[Solecismic]

All this is why I wonder more about the end-game than what's going on now.

I think the powers-that-be understand that major college football requires a different approach than anything else.

Everyone understands that a minor league system, run by the NFL, somewhat like the other major sports, means an end to the cash cow piece of college football.

There's money in men's college basketball, but a huge share comes from the NCAA tournament, and it works best with at least 64 teams and representation from every conference. As opposed to football, where the first-round mismatches wouldn't be all that interesting, would expose teams to injuries, and would extend the season by too many weeks.

For now, everything is driven by media rights. Even the argument made by the Big Ten when adding Nebraska, which seems like ancient history, was that even though Lincoln and Omaha weren't major markets, the media rights were worth a lot because you not only got the Big Ten Network on cable there, you could charge arms and legs for carriage because such a high percentage of sports fans living in Nebraska cared most about Nebraska football. But then just getting onto cable meant enormous money when expanding to Maryland and Rutgers.

Just getting into a market isn't enough. There has to be a university that can support a brand. That's the tricky part. You don't see anyone talking up Temple as a major even though Philadelphia is a major market. You need facilities and a fan base if you're building that kind of brand. It doesn't happen overnight. What this means is that the new form of college football must come from a very limited number of universities.

So... the end game.

It seems the Big Ten and the SEC are battling for control of some sort. In this case, it must mean partial or complete control over whatever major college football league emerges.

What happens to UCLA and USC when football splits from other sports? Without football media rights and with the NCAA tournament as the right balance for maximizing revenue in the only other sport that doesn't lose money, conferences should probably become smaller again. The hardcore fans enjoy the rivalries, want their team always invited and relevant in conference tournaments.

There really isn't that much risk involved, because consolidation will revolve around the old rivalries and geography. Jon's calculations of the value of current Big Twelve basketball seem reasonable, but reasonable as a sum of the parts rather than something conferences can capture.

I think this current gold rush is pointless for everyone but the SEC and Big Ten, and perhaps even worse for these two.

For the Big Twelve and ACC and Pac Twelve, it seems focused 100% on trying to maintain a seat at the playoff table. But that's short-term. Since it's inevitable that a national league forms, there's no saving Iowa State or Oregon State - those brands simply aren't going to attract invitations. So there's value in maintaining a valuable presence in the short term, but not in trying to compete with the super-conference model. Twelve is a good size. So is ten. Even eight, if you maintain your seat long enough.

For these three conferences, it's about preservation. Staying large enough long enough so that your best brands don't die.

For the Big Ten and the SEC, this high-stakes battle seems more like a game of chicken once the biggest schools join. There might be 8-10 universities remaining outside these two conferences that can support a brand at the national level in the long-term league. So what do you do to maintain control? Do you really care, long-term, if you can somehow squeeze a Vanderbilt or a Rutgers into this league, above objections?

For the SEC, yes. The SEC benefits most from as much status quo as possible. This means no draft so that geography keeps the talent in the footprint. You took Texas and Oklahoma because these were huge prizes that added average value to the league, and they were sitting there within your footprint. You look around and you might like Miami or Florida State or Clemson, because footprint and strength. The stronger you are within that footprint, the harder it is to create that mega-league. You don't have the brand capacity of the Big Ten, but you're too big to break up. You're tempted to give Arizona a call, but there's no connection to your core fans or any of your member universities. While Phoenix is worth a lot, it's not the game you need to play because you're on defense, not offense.

For the Big Ten, no. You want markets and bigger rights fees. You want so much that the SEC can't compete any more. Then you get access to the talent. You want a CBA and a draft, a university league that is the de-facto, branded, minor league of the NFL. The only delay in adding more Pac Twelve schools is because you already have them all asking, maybe even begging, and you want to leverage Notre Dame. If you get Notre Dame, the ACC can be plucked, too. The Big Ten is on offense and doesn't care about alliances or rivalries.