I suppose the difference in opinion is the difference
between the historical model and the wishful model.
The Big 12 in their reactionary push to expand, is searching for schools to expand their footprint and to add value to their conference. The previous expansions were all based upon the same things as well. No conference has signed on to any expansion which would reduce the payout for current members even if it would reduce the cost of travel and therefor increase the profit margins.
There is nothing to base the other expansion on rather than wishful thinking. I believe that the conferences view everything as a competition and they want to be the best conference. The decision makers have not been motivated to drive towards parity between the conferences and I do not see the motivation to begin to do it now. What drives the money bus in this situation is dominance rather than parity.
The only way that parity and cooperation is going to work is if everyone gets the same slice of the pie. Is there any evidence that the SEC and the BIG are going to come to the table and happily split the money equally with the other players in the market? Secondary to that does anyone have any evidence that the ACC and the PAC are willing to sign on to second class membership receiving a lesser share of the financial pie? I have a hard time seeing this from either an athletics standpoint or a academics standpoint.
If someone could direct me to some evidence otherwise, I would be more than open to entertain the idea but I just do not see it and there is no evidence to support it.
|
(
In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
Posted: 08/15/2016 at 10:38AM