaving ACC at a net loss of -3 CS. Interesting enough, at least by demographic shift, the addition of Pittsburgh and Syracuse does not help the ACC with the future growth regardless of the quality of the two programs added.  As is, at +1 CS the ACC is holding. But should the ACC lose both FSU and Miami, then the ACC should consider another Florida team such as USF. UConn and Cincinnati are unlikely to add much long term growth potential.

The B1G. The B1G is rock stable, having lost none and gained 3 (Maryland, Nebraska, and New Jersey). However, the future demographic shift for the B1G states are abysmal with a conference net of -7 (-6 without the recent addition of Rutger). The mainstay programs of the B1G are Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State are all states losing CS. I believe for the near future the B1G will remain stable because all members are AAU (except Nebraska) but in the long term demographic will trump academic. For the B1G to expand by geographic continuity, the situation will not change much as New York is a loser of CS, the North East and the MidAtlantic (Virginia and North Carolina) and Kansas are neutral in terms of CS growth. I guess this is why the B1G is looking at Georgia Tech.

The Big XII. The Big XII is unstable because it has lost four members (Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, and Texas A&M). The Big XII demographic potential for growth is focused on one state: Texas. True the Big XII also has no states losing population. The reliance on Texas, and indirectly UT, may potentiate instability rather than enhances it.  Should any of the Southern ACC teams become available for membership, the Big XII should jump at the chance. I would actually not suggest waiting but go out and actively recruit. I would also consider teams in the nearby Mountain states of Utah, Arizona and Nevada.

The Pac 12. The Pac 12 is a stable conference having lost no members and having gained two (Colorado and Utah). The Pac 12 also has 3 states gaining CS: Arizona, Utah and Washington and no states losing CS. The Pac 12 should be expected to continue for a while, but is limited only by limited expansion options. Only Texas and Nevada are nearby states with growing CS. No wonder it would have been a coup accompli had the Pac 12 been able to take OU, OSU, TTU and UT.

The SEC. The SEC is a stable conference having lost no members and having gained two (Missouri and Texas A&M). Texas A&M was a huge gain, allowing the SEC a regular presence in Texas (+4 CS). The SEC has four states gaining CS and two states losing CS. One of the states losing CS is Louisiana and this maybe an aberration as a result of depopulating New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. The other is Missouri, which is likely an addition only to balance out Texas A&M. The SEC is  on solid footing having a major presence in both Texas and Florida, not just the top two growth states but also the top 2 of three states for college football recruits.

Of the five major conferences I would rank the top two as the SEC and the Pac12. The B1G looks good now but have limited long term growth potential. The weakest two conferences are the ACC and the Big XII. They both likely know this and thus discussion for an alliance. I am skeptical an alliance would be a durable solution. Perhaps a full merger might work but that will never happen. Since the ACC is not looking to poach any programs from the Big XII whereas the Big XII is clearly interested in taking from the ACC, the Big XII through action alone may have a better future than the ACC.

I believe demographic shifts will affect the major five more than the minor five because of the current disparity in finances. Institutions in the minor five will always jump to the major five if given the opportunity to do so. Whether the major five will consider demographic shift is less certain to me but perhaps their should. A substantial amount of conference income come from TV broadcast rights with contract running for 10+ years, moving past the next census date of 2020.  Thus the money gains today will certainly trump that of future growth potential from population gains. Another consideration is that stability may not mean the same as with the major five conferences. If a conference has no team of value to the major conferences, then it may appear stable but stability would not mean value or potential for growth.

The Big East. Clearly an unstable conference having lost five teams to the majors (Louisville, Pittsburgh, Rutger, Syracuse, and West Virginia). The teams the Big East has sought to replenish and actually expand its membership include teams from Texas and Florida. In both states the Big East has position themselves with two programs each and this can only add synergy. If the Big East can hold as is I believe it has a reasonable future for growth. Current Big East teams at risk for jumping ship are USF, UConn and Cincinnati. Of these I would value USF the highest.

The CUSA. Another unstable conference having lost half its membership with six teams to the Big East (East Carolina, Central Florida, Houston, Memphis, SMU, and Tulane). Clearly the CUSA value maintaining a presence in Florida (FAU and FIU) as well as Texas (North Texas and UT San Antonio). The FCS addition of Old Dominion (VA) and UNC Charlotte (North Carolina) are population growth neutral. Louisiana (Louisiana Tech) will likely gain a CS in the next census. Like the Big East if the CUSA can hold and maintain competitive play, it might be pretty good.

The MAC. The MAC is probably unstable. Temple was lost to the Big East before becoming full member but the rest of the conference may not be attractive to the other conferences. Like the B1G the MAC has horrible demographic with a net of -6 CS. The MAC has a grim future despite having busted the BCS this past year. Unlike the B1G that can compensate for demographic decline by recruiting out of state by academic and reputation, the MAC cannot.

The MWC. Of the minor conferences, only the MWC has lost no members despite having members coveted by other conferences (Boise State and San Diego State). And gains in membership will allow the MWC to stage a conference championship for the first time. The MWC also have very good demographic with no states losing CS and two states gaining (Nevada and Utah). If the MWC can hold long enough to maintain conference unity and stave off any expansion from the Pac 12 or the Big XII, the future could make it the best of the minor and if consistent, leverage itself as a future major conference.

The Sun Belt. Another unstable minor conference having lost four teams to the CUSA. These losses have place them outside Florida but still maintaining a presence in Texas. Taking Georgia State help some but Georgia State is currently an FCS program. The Sun Belt should look to another Florida team. Of note all four Sun Belt bowl teams have remained with the Sun Belt.

Of the Minor Five conferences the MWC has the clear lead, closely followed by the Big East and CUSA. Next I believe comes the Sun Belt. The MAC I would place at the bottom of all conferences for future growth.

Big 12 Expansion Candidates 2

In a previous post I analyzed potential candidates for Big XII expansion using stadium attendance and mcubed program ranking. But since mcubed ranking was program lifetime ranking, it might be more pertinent to look at the programs more recent record. So I went to Football Outsider and average their F/+ rating (higher is better) for the year 2005-2012. This a computed team performance rating and does not take anything else into account other than on field performance.

For reference I will restate the Big XII mcubed rating (lower is better), and the potential candidates.

• Baylor = 63.2
• Iowa St = 68.7
• Kansas = 63
• Kansas St  = 67.1
• Oklahoma = 21.7
• Oklahoma St = 51.6
• TCU = 63.7
• Texas = 22.4
• Texas Tech = 48.4
• West Virginia = 40
• Big XII average = 50.98

• Expansion Candidates

1. Florida State = 27.6
2. Miami = 33.8
3. BYU = 42.6
4. Clemson = 44.3
5. Virginia Tech = 46.1
6. Pittsburgh = 48.5
7. Syracuse = 49.5
8. South Florida = 50.1
9. Big XII average = 50.98
10. NC State = 52.8
11. Air Force = 57.1
12. Louisville = 63.4
13. Cincinnati = 66.4
14. Navy = 68.9
15. Connecticut = 71
16. Northern Illinois = 78.5

Now lets look at F/+ rating.

• Baylor = -2.3
• Iowa St = -5.4
• Kansas = -4.3
• Kansas St = 2.8
• Oklahoma = 21.2
• Oklahoma St = 12.1
• TCU = 17.9
• Texas = 18.1
• Texas Tech = 7.6
• West Virginia = 14.6
• Big XII average = 8.23

Once again the expansion candidates

1. Virginia Tech = 18
2. Florida State = 14.3
3. Clemson = 13.6
4. BYU = 10.2
5. Miami = 8.9
6. Big XII average = 8.23
7. Pittsburgh = 7.8
8. Cincinnati = 7
9. Louisville = 6.3
10. South Florida = 5.4
11. Connecticut = 1.9
12. NC State = 1
13. Northern Illinois = -0.7
14. Navy = -1.8
15. Air Force = -3
16. Syracuse = -5.7

So looking at competitiveness alone, 5 teams are above the Big XII average: BYU, Clemson, FSU, Miami and Virginia Tech. Of these I believe Virginia Tech is least likely, being wedded to UVA and likely the ACC. Except for BYU, Clemson, FSU and Miami are all in the ACC as well and with a exit penalty of $50 millions, they may not be able to leave. It is estimated that the ACC pays each team $24.4 millions while the Big XII pays $26.2 millions (source). As is the difference is not enough, coupled with the fact that each team in the Big XII will likely make less with more members. That leaves BYU. So if somehow the ACC teams are available, then it might make sense for the Big XII to go to 14 with BYU, Clemson, FSU, and Miami. Wow what a conference that will be, but it seems unlikely.

The following six programs are below the Big XII on both lists: Air Force, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Louisville, Navy, and Northern Illinois and are thus unlikely candidates for Big XII expansion. Programs that are on either list are Pittsburgh, South Florida, and Syracuse. If the Big XII expands to 12, then BYU will be the 11th and a 12th will come from this group. Of these three, when ranked by the program's worth:

1. BYU = $136.1 millions
2. USF = $101.2 millions
3. Syracuse = $91.4 millions
4. Pittsburgh = $59.6 millions

When ranked by 2012 stadium attendance:

1. BYU = 61,161 (+1%)
2. USF = 44,130 (-1%)
3. Pittsburgh = 41,494 (-10%)
4. Syracuse = 37,953 (-6%)

When ranked by NYT fan base:

1. Pittsburgh = 831,496
2. Syracuse = 769,624
3. BYU = 709,864
4. USF = 520,627

When ranked by states with population changes (standardized to gains or losses of congressional seats) as a metric for the media market potential: 

1. USF (Florida) = +2 (also one of the top three states for football recruits)
2. BYU (Utah) = +1
3. Pittsburgh (Pennsylvania) = -1
4. Syracuse (New York) = -2

By most metrics, but not all, the best available teams outside of the ACC are BYU and USF.

Big 12 Expansion

The Big 12 will meet Jan 28-29 and I am certain expansion will be a topic for discussion. 

While attending the NCAA Convention here, Bowlsby was asked if his conference would have to be reactive in whatever next form conference realignment takes. In each of the last two offseasons, the Big 12 has had to replace two teams. While no one expects the conference to lose teams -- it has a rock-solid, 13-year grant-of-rights -- the league may have a big decision to make about adding teams.
For 2013, the Big 12 and Big East will be FBS' smallest conferences (10 teams).
“We could be proactive [in conference alignment], I think,” Bowlsby said.

Again as I previously stated expansion will be dependent on

1. How not having a conference championship help or hurt the Big XII for the BCS.

At the moment, Big 12 schools cash TV rights revenue checks for approximately $20 million per year. One industry source said the league could be making as much as $30 million per school in 2014, the first year of the playoff.

2. How much more money having a championship game will bring in.

CBSSports.com also reported that a 12-team Big 12 that played a conference championship game would get only $700,000-$1 million more per school per year. Bowlsby reiterated Wednesday that he supports doing away with an NCAA bylaw that requires conferences to have 12 teams to stage a league championship game.

3. What teams are available for consideration and whether they will add value to the conference. We all know programs like FSU, Clemson, and Miami will bring value but their exit fee with the ACC may not make them available.

The dominoes could start tumbling again if the Big Ten once again raided the ACC. That would create instability that could lead to this scenario: Clemson and Florida State calling the Big 12. At that point the Big 12 would have that decision to make. Stay at 10 or expand to further flyover states for potentially more conference revenue.
But could the Big 12 make a move before it has to make a move? Florida State certainly has seemed willing to listen in the past. Along with Maryland, is the other ACC team that didn't vote for the $50 million exit fee. As of last month the hottest buzz in the industry had the Big Ten targeting Georgia Tech and Virginia.

But this particular bit is interesting.

“That's exactly one of the questions we'll be asking ourselves,” Bowlsby said Wednesday. “Look at Maryland and Rutgers. They don't bring programs that are of the ilk of the others in the Big Ten. The philosophy clearly is: ‘As members of the Big Ten we can grow them.' “

This seems to leave the door open for lesser teams than FSU, Clemson, and Miami to be considered if they could prosper and grow once a member. In many ways both TCU and WVU fit this mold and will be better as members of the Big XII than before. Never the less both teams entered the Big XII with a history of being competitive already. That is why I think USF should be considered. USF has a good mcubed rating of 50.1, which is slightly better than the Big XII average of 51. (BYU is 42.5) More importantly in favor of USF is in one of the top three states for recruitment of college football players (the other being Texas and California).

FBS Program Proposed Value, Validated

In a previous post I sought to analyze the available FBS teams value for realignment considerations.  I used two resources. Firstly is mcubed which take a team's football record from 1960 through 2012 analyzed and ranked; lower is thus better. This gives me an understanding how competitive a team is, along with its competitive reputation. Second is the team's popularity and I use the actual averaged stadium attendance for 2012, with a percentage change from 2011. I then took the attendance figure divided by the mcubed rank to get one number, and this time the bigger the figure the higher the value, at least as by my method.

I will now attempt to validate this method of analysis and valuation through internal comparison of the value of the Big XII teams with each other, then with a WSJ estimation of the major FBS teams dollar worth. So here is the Big 12 ranked.

• Program: attendance / mcubed = value 

1. Texas: 100,884 / 22.4 = 4,503
2. Oklahoma: 85,243 21.7 = 3,928
3. West Virginia: 55,916 / 40 = 1397
4. Texas Tech: 57,209 / 48.4 = 1,182
5. Oklahoma St: 56,557 / 51.6 = 1,096
6. Iowa St: 55,274 / 68.7 = 804
7. Kansas St: 50,278 / 67.1 = 749
8. TCU: 46,047 / 63.7 = 722
9. Kansas: 41,329 / 63 = 656
10. Baylor: 41,194 / 63.2 = 651

• Average: 58,993.1 / 50.98 = 1157

The top two programs Texas and Oklahoma appears correct. West Virginia, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State are also correctly placed in the top half of the conference. West Virginia rank may be higher because their competitiveness is based largely against Big East programs, typically seen and less competitive than the Big XII. But Kansas State appears inappropriately low bunched in the bottom half of the conference. Lets look at the WSJ worth ranking.

• Program: Value (in million $)

1. Texas: 761.7
2. Oklahoma: 454.7
3. Texas Tech: 211
4. Oklahoma State: 209.1
5. Kansas State: 207.1
6. West Virginia: 159.4
7. Iowa State: 140.3
8. Kansas: 103.4
9. Texas Christian: 76.6
10. Baylor: 71.3

So again the top 2 teams are similar to my valuation calculation, as is the bottom Baylor. Texas Tech and Oklahoma State are also very close together. Kansas State rates higher per the WSJ than West Virginia did, likely because West Virginia only just join from the Big East, a lower value conference. While not directly correlative, the analyzed value appears approximately reasonable. Lets look at the programs under consideration again, and compare them against the Big XII average.

• Program: attendance / mcubed = value (value in millions)

1. Florida State: 75,601 / 27.6 = 2,739 ($159)
2. Clemson: 79,429 / 44.3 = 1,792 ($201.8)
3. BYU: 61,161 / 42.6 = 1,435 ($136.1)
4. Miami: 47,719 / 33.8 = 1,411 ($157.7)

• Big XII Average: 58,993.1 / 50.98 = 1157

1. South Florida: 44,130 / 50.1 = 880 ($101.2)
2. Pittsburgh: 41494 / 48.5 = 855 ($59.6)
3. Louisville: 49,991 / 63.4 = 788 ($75.4)
4. Syracuse: 37,953 / 49.5 = 766 ($91.4)
5. Air Force: 32,015 / 57.1 = 560 (?)
6. Connecticut: 34,672 / 71 = 488 ($101.8)
7. Navy: 32,363 / 68.9 = 469 (?)
8. Cincinnati: 29,138 / 66.4 = 438 ($48.9)

Again Florida State and Clemson show themselves to be top of the list and well above the Big XII average. BYU and Miami also show themselves to be above the Big XII average. The Big XII should be cautious in taking program below Big XII average. Likely the Big XII will only take lower value program to go to 12 and I continue to believe South Florida is the best candidate of the rest. The value of Air Force and Navy remain unknown economically, but their perceived value appear high.

FBS Conferences Realignment Options Analyzed

There is an order to realignment picks, the major five (ACC, B1G, Big XII, Pac 12, SEC) picks before the minor conferences (Big East, CUSA, MAC, MWC, and Sun Belt). The Big East has been relegated  to minor status. Of the major five, the B1G, the Pac 12, and the SEC are the top three. These top three have very defined geography and will likely stay geographically based. Of these the Pac 12 have very limited options and at this point, they are not likely to expand. The expansion candidates for both the B1G and the SEC expansion candidates all reside in the ACC. The B1G candidates are Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia Tech. The SEC candidates are Virginia Tech and North Carolina State. My sense remains that the two Virginia schools and all four North Carolina schools will remain in the ACC. If this is true, then there will be no expansion for the B1G or the SEC in the near future. Thus of the major conferences, expansion will depend on the ACC and the Big XII.

The ACC just lost one (Maryland) while taking three (Louisville, Pittsburgh, and Syracuse) to go to 14. The Big XII has recently lost 4 (Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska and Texas A&M) while taking only two (Texas Christian and West Virginia). Despite being smaller than before, the media grants of rights contract agreement appear to make the Big XII more stable than the ACC. I believe the ACC is unlikely to expand further at this point, but if they do Cincinnati and Connecticut are the likely options. The ACC is not in the position to take from the Big XII.

Whether the Big XII expands will depend on whether a conference championship game will offset the cost of the additional members, whether the BCS 4+1 format for 2014 will benefits conferences with the championship more, and finally how easy or how hard Maryland's exit from the ACC's with the $50 million charge will be. However, unlike the ACC, the Big XII should they expand, could take from the ACC but if so, it should happen sooner rather than later. Allow me to explain. If Maryland's exit is arduous, thus making it difficult for the Big XII to take from the ACC, then they may want to have the option to take Louisville, Pittsburgh and Syracuse before they become full ACC members. If Maryland's exit is easy, the ACC will likely take steps to make exit more arduous, such as a media grants of rights like the B1G, Pac 12 and the Big XII have and thus the window to take from the ACC may close fairly quickly. We should know this year whether the Big 12 will expand or not and if they do, a cascade of reaction will follows.

To analyze the available teams, I used two resources. Firstly is mcubed which take a team's football record from 1960 through 2012 analyzed and ranked; lower is thus better. This gives me an understanding how competitive a team is, along with its competitive reputation. Second is the team's popularity and I use the actual averaged stadium attendance for 2012, with a percentage change from 2011. I then took the attendance figure divided by the mcubed rank to get one number, and this time the bigger the figure the higher the value, at least as by my method.

For the Big XII candidate I have assumed the Virginia and North Carolina ACC schools are not available. Thus the candidates are, in order;

• Program: attendance / mcubed = value (trend from 2011 - 2012)

1. Florida State: 75,601 / 27.6 = 2,739 (-)
2. Clemson: 79,429 / 44.3 = 1,792 (+)
3. BYU: 61,161 / 42.6 = 1,435 (+)
4. Miami: 47,719 / 33.8 = 1,411 (+)
5. South Florida: 44,130 / 50.1 = 880 (-)
6. Pittsburgh: 41494 / 48.5 = 855 (-)
7. Louisville: 49,991 / 63.4 = 788 (+)
8. Syracuse: 37,953 / 49.5 = 766 (-)
9. Air Force: 32,015 / 57.1 = 560 (-)
10. Connecticut: 34,672 / 71 = 488 (-)
11. Navy: 32,363 / 68.9 = 469 (-)
12. Cincinnati: 29,138 / 66.4 = 438 (-)

I just don't see any other program for consideration. Programs in italics would not be available if the ACC holds as is. For the Big XII the top four would change to BYU, South Florida, Pittsburgh, and Louisville. BYU is a top for regardless. Florida State, Clemson, and Miami speak for themselves and the Big XII would do well to consider going to the Big XIV.  My gut says no Florida State, Clemson, or Miami. Without the ACC teams, South Florida makes sense to provide the Big XII with a presence in Florida. I am uncertain whether teams like Pittsburgh, Louisville, Syracuse or Air Force would be worth going to the Big XIV for, especially if it would be difficult to any team from the ACC. I think this is most likely. Though the Big XII and BYU failed to reach an agreement previously, the new BCS arrangement will make it very difficult for any independent team other than Notre Dame. BYU will be more flexible, and the Big XII will have no problem with a religious school as they already have Baylor and Texas Christian. South Florida will jump at the chance of joining the Big XII. Air Force declined previously due to the level and schedule of competition in the Big XII seems unlikely unless the Big XII expand to include Navy. Thus the Big XII should take BYU, South Florida, possible Air Force and Navy as well. This looks like a pretty good conference as the new Big XIV. These changes will leave the ACC intact.

The Big East will lose one to two programs (Navy and South Florida). If the Big East wish to have twelve teams for a championship game, two to four additional teams (assuming San Diego State returns to the MWC) will be needed. The candidates for the Big East are:

• Program: attendance / mcubed = value (trend)

1. Southern Mississippi: 25,751 / 53.4 = 482 (-)
2. Army: 32,205 / 81 = 397 (-)
3. Tulsa: 20,020 / 53.5 = 374 (-)
4. Arkansas St: 26,398 / 90.1 = 292 (+)
5. Buffalo: 13,242 / 97.6 = 135 (-)
6. Massachusetts: ?

Massachusetts is transitioning from FCS to FBS thus I have no data for them. They have been mentioned as a local candidate for Connecticut. As have been Tulsa. Southern Mississippi should really be considered as a regional presence, and it is a bridge between Tulane and Central Florida. I could see the following divisions:

• East: Central Florida, Cincinnati, Connecticut, East Carolina, Navy (or Massachusetts), and Temple
• South: Houston, Memphis, SMU, Southern Mississippi, Tulane, and Tulsa

The next conference to be affected by realignment would be the MWC. But this would only occur if the Big XII take Air Force. I am skeptical BYU would join the MWC until the Big XII moves to 12 teams. UTEP would be a clear replacement for Air Force to revive old WAC rivalries and give the MWC a foothold in Texas. The MWC would likely stay at 12 but team 13 and 14 would have to be Idaho and New Mexico State. They should stay at 12.

• Program: attendance / mcubed = value (trend)

1. UTEP: 29,374 / 87.6 = 335 (+)
2. New Mexico St: 14,247 / 93.4 = 152 (-)
3. Idaho: 12,582 / 100 = 125 (+)

Should Conference USA lose both Southern Mississippi and Tulsa, they would still have 12 teams and a conference championship game. But if they also lose UTEP then Army or Arkansas State should be taken.

• Program: attendance / mcubed = value (trend)

1. Army: 32,205 / 81 = 397 (-)
2. Arkansas St: 26,398 / 90.1 = 292 (+)

The MAC would need replacement only if they lose Massachusetts and Buffalo, but all they need is one replacement to be at 12 as they have 13 now. Army, Marshall, and Western Kentucky should be considered. Army is the best option.

• Program: attendance / mcubed = value (trend)

1. Army: 32,205 / 81 = 397 (-)
2. Marshall: 24,896 / 82.7 = 301 (-)
3. Western Kentucky: 17,415 / 105.8 = 164 (+)

The Sun Belt belt could escape unscathed if they don't lose Arkansas State. But even if they take New Mexico State and Idaho, they would only be at 10 football schools. In addition to just FBS South Alabama and Georgia State following suit, two more FCS teams will be needed. It seems unlikely Arkansas Little Rock or Texas Arlington, already members of the Sun Belt, would start FBS football. I have no data for FCS so I have only guesses taken from recent FCS champions.

• North Dakota State
• Sam Houston State (Texas)
• Eastern Washington
• Delaware
• Villanova (Pennsylvania)
• Montana 
• Richmond (Virginia)
• Appalachian State (North Carolina)

FBS Realignment 2

As a follow up to my previous post on what could happen with FBS conferences realignment, I thought to put forth my preference.


My preference would be for the Big XII to go to Big XIV in 2014 with the addition of Pittsburgh, Florida State, Miami and Northern Illinois. Once the Big XII go to 12, divisions will have to be set up, in which case might as well go to XIV. The Big XII already owns the rights to Big XIV. Regarding divisional alignment, I would set up a zipper through Texas (2 teams each), Oklahoma, Kansas, Florida, ISU v NIU, and Pittsburgh v WVU. Fourteen teams means divisions of 7 for 6 in-division games, 1 annual cross-division rivalry game, and 2 rotating cross-division games (one away and one home game) among the remaining 6 cross-division teams.

Division A & Division B, listed as annual cross division games.

Baylor & Texas Christian
Texas & Texas Tech (Chancellor's Spurs since 1928)
Oklahoma & Oklahoma State (Bedlam Series since 1904)
Kansas & Kansas State (Sunflower Showdown since 1902)
Northern Illinois & Iowa State
West Virginia & Pittsburgh (Backyard Brawl)
Miami & Florida State (Battle of Sunshine State)


As a result of this the ACC will need three teams: UConn, USF, and Cincinnati.

Atlantic Division & Coastal Division, listed as annual cross division games.
Boston College & Southern Florida
Clemson & Georgia Tech
Virginia Tech & Virginia
North Carolina State & North Carolina
Wake Forest & Duke
Syracuse & UConn
Louisville & Cincinnati


The MAC can hold at 12 or approach Temple, Navy, Army, Marshall, and or Western Kentucky for 14 teams.

West Division: Bowling Green, Toledo, Miami Ohio, Central Michigan, Eastern Michigan, Western Michigan, and Ball State
East Division: Kent State, Akron, Ohio, Massachusetts, Buffalo, Navy, and Army

Alternative MAC with zippered divisions, listed as annual cross rivalry games:
Division A & Division B
Ohio & Miami (Battle of the Bricks for 89 games)
Central Michigan & Western Michigan (the Victory Cannon for 83 games)Bowling Green & Toledo (Peace Pipe for 76 games)
Kent State & Akron (Wagon Wheel for 54 games)
Massachusetts & Buffalo
Eastern Michigan & Ball State
Navy & Army


The MWC can take San Diego State, SMU and Houston to go to 14.

Mountain Division & West Division, listed as annual cross division games.
Colorado St. & Air Force
Nevada Las Vegas & Nevada
San Jose St. & Fresno St.
Wyoming  & Boise St.
San Diego St. & Hawaii
New Mexico & Utah St.
Southern Methodist & Houston


The remnant of the new Big East, Tulane, Memphis, ECU, UCF, will be unable to form a new conference and will return to the CUSA, leaving them with 18 unless a few schools (such as Florida Atlantic, Florida International, Middle Tennessee, and North Texas) decides to return to the Sun Belt. In that case the CUSA will remain at 14 (Houston and SMU will be replaces with North Carolina Charlotte, Old Dominion, UT San Antonio, and Louisiana Tech).

West Division: Tulsa, Rice, UTEP, UTSA, Memphis, Louisiana Tech, and Tulane
East Division: Marshall, ECU, UCF, UAB, Old Dominion, UNC Charlotte

Alternative CUSA zippered, listed as annual cross division games.
Division A & Division B
Southern Mississippi & Memphis
Louisiana Tech & Tulane
Rice & Tulsa
Alabama Birmingham & Central Florida
Eastern Carolina & North Carolina Charlotte 
Texas San Antonio & Texas El Paso
Marshall & Old Dominion


The Sun Belt will have 12 with the current 10 and the addition of Texas State and Georgia State.

West Division: Arkansas State, Louisiana Lafayette, Louisiana Monroe, North Texas, Texas State, and South Alabama
East Division: Western Kentucky, Middle Tennessee, Troy, Florida Atlantic, Florida International, Georgia State
(Texas Arlington & Arkansas Little Rock)

Alternatively Sun Belt can also move to a zippered conference format with an annual cross division rival:
Division A & Division B
Louisiana Lafayette & Louisiana Monroe (Battle of the Bayou)

Georgia State & Arkansas State

South Alabama & Troy

Middle Tennessee & Western Kentucky

North Texas & Texas State

Florida International & Florida Atlantic(Shula Bowl)

Left unaligned are Notre Dame, Temple, BYU, Idaho, and New Mexico State.

BCS: Leaning from AQ and Toward +1

From CBS' Murphy.

The items of note from the article for me are:

1. AQ automatically gets $22.3 million, non-AQ gets $13.2 million

2. If non-AQ gets to BCS, they get $26.4 million


What i get from this are

1. Non-BCS programs moving to BCS conference is probably more about TV contract money than BCS money. Tthe increased from about $1 million to $2 million doesn't seem to be enough to offset travel cost and conference exit fees.

2. The MWC and CUSA are unlikely to merge. As an independent conference each gets $13.2 million each, as one conference they might get only $13.2 million total. I am highly skeptical that the combined merged conference would get $22.3, same as an AQ conference, and definitely not $26.4 million, more than an AQ conference.

3. Alliance makes sense with revenue sharing if one team from the Alliance Championship makes it to the BCS, then both conference could win more money.

4. If TV money is the key, each conference will be at a minimum of 10 teams with 9 conference games per team (to get sufficient conference games for airing). 12 teams usually means 8 conference games per team so unless the conference championship game can offset this in tv negotiation, i do not see either conference going to 12. Especially with an Alliance championship format unless there is special NCAA disposition for the two conference to have an intra-conference championship and an inter-conference championship.

5. Even with the BCS as a +1 format, the money situation is unlikely to change. All conferences will continue unequal revenue sharing. And there will be additional money for making the BCS championship series (final 4) and the actual championship game itself.


My conclusion:

MWC + CUSA forms an alliance but not a merger. Both will go to 10, possibly 11 teams (which may result in less non-conference games, which means less tier 3 money for each school and less opportunity to increase strength of schedule against the dominant conferences)

MWC 2013: Air Force, Colorado State, Fresno, Hawaii, Nevada-Las Vegas, Nevada-Reno, New Mexico, and Wyoming for a total of 8 teams. At risk for Big East poaching: Nevada or Hawaii.
MWC candidates: Utah State, San Jose State, UTEP, Idaho, New Mexico State. I suspect the first two.

CUSA 2013. Alabama-Birmingham, East Carolina, Marshal, Memphis, Rice, Southern Mississippi, Texas-El Paso, Tulane, and Tulsa for a total of 9 teams. At risk for Big East poaching: Tulsa, Memphis, East Carolina
CUSA candidates: Army, Navy, Florida International, Arkansas State, Louisiana Tech, North Texas

Big 12 Rivalries: New & Old

The Big 12 should try to maintain three sort of rivalries and play them annually. Firstly are the annual cross division rivalries that will define the divisions.

Texas & Oklahoma (Red River Rivalry since 1900)
Kansas & Kansas State (Sunflower Showdown since 1902)
Oklahoma & Oklahoma State (Bedlam Series since 1904)
Texas & Kansas State (Chisholm Trail since 1913)
Iowa State & Kansas State (Farmageddon since 1917)
Texas & Texas Tech (Chancellor's Spurs since 1928)
Baylor & Texas Tech (Texas Farm Bureau Shootout since 1929)

There are four intrastate rivalries within of the three core Big 12 States: Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. Thus each division should have one Kansas program, one Oklahoma program, and at least one Texas program. The annual cross division rivalries should thus be Kansas & Kansas State, and Oklahoma & Oklahoma State. Since the Texas and Oklahoma Red river Rivalry is the oldest, if they are not set as annual cross division rivals, then they need to be in the same division. Then given the Chisholm Trail rivalry, Kansas State and Texas needs to be in the same division. Then Farmageddon puts Iowa State and Kansas State in the same division. So far we have:

Division A & Division B
Texas & ?
Oklahoma & Oklahoma State (Bedlam Series since 1904)
Kansas State & Kansas (Sunflower Showdown since 1902)
Iowa State & ?

Texas Tech and Baylor needs to be placed, as well as new addition to the Big 12 Texas Christian. Texas has played 100 games against Baylor, 82 against Texas Christian, and 60 against Texas Tech. This means Texas' annual cross division rival should be either Baylor or Texas Christian, and the other to be in the same division. This leaves Texas Tech in the opposite division from Texas. However, there appears to be a preference by both Texas and Texas Tech to maintain the Chancellor Spur's rivalry. Ultimately rivalry is not just how long the teams have been playing but how much emotions and desires the teams have in playing each other. Since it would be an imbalance to place both of the Texas public universities in one division and both Texas private universities in the other, it seems appropriate to place Texas and Texas Tech as the annual cross division rivals. Baylor with 100 games against Texas will be in the same division as Texas as Baylor only has an 82 games series with Texas Tech. For Texas Christian, the rivalry with Baylor spans 107 games versus 54 with Texas Tech, leaving these two as natural cross division rivals and Texas Christian and Texas Tech to be in the same division. This then leaves the arrangement as:

Division A & Division B
Baylor & Texas Christian
Texas & Texas Tech (Chancellor's Spurs since 1928)
Oklahoma & Oklahoma State (Bedlam Series since 1904)
Kansas State & Kansas (Sunflower Showdown since 1902)
Iowa State & ?

Next to be placed is West Virginia. Given its geographical proximity and an empty cross division annual rival. West Virginia will become Iowa State's annual cross division rival. This will be a brand new rivalry as neither teams have played each other before.

Division A & Division B
Baylor & Texas Christian
Texas & Texas Tech (Chancellor's Spurs since 1928)
Oklahoma & Oklahoma State (Bedlam Series since 1904)
Kansas State & Kansas (Sunflower Showdown since 1902)
Iowa State & West Virginia

But this is only 10 teams and there would be no need for divisions. There is a general expectation that the Big 12 will go back to 12 with the addition of Louisville as 11th. Brigham Young has been mentioned but this seems to have fizzled for now. There has been hopes for Notre Dame but this remains just wishful thinking. Cincinnati have been discussed and would be a natural rival for Louisville. West Virginia list Louisville as a rival rather than Cincinnati so both should be in the same division. The Big 12 with 12 teams would thus be configured as:

Division A & Division B
Baylor & Texas Christian ("Holy War" since 1899)
Texas & Texas Tech (Chancellor's Spurs since 1928)
Oklahoma & Oklahoma State (Bedlam Series since 1904)
Kansas State & Kansas (Sunflower Showdown since 1902)
Iowa State & West Virginia (since 2012)
Cincinnati & Louisville (Keg of Nails since 1929)

These annual cross division rivalry games should be played early in the conference play if not at the beginning of conference play. These same two rival teams may end up in a rematch in the conference championship game as their respective division champions. The more game between the first meeting and the rematch the better. These annual cross division games should also be aligned such that all teams have equivalent exposure to the Big 12 geographically as well as to integrate new members with old members.

The remaining rivalries can be set up for rivalry weekend, the Thanksgiving weekend game.

Rivalries weekend games for division A:
Texas & Oklahoma (Red River Rivalry since 1900)
Kansas State & Iowa State (Farmageddon since 1917)
Baylor & Cincinnati (Battle of the Bears? since 2012 given that it is the Baylor Bear versus Cincinnati Bearcats)
Rivalries weekend games for division B:
Kansas & Louisville (The Birds Kansas Jayhawks versus Louisville Cardinals with both as basketball powerhouses)
Oklahoma State & Texas Christian
Texas Tech & West Virginia.

I went with Oklahoma State & Texas Christian with Texas Tech & West Virginia rather than Oklahoma State & West Virginia and Texas Tech & Texas Christian for a variety of reasons. Firstly Oklahoma State & Texas Christian and Texas Tech & West Virginia are more even matches. Secondly there appears a frontier commonality both present with Texas Tech and West Virginia. Thirdly it may be preferable not to have intrastate rivals for rivalry weekend. Fourthly it seems better not to pit the two new teams as rival for each other rather than integrate them into the conference by building rivalries with the original Big 12 teams. Naturally the four teams will play their three potential rivals (for Oklahoma State versus Texas Christian, Texas Tech or West Virginia; for Texas Christian versus Oklahoma State, Texas Tech or West Virginia; for Texas Tech versus Oklahoma State, Texas Christian or West Virginia; and for West Virginia versus Oklahoma State, Texas Christian or Texas Tech).

Naturally member teams should maintain rivalries in their non-conference schedule as well.
Baylor & ?
Cincinnati & Miami of Ohio (Victory Bell) and Pittsburgh (River City Rivalry)
Iowa State & Iowa (Cy-Hawk Trophy)
Louisville & Kentucky (Governor's Cup)
Kansas & Missouri (Border War)
Kansas State & Nebraska
Oklahoma & Nebraska
Oklahoma State & Tulsa
Texas & Texas A&M and Arkansas, possibly UCLA
Texas Christian & Southern Methodist (Battle for the Iron Skillet)
Texas Tech & Texas A&M
West Virginia & Pittsburgh (Backyard Brawl) and Syracuse (Ben Schwartzwalder Trophy)

Since Missouri and Texas A&M have both left the Big 12, neither Kansas nor Texas has expressed any interests to maintain the rivalries. This may apply to Nebraska as well. In these instances Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Texas and Texas Tech should consider other regional programs such as Arkansas, Colorado State, Louisiana State, and New Mexico to build a non-conference regional rivalry series with.


Note
The divisions as listed above will have:
30 BCS points from 2008-2010 for Division A with Baylor (0 pts), Texas (12 pts),
Oklahoma (9 pts), Kansas State (0 pts), Iowa State (0 pts), and Cincinnati (9 pts).
26 BCS points from 2008-2010 for Division B with Texas Christian (15 pts), Texas Tech (3 pts), Oklahoma State (5 pts), Kansas (0 pts), and West Virginia (3 pts).

Alliance: C-USA and MWC

Alot still depends on what happens to the Big East despite rumored invitations to Air Force, Boise State, Central Florida, Houston, Navy, and Southern Methodist. Any teams joining the Big East must realize that realignment of current Big East teams is not over. Per the West Virginia suit against the Big East state what we all know, that Cincinnati, Connecticut, Louisville, Rutgers and South Florida are all leaving. In fact, there may not be a Big East football conference if the Big 12 takes Cincinnati, Louisville, and South Florida while the ACC (or less likely the B1G) takes Connecticut and Rutgers for 2014.

The demise of the Big East, will best position the Alliance of C-USA and MWC to gain an automatic bid to the BCS. Whether each conference should have its own championship game is open for discussion due to NCAA rules. The Alliance championship game must be played in time for the BCS selection, as well as for the loser to be directed to its own bowl. Most likely this will be the first weekend in December, same time as the other conferences championship games. If there is a conference championship game then it will occur during "rivalry weekend" of Thanksgiving. The differentiation during both weekends might favor more for the C-USA and MWC conferences: Alliance championship rather than conference championship and conference championship rather than conference rivalries. But since the schedule is moved forward one week, and since the season cannot be moved forward one week (NCAA rules) then the Alliance teams may lose its bye week.

For each conference lets look at what the membership would be like, with and without losses.

C-USA.
Losing Central Florida, Houston and Southern Methodist the conference could stay at 9, add one to go to 10 (Louisiana Tech from the WAC) or add three (Louisiana Tech, upcoming UT San Antonio, and Texas State, all from the WAC). The two new Texas teams could replace Houston and Southern Methodists in the division line up, while Louisiana Tech could be in the East to replace Central Florida or in the West with Tulane moving East. If the three teams lost were Central Florida, Southern Mississippi and Tulane, then the 6 Texas teams would be West, and Tulsa and Louisiana Tech would be in the East.

Losing just one team like Central Florida the conference could stay at 11 or take Louisiana Tech (WAC) to go back to 12. Of the one team lost was Tulane, then Louisiana Tech would slide right in Tulane's spot.

MWC
Losing 2 teams (Boise State and Air Force) the conference will need two replacements and again it will be the WAC that will be raided: Utah State fills a geographic deficit, leaving Idaho, New Mexico State, and San Jose State. All four teams could take the conference to 12. Its division could be split East (Colorado State, Idaho, New Mexico, New Mexico State, Utah State and Wyoming) and West (Fresno State, Hawaii, San Diego State, San Jose State, Nevada, and Nevada Las Vegas).

It is quite possible that like the Big East, the WAC could be eliminated as a football conference. I think conference consolidations from 11 to 9 could be a good thing and one step further to equalizing the conferences with a playoff or BCS.

Big 12 Should Look East

News today is that the Big East plans to go to 12 football teams. Their options are limited however with candidates like Air Force, Army, Navy, Temple, East Carolina, Central Florida, Houston and SMU. None of the teams mentioned are from Automatic Qualifying conferences, but teams mentioned (with the omission of Boise State and BYU) are among the best of the rest. If the Big 12 rest at 10, then the opportunity to take teams from the Big East, or these "best of the rest" will be severely limited.

When the Big 12 expands back up to 12, and possibly 14 (given the Big 12 currently owns the copy rights to Big 14), the expansions should consider new markets for both football as well as basketball, major metropolitan areas, and academics. While final decisions cannot come until Missouri decides whether to leave to the SEC or not, the Big 12 expanding to at least 12 now might entice Missouri to stay. Given all these considerations, the Big 12 should move now rather than later.

Which way to expand? If the Big 12 looks to improve both its football and basketball footprints, then it should look to what conference currently are strong in football and basketball. This means Big 10 and SEC for football and ACC and Big East for basketball. All these states are east of the current Big 12 footprint, not west. All these states also have higher population densities than the states west of the Big 12. While geographic continuity should be considered, there are options eastward the Big 12 should consider.

Firstly, I favor the Big 12 inviting at least Louisville and Cincinnati now. Both have reasonably competitive athletics, both have reasonable academics, and both are in complementary population markets. Both straddle the Big 10 and SEC footprints, allowing the Big 12 higher visibility in Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana. West Virginia should also be considered if Missouri leaves and the SEC does not pick up West Virginia though this is mostly a football gain only. It is important to remember that the Big East programs needs to give 27 months notice, and may not be available for Big 12 conference play until the 2014 season.

Secondly, the Big 12 should consider penetrating the SEC territory by considering Tulane and Southern Mississippi. Tulane has strong academics and appears interested in strengthening its athletics. Tulane is AAU to replace the AAU that are lost (Colorado, TA&M, Missouri, and "Nebraska"). Southern Mississippi is strong in football, a rival for Tulane, and moves the Big 12 a bit closer to Florida, a major recruiting field and leaves option for addition of Florida teams in the future.

I think the Big 12 will lose out if it does not move ahead of the Big East. BYU and Boise State can both wait and be added later.

Big 12 Reorganization.

With the Big 12 inviting TCU and TCU accepting membership, it looks like the Big 12 has at least stabilized some (pending Missouri's decision, which I hope and expect to remain with the Big 12). Additional candidates are likely to go to 12 if not 14. I think this would be a good time to look at the organization for division formation. Previously with 12 teams, it was a North vs South with the line drawn between Kansas and Oklahoma. This geography would be hard to re-establish, and an East-West split would also constrain current rivalries as well as future additions. Witness the SEC with 13 teams, 7 West and 6 East. Either the SEC will have to redraw its division if it adds Missouri, or be constrained to take a team to the East (West Virginia? Virginia Tech? Miami? A North Carolina team?). And then what would have to change when it feels 16 teams is needed? Redrawing division lines while preserving traditional rivalries will be difficult for any conference. Thus the Big 12 should give serious consideration now, before it has divisions, as to how the divisions should be drawn to accommodate future growth.

While conference realignment appears largely about money, the best thing about college sports is rivalries and these must be preserved in any division alignments. Thus if rivalries are to be preserved, why not build divisions around rivalries? Currently in the Big 12 there are the following rivalries, from oldest to youngest (rivalries with Texas A&M not included).
Kansas & Missouri (Border War since 1891)
Texas & Oklahoma (Red River Rivalry since 1900)
Kansas & Kansas State (Sunflower Showdown since 1902)
Oklahoma & Oklahoma State (Bedlam Series since 1904)
Texas & Kansas State (Chisholm Trail since 1913)
Iowa State & Kansas State (Farmageddon since 1917)
Texas & Texas Tech (Chancellor's Spurs since 1928)
Oklahoma & Missouri (Peace Pipe since 1929)
Baylor & Texas Tech (Texas Farm Bureau Shootout since 1929)
Iowa State & Missouri (Telephone Trophy since 1959).

As can seen in the above, keeping all the rivalries within one division will not be practical. There are two kinds of rivalries, intra-state and inter-states. Since there are more inter-state rivalries, and rivalries should be annual games, it makes more sense to build divisions based on inter state rivalries and keeping intra state state rivalries as an annual inter-division game. With this format the following intra-state rivalries will split the conference into two.
Oklahoma & Oklahoma State
Kansas & Kansas State
Texas & Texas Tech

Around this we will add inter-state rivals, keeping interstate rivals in the same division. In the South we have Oklahoma & Texas (so Oklahoma and Texas should be in the same division). In the North we have Kansas & Missouri and Missouri & Oklahoma (so these 3 teams should be in the same division). The result is Division A: Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas with Division B: Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech. Given that both Iowa State and Missouri do not have in state and in conference rivals, and they are rivals as well, the two will be matched as cross division rivals. Now Division B has Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech. There remains two teams for placement, Texas Christian and Baylor. Texas Christian has an 106 games rivalry with Baylor and a 51 games rivalry with Texas Tech. Baylor has a 67 games rivalry with Texas Tech. Thus Texas Christian and Baylor should be in opposite divisions, with Baylor in the same division as Texas Tech.
Thus we end with:
Division A: Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas and Texas Christian.
Division B: Baylor, Kansas State, Iowa State, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech.

The balance of power appears to favor Division A (with current upper powers Oklahoma and Texas and mid powers Missouri and Texas Christian) over Division B (with current upper power Oklahoma State and mid powers Kansas State and possibly Texas Tech). But power rankings will change from season to season. Besides, with cross division rivalries, all the strong teams from one division will play against the other division teams as well. With expansion to 12 or 14, addressing power imbalance can occur.

Each year each team should play its cross division rival to open conference play. Playing your cross division rival first because should a set of cross division rivals end up being division champions, their rematch in the division championship would come after all conference plays have occurred. It would also be a great way to start conference play.
Baylor opens with Texas Christian.
Iowa State opens with Missouri.
Kansas opens with Kansas State.
Kansas State opens with Kansas.
Missouri opens with Iowa State.
Oklahoma opens with Oklahoma State.
Oklahoma State opens with Oklahoma.
Texas opens with Texas Tech.
Texas Christian opens with Baylor.
Texas Tech opens with Texas.

Another benefit to divisions based on rival is that travel cost for each team also averages out more evenly. In the old Big 12 division the southern teams had a shorter distance to travel (Oklahoma and Texas) while the northern teams had longer travel distance (Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska). In a division of rivals both divisions have Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas with one also has Iowa while the other Missouri. I also see this as enhancing the smaller state's presence within more populous Texas for exposure, fan building, and recruitment.

With a conference built on rivalries, any additions to the Big 12 should thus be recruited as rivals set. For instance Louisville + Cincinnati (or West Virginia), BYU + Boise State (or West Virginia), Tulane + Southern Mississippi, etc. The rivals division is practical for 12 or 14 teams arrangement. It will need a bit of tweaking for 16 teams though.

Finally, each conference teams should try to cultivate annual extra-conference rivalries. For instance Iowa State and Iowa, Texas and Texas A&M, Texas Christian and Southern Methodist, and Texas Tech and New Mexico. Of the expansion candidates, it would be BYU v Utah (or Boise State), Louisville vs Kentucky, WVU vs Pittsburgh, and Tulane vs LSU for instance. These inter-conference games would highlight the conferences against each other at the beginning of the season, whereas bowl games will highlight them at the end.

Big 12 Expansion Candidates

The Big 12 will expand this season, taking in my opinion 3-6 teams (depending on whether Missouri leaves or not) and will soon have 12+ members again. This means an 8-9 games conference schedule. Any expansion candidates must consider this schedule, leaving only 2-3 non conference games available. Some of these non-conference games must include games against national and regional rivals. Regional rivals are particularly important to establish a regional presence to build both a fan base and capture media market. Local fans are the most important as they will attend games, buy team related products. A large local fans base will also force more media attention and service.

The leading candidate so far is BYU. BYU has the largest sporting presence in Utah as well as a national presence. Their non conference games would include Boise State, Utah, and possibly one other. These regional non-conference games will certainly help BYU to deliver Utah.

If the Big 12 wants geographical continuity with BYU as well as regain the Colorado market, it must consider a Colorado program. Colorado left the Big 12 for the Pac 12 will not be coming back. That leaves the Air Force Academy or Colorado State. The available number of non-conference games almost certainly rule out Air Force Academy. Air Force will want to play Army and Navy each year. Air Force has also been a frequent competitor of Notre Dame. For Air Force to grab the Colorado market, it must also play against instate rivals Colorado and Colorado State. This is particularly true for Air Force because despite being in Colorado, it neither recruits nor serves Colorado. Both Colorado and Colorado State thus must be a part of the non-conference schedule. Playing both of these Colorado teams along with Army and Navy just is not practical. On the other hand Colorado State non-conference schedule would include the biggest sporting event in Colorado when it plays against the University of Colorado. It would also highlight a Big 12 vs Pac 12 rivalry (similar to a Iowa State vs Iowa game). Colorado State other rivalry with Wyoming would also help deliver the Colorado market. My analysis would favor Colorado State rather than Air Force for the Colorado market.

Another populous state with potential for cross conference rivalry is Louisiana. Here I think Tulane is our best option for the Big 12. Tulane is an AAU member. Tulane is a well established institution in New Orleans and a historical rival to LSU. True Tulane is not very competitive on the field but teams get better by playing against good teams regularly (which the current even shrunken Big 12 has plenty of) and by investing in its athletic program financially. Being a part of an Automatic Qualifying conference will bring more experience and money to Tulane. Given that Tulane is fairly well established in academics, there would be less of an issue for Tulane to put more money into Athletics. Tulane's non-conference rivalries with LSU and Southern Mississippi would certainly help gain viewers in the southern Gulf coast region. The alternative program to Tulane in Louisiana is Louisiana Tech. However, Louisiana Tech is not located in a major metropolitan area, not strong in academic, and doesn't have as much of a presence as Tulane. Tulane was recently mentioned as a potential candidate and they should be considered.

New Mexico might be a consideration but this should be a last resort to fill a gap and round out conference membership to an even number rather than a primary or even secondary target for expansion. There are two teams in New Mexico, University of New Mexico and New Mexico State. Neither are academically outstanding and both have equivalent metropolitan area (Albuquerque and Las Cruces + El Paso). Albuquerque might be a reasonable consideration. A better choice for the Las Cruces + El Paso market would be UTEP rather than New Mexico State. New Mexico could have an outside shot at being considered for the Big 12.

UTEP really doesn't add much to the Big 12 that it doesn't already own in Texas. The top 3 teams in Texas are UT, TA&M, and TTU. TA&M is now lost to the SEC. TCU might be a consideration in that it is the only remaining Texas team with a national recognition. However, SMU isn't so far behind and nor is Houston. Perhaps the best reason to take TCU is to deny the Big East a Texas presence. Of the remaining Big 12 states none have any in state options of note. Of the surrounding states there really no viable options either beyond those mentioned above(Colorado State, Tulane, and New Mexico), whether it be Arkansas, Arizona, the Dakotas or Wyoming.

There is the option of raiding the Big East by taking Louisville, Cincinnati, and even West Virginia. I seriously doubt the Big East will fold any time soon. In addition, if Missouri leaves, these 3 Big East programs will be even less attractive. There won't be geographical continuity. Missouri in this sense is the Big 12's gateway east and these 3 school's gateway west.

Looking West there remains Boise State. Though a very competitive football program, unfortunately Boise State doesn't offer much else, whether it be academic, geographical proximity, or regional media market. However, like New Mexico, Boise State will be considered as a filler team.

In summary, my assessment of expansion candidates for the Big 12 are:
Tier 1: BYU (to replace TA&M)
Tier 2: Louisville, Cincinnati, WVU, (only if Missouri stays, and even so, unlikely)
Tier 3: TCU, Colorado State, and Tulane
Tier 4: Boise State, New Mexico
I can see the Big 12 going to 14 for both stability (should another team leaves) as well as parity with the ACC and the SEC. I do not see the Big 12 going to 16 because there isn't a reason to yet, and because when the time come, a 14 teams big 12 will be in a stronger position to take better candidates than it can now. My 14 are: all the current Big 12 (including Missouri), BYU, TCU, Colorado State, Tulane, and Louisville.

College Football Conference Expansions, the Big Picture

Though it did not come to pass, there was a substantial amount of buzz regarding super-conferences his past months. I assume that super-conferences will be 16 teams in size. I do not assume there will be just 4 super conferences because of the BCS bowls. There are currently 4 BCS bowls, the Fiesta, the Orange, the Rose, and the Sugar. These four bowls then rotate hosting a fifth bowl for the championship game. Currently the Cotton bowl is negotiating for inclusion as a BCS bowl. There is substantial money associated with the BCS bowls and they will not be going away any time soon. This means there will be 5-6 BCS games each year, and 10-12 teams. To prevent anti-trust, there must me 1-2 open slots for non-automatic qualifying conferences. This leaves 8-10 automatic invites to be divided, likely among 5-6 super conferences. It seems more likely that the six automatic qualifying conferences will become super conferences then one or more of the non-automatic qualifying conferences gaining super conference status and gain automatic qualifying status. In addition, the automatic qualifying conferences have better teams, at least in football, on average than the non-automatic qualifying conferences. For most schools though, football brings in the majority of the income.
Given these consideration, the only driver for conference expansion is to gain television market share without damaging the character of the conference as is. Each conference's character is a varying combination of athletic competitiveness, academic standing, and regionality. Another assumption is that not all conferences are equal and the stronger conferences will have more influence to expand over weaker ones.

The top conference is the Big 10. All of the Big 10 members are institution of significant academic standing and members of the Association of American Universities (AAU). The Big 10 is also based around the Midwest of the US, thus any future members must also be geographically connected to the Midwest yet at the same time increase its market share. If you look at the list of AAU universities not already in the Big 10 but within geographic fit, there are only 4: Iowa State, Rutgers, University of Buffalo, University of Missouri, and the University of Pittsburgh. Of these I believe Pittsburgh and Missouri would be the best fit as Pittsburgh has 2,050 millions followed by Mizzou has 974 millions in endowment, compared to 640 millions for Rutgers, 566 millions for Buffalo, and 508 millions for Iowa State, the Big 10 on average for endowment is 2.264 million dollars. Both Pittsburgh and Missouri would bring major media markets (Pittsburgh, St Louis and Kansas City) and are very much Midwestern. While Rutgers is located in a major media market, neither it nor Iowa State has a very large fan base to carry the market. By this analysis in the NYT, Missouri has a nearly 1.1 million fan base and Pittsburgh as nearly 0.9 million fans. Rutgers has over 0.9 million fans compared to 0.5 millions for Iowa State and 0.2 for Buffalo. Buffalo, with a relatively low endowment fund, small fan base, and not currently in not in a BCS automatic conference (Buffalo is in the Mid-American Conference) will be the weakest candidate for the Big 10. The strongest are Pittsburgh and Missouri. Pittsburgh has recently shifted from the Big East to the ACC and Missouri is currently in the Big 12. Interesting enough the remaining two schools are also in the Big 12 (Iowa State) and the Big East (Rutgers). The big 10, sitting on top with 12 teams should have no urgency to expand.

Next up is the SEC. The SEC recently accepted Texas A&M as its 13th member, and is likely looking for at least a 14th if not 15th and 16th. Given that the conference is currently divided East West, the 13th team will likely be an eastern team. The most attractive candidates are Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina, Virginia Tech (all from the ACC), South Florida (Big East), and Central Florida (C-USA). Both South Florida and Central Florida are geographically too close to University of Florida and will not add much in terms of television markets and are both unlikely candidate. That leaves the ACC schools and with the new 20 million exit fees, it will be a difficult poach but it will be possible. Of these ACC schools, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami, and North Carolina, Miami and Virginia Tech is least wedded to the ACC being among its newest members. Miami also has a huge fan base (1.3 millions compared to 1.7 for Clemson and 1.6 for Georgia Tech) and adds the populous south Florida market for the SEC. Miami however has a certain reputation as manifested by their current troubles with the NCAA. Virginia Tech also has a large fan base, same as Miami at 1.3 millions and gives the SEC a place in Virginia. However, Virginia Tech may want to bring Virginia with them. West Virginia (oft mentioned as a potential candidate) is neither a good geographical fit nor does it add much to the TV market. Virginia Tech also has a large fan base, same as Miami at 1.3 millions and gives the SEC a place in Virginia. However, Virginia Tech may want to bring Virginia with them. Missouri, another currently cited potential candidate, would force reformation of the East-West divisions, is not a better candidate than Virginia Tech or Miami. For 15th and 16th, Missouri will be considered, but so will TCU and SMU to further expand the Texas reach for the SEC. If TCU is still available it will be preferable to SMU In the East it will likely be a program in North Carolina to extend the geography of the conference. By 15th and 16th, the conference may be able to focus more on geographic expansion and be less rigorous on athletic competitiveness so the likes of SMU and perhaps even Eastern Carolina University (both from the C-USA) might be considered. But the SEC will be under no pressure to expand to 15 or 16.

What is left of the ACC will be considered next. Though standing at 14 teams now with their recent raids for Pittsburgh and Syracuse, they may still lose programs to other conferences (Pittsburgh to the Big 10 and Miami to the SEC). For quality programs they will have to continue to raid the Big East with occasional consideration for the C-USA. From the Big East already Rutgers and Connecticut have expressed interests (with 0.9 and 0.6 million fans respectively). These two teams will consolidate the North East reach for the ACC. Other teams to be considered will be South Florida (also Big East) or Central Florida (C-USA). The Florida programs (both with about 0.5 millions fan) will only be considered if the ACC loses either or both Pittsburgh and Miami.

Though the Big 12 might be a stronger football conference, the Pac 12 is currently more stable and will be considered next. The Pac-16 is the most stable conference west of the Mississippi and is highly unlikely to lose any members. This year it tried to raid the nearest automatic qualifying conference, the Big 12, but came up short, mostly because of the egos of the teams being considered (Texas primarily but also to a lesser extent Oklahoma). The Pac 12 will likely have problems finding quality programs for expansion, and will have to look at the Mountain West and the Western Athletic. The Pac 12 has already own nearly all the major media markets west of the Rockies and there are few media markets left to expand into. The candidates are BYU, Boise State, Fresno State, Hawaii, Nevada, San Diego State, UNLV (all with the exception of BYU are Mountain West Conference). Note that like the Big 10 the Pac 12 does not have to expand.

The Big 12 survived a scare this month and would have ceased to exist as an automatic qualifying conference had Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and Texas Tech all left for the Pac 12. I have blogged about what the Big 12 needs to do to remain viable and competitive as a major conference. The Big 12 will need to expand to move forward, and given the continued risk of losing members (Missouri and Texas) the Big 12 should look to go to 14 rather than stop at 12. The three teams to round out the conference should be announced before the regular season ends; the additional two teams for 14 can wait till after the bowl games. The next three has to be viewed as competitive football teams to shore up the image of the conference viability. I believe two of these three should be BYU and TCU. Both teams have strong national awareness. BYU is an independent that really would prefer to be part of an automatic qualifying conference, would join the Big 12, and add the Utah market. TCU is in transition to the Big East and given how moribund the Big East appears currently, would also gladly prefer to play within its geographical foot print of Texas. The conference would also be better with 4 Texas teams to give it the options for a division split evenly through Texas (TTU & TCU west, UT & Baylor east). Of the currently available Texas teams, TCU is by far the best, better than SMU, Houston, Rice, or UTEP. The twelfth team in my opinion should be Boise State rather than Air Force or Louisville. Boise State is a competitive team that would provide a local competitor for BYU. Air Force has half the fan base of Boise State ( 0.2 millions compared to nearly 0.5) and less competitive. Air Force is also being courted by the Big East and there is no point in a bidding war for a second choice. Louisville has a good fan base (0.6 millions) and is geographically connected to the Big 12 via Missouri. I think Louisville could work but I view Boise State, being a western team, would be a better fit than a more Midwest Louisville. I am also certain the Big East would do what it can to keep Louisville. For team 13 and 14 the Big 12 can concentrate more for market share and worry less about team competitiveness (given a conference already has Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech, and adding BYU and TCU, possibly Boise State. Market consideration will consider national fan base, local and state appeal, entry into a competitor media market, as well as academic. Top of my list for 13th would be Louisville with Tulane an alternative. Tulane has a small fan base (0.1 millions) but sits in New Orleans and Louisiana, an adjacent market that sits within the SEC and LSU media market. Tulane is also an AAU school with a large endowment of 800 millions and would thus increase the academic profile for the conference. The 14th team needs to be a Colorado school to provide western balance for an eastern Tulane, regain the lost Colorado market and compete with new Pac 12 member University of Colorado. The choice then is between Colorado State and Air Force. Both have about the same fan base (0.2 millions) with Air Force having a better national reputation but the Colorado versus Colorado State annual game is a biggest draw in Denver. Colorado State also has the largest endowment in the Mountain West at an acceptable 400 millions, along with 300 millions in research money. Compared to the state of Colorado, neither New Mexico nor Wyoming compare in either game play or television markets.

The Big East might not survive, currently down to 6 members with the loss of Pittsburgh and Syracuse and at risk for losing Connecticut, Rutgers, as well as Louisville. West Virginia is unlikely to leave, not because it doesn't want to, but because like Oklahoma, it has little options. West Virginia is not attractive to the Big 10, and doesn't add enough to the SEC or even the ACC. To be seen as viable the Big East must expand to 12, possibly 14. However, going to 12 means adding 6 new teams, nearly doubling its remaining members. Though TCU is expected to come on board, I suspect they will instead move to the Big 12. For expansion Army, Navy, Air Force and Temple are all mentioned as potential candidates and I believe these will all be good addition for the Big East, with possibly the exception being Air Force for geographical consideration. Some other teams that should be considered are Buffalo (from the MAC), Central Florida, East Carolina, possibly Memphis (from the C-USA), and Florida International (Sun Belt). Buffalo is an AAU program with strong academic and is nearby to Syracuse, a departing Big East member, and thus continues the western New York presence for the conference. Central Florida has a large fan base (by remaining Big East standards) with 0.5 million fans, and would be a natural local competitor Big East's South Florida. Florida International, though doesn't have much of a football presence, like Buffalo is very strong in academic though not AAU itself. Florida is an excellent market and more exposure for the Big East in Florida is good for the conference. East Carolina wants in, has a decent fan base of over 0.3 millions, and will introduces a foothold in North Carolina, an ACC stronghold thus expand the geography of the Big East. Memphis comes with a smaller fan base (0.2 millions) but would extends and bridge the geography of the Big East. If TCU stays, then Air Force would make more sense, as well as other Texas schools such as SMU or Houston. Once the Big East is at 12 teams, it must then assimilate the new members before bringing in any more.

The remaining conferences, Conference USA (C-USA), Mountain West (MW), Mid American Conference (MAC), Sun Belt, and Western Atlantic Conference (WAC) will naturally have to readjust. For these conferences, geography may be a limiting factor given the cost of travel. Regionality maybe more important than new market gains. C-USA may lose ECU, Tulane, UCF, and possibly Memphis. Replacement for these 4 would most likely come from the Sun Belt (Florida International, Troy, Arkansas State) and Louisiana Tech (WAC). With these programs: Florida International (for Miami market), Troy (nearly 0.4 millions fan), Arkansas State (0.3 million fans) and Louisiana (replace the Louisiana market with the loss of Tulane) the C-USA will maintain its current east-west division and geography. If C-USA also loses Marshall, Florida Atlantic (Sun Belt) should be considered.
The MW, minus TCU, +/- Boise State, +/- Air Force, +/- Colorado State will be down to 4-5 teams but is already expecting 3 teams from the WAC (California State-Fresno, Hawaii-Manoa, and Nevada-Fresno). The MW should consider expanding to get to 12 by raiding or merging with a smaller WAC for 12-16 teams. Yes I know that was tried before but the conference realignment environment is different this time. The teams from the WAC to consider are Idaho, New Mexico State, San Jose State, Utah State and future member Denver and Seattle. The remaining WAC teams, Texas State, UT-Arlington and UT-San Antonio should look to the Sun Belt. Louisiana Tech could also look to C-USA.
The MAC, if it loses Buffalo, should look to Marshall (C-USA) to go back to 12. Marshall is also a nice geographical fit with a rich football tradition.
The Sun Belt, without Arkansas State, Troy, Florida International, and possibly Florida Atlantic but with Texas State, UT-Arlington and UT-San Antonio would largely retain its size and gain a greater presence in Texas. Along with South Alabama, Texas State, UT-Arlington, UT-San Antonio the Sun Belt would have the 4 youngest Division 1 football teams but all in good tv markets.