USC and UCLA’s decision to join the Big Ten has sparked a great deal of anxiety and posturing from those in other leagues in the weeks since. That, in turn, has led to quite a bit of speculation — and even more questions in need of answers.
So let’s talk through how we got here, what’s far-fetched and what might actually happen next, mailbag-style.
Do you think we might eventually wind up with a final realignment by the new CFP TV deal in 2026 that looks like this: A separate, self-governing college football league with 4 regional “conferences” — East, Southeast, Midwest and West — with 18 teams each. And Fox and ESPN each being the main TV supplier for two of the 4 conferences?
Bill D.
I get where you’re coming from because the idea of regional balance is important to the overall health of college football. But I believe we’re in a world that has blown past this potential setup, even if college football gets to a place where it can govern itself when it comes to rule-making and rule-breaking. The Big Ten’s footprint stretches from Los Angeles to New York City now; it is not going to give up some of that valuable real estate to become more regional. As you know, this sport is not run like professional sports, which have commissioners and boards made up of team owners, entities that could realign divisions or leagues if they want. In college football, each league is looking out for itself, with no reason to trade away or give up any assets.
I’ve also been thinking a lot about the idea of collaboration. It almost feels quaint to think about the Power 5 leagues or all 10 FBS leagues banding together to actually break away from the NCAA, take over the management of all sports and run their own championship events together. That would require a great deal of trust and a level of collaboration that doesn’t exist right now among college sports’ leaders. We’ve just been through 12 months of commissioners poaching other commissioners’ crown jewel programs. Some strained relationships have been repaired (while others have acquired new wounds), and the group will ultimately work together to come up with a College Football Playoff model for 2026 and on. But everyone in that room has different priorities, and four of the five Power 5 commissioners have held their job for three years or less. We’re quite far from the days of Mike Slive and Jim Delany disagreeing on various issues but coming together on others to get stuff done that they believed was for the betterment of college football.
When was the last time the sport’s leaders made a decision that was truly about what was best for college football and not just their own league or their own pockets? Who is looking out for the greater good now?
Five years ago, I’m not sure I would have believed anyone if they had told me what was going to unfold with NIL and realignment in 2021 and 2022. With conference commissioners doing all they can to claim every last dollar on the table for themselves, but without a common vision or centralized leadership overseeing the sport as a whole, where will college football be in five years?
Craig M.
There are so many outside factors — the courts and Congress, most notably — that make this impossible to forecast. But I do think zeroing in on the leadership is a smart angle. People have competing interests and different priorities in so many areas, but the commissioners are still going to have to come together to approve an expanded College Football Playoff to start in 2026. Collaboration and coordination are required for that, and a larger field will increase access beyond the six or seven or so programs we’re used to seeing compete for national championships. That’s a good thing for the sport overall. I also hold out hope that we’ll get better scheduling as a result, as long as future selection committees incentivize it in their rankings of teams up for at-large bids.
Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff is among those who would like to see the CFP take over other aspects of football governance, and what he described to me last month is a vision for essentially a czar of college football who reports to a board made up of representatives from the 10 FBS leagues. Maybe we eventually get to a model like that — if everyone gets along enough to work together to make it happen. While there would still be challenges, at least that structure would have one powerful person/board that is tasked with making decisions based on what’s best for the sport. Until that happens, and maybe even if it does, you’ll have separate leaders doing what’s best for their own members.
Last summer, after the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against the NCAA in the Alston case, the NCAA began a process to reform and decentralize its governance model. This means more decisions will be made in more areas at the conference level instead of by a national governing body because of antitrust concerns. So conferences are going to be empowered even more to do what is best for themselves and to view the college athletic landscape through their own prism. Which also means this all could get worse before it gets better. If it gets better.
When are we going to admit that the super conferences are nothing more than NFL-junior leagues? The pretense of these people being student-athletes is becoming ludicrous.
David L.
I intentionally don’t use the term “student-athlete,” choosing instead to call them players or college athletes. This isn’t because I don’t believe that they’re getting a good education or because I don’t see the value in earning a degree (or two) without going into debt. It’s because the NCAA has used the term in an attempt to shield itself from both public criticism and antitrust issues. I don’t work for the NCAA or an athletic department, so I don’t have to use the term.
I’ve also covered college sports over a stretch that has seen coaching salaries reach astronomical heights and schools join conferences based multiple time zones away. When UCLA’s women’s soccer team travels nearly 3,000 miles to go to Rutgers for a weeknight game, we can all agree that won’t feel like amateur athletics. Everything in college sports has been increasingly professionalized over the course of my career, and if this environment ends with the SEC and Big Ten as two megaconferences standing well above the rest, it would be hard not to see the two the way we look at the AFC and the NFC: two national and rather homogeneous leagues. The two conferences in the NFL are more about scheduling than they are any sort of defined regional identity, which is why everyone’s so upset about consolidation in college sports. We used to have those distinct and special identities.
Alabama and Ohio State already differentiate themselves against basically everyone, but perhaps as we consolidate to the Power 2 the Mississippi States and Marylands would have a recruiting advantage over, say, NC State or Iowa State that they didn’t in the past. If so… Do we get MORE parity WITHIN the Power 2 even as those leagues separate themselves from the pack?
Eric H.
This is a great question. Stratification within power conferences has always existed, and we’re watching it play out as we talk about which schools would make the top targets for the Big Ten and SEC. For example, in the ACC, we’re talking about Clemson and Florida State in a different way than we are about Syracuse or Virginia Tech. The lines of demarcation within conferences are quite clear.
I would have to think that the answer to your question is yes. If Mississippi State and Maryland are making more than $100 million per year by the end of the decade, and their counterparts outside the Power 2 are making, say, just $60 million per year by then, that will have massive implications. Obviously, this will affect resources and facilities, which affect recruiting. But it’s also possible we get to a point where schools can’t retain the best coaches in leagues that aren’t the SEC and Big Ten, because the schools in the Power 2 will be able to pay way more at all levels, including for assistants and analysts.
The big-picture way I think about USC and UCLA’s move to the Big Ten is kind of like this: Those schools now know they will bring in enough money on an annual basis to be able to compete at the highest level in their biggest sports. They will have the resources, facilities and coaches to attract the type of talent needed to compete for national championships. They know their players will have opportunities to monetize their name, image and likeness (or if, down the road, they have an employee-employer relationship, they have the money to pay players). They also know everyone will be able to watch them do it because of the media rights deals. All of those benefits are things that Mississippi State and Maryland also get to use in their sales pitches. The schools outside of the Power 2 won’t be able to say the same thing, with the revenue gap a starker reality.
How are journalists feeling about today’s college football? We obviously hear from fans, and coaches, players, etc. But how do writers feel about being writers for the current affairs of college football? Is this an exciting time to document the fullness of the many groundbreaking stories? Is it frustrating seeing a sport you love change in front of your eyes, while also needing to be objective in your reports? Is it a mixture of both, or nothing at all?
Ethan F.
Some of my colleagues have really struggled with this, especially when it comes to realignment/consolidation affecting traditional rivalries that, in many cases, led to them falling in love with college football in the first place. Others struggled with the start of the name, image and likeness era or with athletes transferring without having to sit out.
I grew up in a professional sports area. My parents live 20 minutes from Rutgers, but I never went to a game until work sent me there in my mid-20s. On nights when my friends and I felt particularly cool in high school, we’d drive to Grease Trucks for late-night sandwiches. But I only have one memory of scheduling a night around a Rutgers game — the game against West Virginia in 2006. My dad has always had season tickets to the New York Jets (we can argue about how “professional” that franchise is) so we geared our lives around Sundays, not Saturdays. I didn’t fall for the weird and wacky version of this sport until college, so I am able to be a bit less emotional about the massive changes it has undergone in recent years. That’s not to say I won’t call out things I hate — the CFP catering to blue bloods, schools paying insane buyouts to get rid of coaches, the loss of great rivalries, etc. — but it’s definitely different for my coworkers who were stuffed into college-logo onesies as infants.
With all that as a caveat, it’s a fascinating time to have this job. I like to think of each story building upon the previous one, telling the story of unprecedented change in college athletics. I, along with everyone else, would love to know where this all leads in one year or five. But it is also the unpredictability that keeps me on my toes on a daily basis.
In the realignment shuffle the discussion is about which teams add value, and the leftovers in P12 UW, UO, Stanford don’t do enough. But what about replacement value? What would replacing Indiana & Maryland with UW & UO do? Do you see a phase of realignment where the big leagues start culling from within? A long time ago the Big East kicked Temple out.
Josh S.
In my many conversations with athletic directors and commissioners over the past year, only one person brought up the idea of a conference kicking out existing members. Their thinking was the same as yours, that some of the existing members don’t bring nearly as much value to the league as the top and even middle tiers. This person suggested the idea not because it was something that was imminent or even likely down the road, but because we were talking about slices of the pie. Each time a league adds a member, it has to cut the pie an extra way, so that incoming school better bring at least as much value as it’ll be paid out. Otherwise, current members would essentially be taking a pay cut to add a school just for the sake of adding.
This person suggested that one other way for schools to get a larger slice of the pie is to kick out others, so you’re dividing by fewer members. I get the sentiment, but I don’t think we are approaching the Hunger Games stage of conference realignment. I’m also not sure we’ll get to that point, but I also know not to write anything off as a possibility. Even if it seems remote.
I keep seeing that realignment isn’t all about cable households, but given the arms length hold on the pretty national brand of Oregon, and the admission of UCLA to the Big 10, isn’t this round also about tv markets?
Joe S.
Market size can contribute to a brand’s power, so it’s not always that simple to discuss this, but in general, it’s safe to say this round is about brands because we’re talking about increasing a league’s value and not just increasing its TV distribution by a certain number of households.
Oregon does have tremendous value. I don’t think the fact that the Ducks aren’t in the Big Ten or SEC (yet?) means that they aren’t valuable. The Big Ten, knowing Notre Dame wasn’t an option in its latest move, only wanted to add two schools. So it went with the two Los Angeles Pac-12 schools. Together, they brought more value to the Big Ten than Oregon and Washington. But Oregon is one of the most valuable brands not already in the Power 2, which means the Ducks will be a hot commodity whenever someone adds next.
Can colleges put their conference TV money payout into their NIL collective?
Thomas C.
No, not the way you’re describing it. Collectives can’t be run by the schools, a rule which was supposed to be a good thing but has turned into a headache for all involved and another opportunity for third parties to take advantage of athletes. But I digress.
We all need to be paying attention to the legal challenges in the works and those to come. If, say, the Supreme Court rules that college athletes are employees, then it’s a whole new ballgame. Then we’ll have to talk about collective bargaining and revenue sharing, and we could see that TV money finally work its way directly into players’ pockets.
The question on every college football fan’s mind: Is MACtion safe from realignment? Secondarily — could we get MACtionAfterDark to fill the void of the Pac12AfterDark?
Vasav S.
MACtion isn’t going anywhere, thankfully. The Mid-American Conference was one of very few that didn’t lose any members and also didn’t feel the need to add anyone during last year’s wave of realignment. In short, MACtion was perfect just the way it was. I’m glad everyone involved recognized this.
To your second point, playing weeknight games is already challenging enough without adding the late-night window for a league with a lot of schools in the Eastern time zone. But I appreciate your creativity!
How much has conference realignment cut into your golf game this summer?
Daniel K.
Too much. Although, I will say, the benefit of being a not-very-good beginner is I’m always playing at the types of courses that let you keep your cell phone with you at all times.
(Photo: Kirby Lee / USA Today)
