Originally Posted by
hustleplays
Until recently, the overall value of belonging to a major conference outweighed the asymmetries among the specific sports. Being a member of the SEC brought more to, let's say, Vandy, than not being a member, even though they have been uncompetitive in football for years. They could compete well in other sports, such as baseball, tennis, track and field and many other sports. Their conference membership brought revenue, opportunities to play at a high competitive level, promotional advantages and scheduling efficiencies.
I've followed closely the various recommendations: The ACC could add this or that school, due to this and that consideration. The SEC wouldn't want to do X because of Y and Z. But another poster points out that that would set in motion a slew of other unsatisfactory consequences. My brain tells me that this tangled ball of yarn is due to our sticking with an outmoded concept of conferences.
Surveying the scene, including the many excellent DBR posts on the subject, what has become clear to me is that the major revenue sports, particularly football, increasingly constitute a force that is more powerful than conferences, conceived as bundled, multi-sport entities, i.e., comprising all the interscholastic sports that a school offers.
In other words, an unbundling is occurring: The major conferences, TBD, are coalescing around particular sports, such as football and basketball. Specific schools will make all sorts of arrangements, with various tiering within particular sports and among various sports. A particular school will find itself a member of multiple "conferences," depending on the specific sport, AND depending on the distinctive missions of the participating schools.
And the NCAA will be consigned to the dustbin of history, as they say. It's already on life support.
That's what I see happening. Don't know the timing, but I sense that the snowball is gaining size and momentum. What do y'all think?