SBJ: Super-conference concept rooted in 1990 proposal

[dcpony]

So what we should be rooting for is a conference that is going to look like Raycom's "Super Metro Conference" proposal.

On a side note, Dave Hart is quoted in this piece.

Street and Smith's Sports Business Journal
History lesson: Super-conference concept rooted in 1990 proposal
By Michael Smith, Staff Writer
Published September 26, 2011, Page 1
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Jour ... rence.aspx

The idea was to create a super conference of 16 schools overlapping states from the Northeast through the South. Eventually, according to this plan, there would be four super conferences that blanketed the country, and their champions would come together in a playoff to decide the national champ in college football.

"Developing the Super Conference" was the name of the booklet that first proposed the idea in 1990, and its 240 pages held the future of college athletics. It’s just that no one knew how long it would take to get there.

That plan, the first to suggest the super-conference model as the best way to maximize a league’s value, was written by Charlotte-based Raycom Sports for the now-defunct Metro Conference. From that, the concept of a super conference and its merits were born. Based on where conference expansion now appears to be headed, it was an idea well ahead of its time.

"At that point, the super-conference concept made so much sense to us," said Ken Haines, the CEO of Raycom Sports and one of the authors of the report. "We felt like the idea would be captured and implemented by all of the major conferences. We just didn’t know when."

It was January 1990 when the Metro Conference commissioned Raycom Sports, its media partner, to craft a plan that would help solidify the league’s future. At the time, institutions came and went from the Metro, which ranged from six to nine schools during its run from 1975 to 1995. It wasn’t unlike the fluidity that the current-day Big East has experienced in recent years.

TIFFIN WARNOCK / STAFF
Says Raycom Sports CEO Ken Haines, with the original plan: "We felt like the idea would be … implemented by all of the major conferences. We just didn’t know when."
The Metro, under the guidance of Commissioner Ralph McFillen, had a base of charter schools from urban areas, such as Louisville, Cincinnati, Memphis and Tulane. But the basketball-centric conference didn’t sponsor football and it needed to grow if it intended to survive against the heavies of that time: the SEC, ACC, Southwest Conference, Big Eight, Big Ten and Pac-10.

McFillen asked Raycom how to do that.

Raycom, the dominant TV production company and syndicator of that day, had deals with the Big Eight, Southwest Conference, Big Ten and ACC. It spent six months developing the super-conference model, taking into account TV households, conference footprint, alumni bases, regional rivalries and institutional compatibility. The 240 pages included everything from mock schedules and average attendance in football to SAT scores for each school.

Raycom’s plan called for the Metro to expand to 16 football-playing schools with two eight-team divisions or four four-team divisions, similar to what has been discussed by the ACC, the Pac-12 and others in recent weeks. It was compelling enough that at one point that spring in 1990, presidents and ADs from all 16 schools met in Dallas to talk it through.

"It would have changed the face of college athletics," said Dave Hart, who attended that meeting as the AD at East Carolina, and now serves as the AD at Tennessee. "But the presidents just couldn’t get their arms around it. There were several people who understood the vision and were really excited, but they were outnumbered by those who were just terrified of something so radical. Nobody had ever heard of a super conference before."

According to Raycom’s plan, the Metro’s members would have come from the North (Boston College, Syracuse, Pittsburgh), the South (Miami, Florida State, South Carolina) and moved west through the middle of the country (Louisville, Memphis, Cincinnati). The original plan also included Penn State, but the Nittany Lions committed to the Big Ten before Raycom could finish the project.

At the time, those schools were independents in football, so the super conference would not have been raiding schools from other conferences, as leagues do now.

The Metro’s footprint would have accounted for more than 35 percent of the nation’s TV households, putting it on par with the Big Ten, while maintaining traditional rivalries, such as Miami-Florida State, by keeping them in the same division. The new structure of the super conference theoretically would have commanded the largest TV dollars available because of its sheer size and the markets it covered.

"A lot of what’s happening now reminds me of 1990," said Bill Olsen, who back then was the athletic director at Louisville. "Most of us were strongly in favor of doing this and we thought it had a lot of potential. It definitely made the SEC and the ACC stand up and take notice. It got their attention."

In a 1990 story in USA Today that explored the possibility of massive college realignment, Haines was quoted as saying the super-conference model is "cutting edge. … What you’re going to see within the next five years will form the fabric of college sports for the next 50 years."

Haines missed his five-year assessment, but he was prescient in his estimation that it could form the fabric for the next 50 years. Recently, Cedric Dempsey, the NCAA’s former president and now a college consultant, said this latest round of realignment puts the major college conferences on a path toward creating their own division, perhaps separate from the NCAA.

The six major conferences "for a long time have thought they could govern themselves," Dempsey said. "I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s where we end up, with five or six super conferences that form their own organization."

In 1990, the super-conference model was grounded in the same basics that are driving conferences to expand now. It went after major markets, it increased the conference footprint to include multiple regions of the country, and it would have captured a significant number of the nation’s TV households. The divisional format maintained geographical rivalries, while the larger conference stretched up and down the East Coast.

"I always felt the super-conference concept would happen at some point, even though this particular model didn’t happen," Haines said. "This all came about 21 years ago because of the pressure to generate revenue and fund programs. It’s no different today."

The super-conference idea didn’t work out for the Metro. A year after the study, in 1991, Florida State ended up going to the ACC, South Carolina joined Arkansas as new members of the SEC, and the Big East began playing football, which gave Syracuse, Boston College, Pittsburgh, Virginia Tech and Miami a conference home for football.

Many of the other Metro members migrated to a new league called Conference USA.

"If we had been able to create that super conference, I think it would have turned into four super conferences nationally," Olsen said. "But it never became a reality."

Well, not yet.

[fan]

Good article. Remember in 1996 when UH said thanks but no thanks to the WAC? For a long while c-usa was a much better conference than the crappy WAC with which we got involved. Not sure if we had any other choices but it was a mistake. This whole deal, while a big mess for us, is also a great opportunity. If we can be pro-active and form "the best of the rest", it's going to be good. The line has been drawn for now and we're outside looking in. Cinci, UConn, USF, UCF, Houston, SMU, Boise, SDSU, Memphis, Temple could form the backbone of this whole deal which becomes "america's underdog". Great marketabilty. Have NBC carry the "underdog game of the week." Great B-Ball and decent football where the top team could compete with any team in the country year to year.

Need to save some room for the ACC leftovers when that whole deal falls apart.

[DanFreibergerForHeisman]

Yeah, WAC 1996 is the first thing that came to mind... (I wonder if I still have that t-shirt somewhere)

We will end up in a pretty good collection of the BIG EAST and ACC leftovers (Cincy, Pitt, Duke, Wake, UConn, Louisville, Syracuse, etc.) - it's just going to be stressful and painful getting there...

[Charleston Pony]

It does appear at this point that we could be headed forthis scenario. Only problem is there are 5 conferences still in play. The question is whether the final product will be four 16 member conferences or will they include as many as 18 schools. Why 18 vs 16? I see is as a scheduling issue.

Four 18 member conferences, 9 schools per division playing an eight game conference football schedule with 4 home and 4 away games. Division champs meet for conference title and the opportunity to advance to the 4 team playoff. Would be nice to see those divisions regionalized.

There are over 100 schools playing Division I - FBS today. Under this scenario, maybe 72 make the cut. All those schools left on the outside looking in will be non-conference scheduling fodder for the big boys and will be part of what we know as Division I - FCS today.

So - where would you rather be? Most likely struggling to compete in a super conference among the 72 or a member of the 2nd tier where SMU might actually be able to compete for a national title someday? Our small fan base isn't going to change and our football facilities are clearly on the low end of the top tier but would rank among the best at the FCS level.

If this is where things are headed, I'm torn as to where I want SMU to be. Since the time I attended SMU in the early 70's, I've always felt our best shot at being a national player was in hoops and as time has passed and with the way college football has grown, I'm currently leaning towards the FCS level for SMU. I know our egos want us playing among the top and largest public universities, but are we better off being aligned with regional private and 2nd tier public schools? It would hurt to see TCU and Baylor competing at a higher level (unless of course they were getting their butts kicked as we competed for a national title in a 16 team playoff every year). The equalizer for me would be if our hoops program was strong enough to earn an invite to March Madness and actually compete for a national title in hoops. That can be done at a small school much more readily than football.

We are living through an interesting time in the world of college athletics, that's for sure. Some tough decisions facing college presidents these days.

[PK]

It does appear at this point that we could be headed forthis scenario. Only problem is there are 5 conferences still in play. The question is whether the final product will be four 16 member conferences or will they include as many as 18 schools. Why 18 vs 16? I see is as a scheduling issue.

Four 18 member conferences, 9 schools per division playing an eight game conference football schedule with 4 home and 4 away games. Division champs meet for conference title and the opportunity to advance to the 4 team playoff. Would be nice to see those divisions regionalized.

There are over 100 schools playing Division I - FBS today. Under this scenario, maybe 72 make the cut. All those schools left on the outside looking in will be non-conference scheduling fodder for the big boys and will be part of what we know as Division I - FCS today.

So - where would you rather be? Most likely struggling to compete in a super conference among the 72 or a member of the 2nd tier where SMU might actually be able to compete for a national title someday? Our small fan base isn't going to change and our football facilities are clearly on the low end of the top tier but would rank among the best at the FCS level.

If this is where things are headed, I'm torn as to where I want SMU to be. Since the time I attended SMU in the early 70's, I've always felt our best shot at being a national player was in hoops and as time has passed and with the way college football has grown, I'm currently leaning towards the FCS level for SMU. I know our egos want us playing among the top and largest public universities, but are we better off being aligned with regional private and 2nd tier public schools? It would hurt to see TCU and Baylor competing at a higher level (unless of course they were getting their butts kicked as we competed for a national title in a 16 team playoff every year). The equalizer for me would be if our hoops program was strong enough to earn an invite to March Madness and actually compete for a national title in hoops. That can be done at a small school much more readily than football.

We are living through an interesting time in the world of college athletics, that's for sure. Some tough decisions facing college presidents these days.

Going to FCS level might be fine with someone like yourself living many states away, but my friends and co-workers are graduates of big twelve schools (including TCU now) and I would not want to have to face them on a daily bases, especially in the fall, after dropping down and out of relevance.

[Charleston Pony]

I assure you my ego would be bruised as well; my friends are ACC/SEC fans and remember when SMU was ranked #2 with the PonyExpress. I just wish I had some idea how we can compete and earn our way into the group of 64-72 that is utimately going to be allowed to compete at the highest level.

[NavyCrimson]

I'm in Southern Calif. & I wouldn't like it! It would be the death of SMU not only athletically but academically, as well. USC (or SC for us Californians) used their athletic dept., particularly their football program, to help build their over all academics to where they are now recognized as a Tier 1 school. And that comes from many of my friends from Troy.

The only way to make it academically - Heaven forbid - if you're going to reduce the role of athletics would be to raise our endowment to well over $5B & that ain't happening anytime soon.

Totally agree - PK! This is absurd to even think of this path. Next!

[dbone]

This article is great. But I think the movement started even earlier with the formation of the CFA and their attempt to break free of the NCAA. (The NCAA won that round and SMU played a large role in their "win"...but they are losing today.)

The current movement seems obvious that the BCS/ESPN will finally break the NCAA monopoly and form their own association with their own rules.

Meanwhile hardly anybody discusses the new NCAA academic rules put in place for 2015. Almost half of all football and basketball players will be ineligible for NCAA play if schools have to follow them. This iceberg is dead ahead and seems to me could be the final push for the top 64-72 to cut ties with the NCAA.

I think schools like SMU want these new academic restrictions...other schools will never accept them.

[Charleston Pony]

bottom line in all of this is that we are at a crossroads. give TCU credit; they worked hard and earned a seat at the table. what is SMU going to do?

[NavyCrimson]

There's a lot of schools at the table that don't deserve it & a lot of schools - that do? In who's eyes? LOL!!! That's like taxing the rich for their fair share! Then what is their 'fair share'? LOL Duke, Northwestern, Wazzu, the list goes on of schools that average between 20K & 30K when mediocre teams come to visit their stadiums. He77- even 30K to 35K. Just look at their attendance. This has nothing to do with who earned it. That by itself is laughable. This is a cartel (of power conferences) based on TV & nothing else. These schools like Duke et al. were in the right conference at the right time & got a free ride.

Sorry but 'earning a seat at the table' is laughable! LOL!!!

[couch 'em]

FBS football or end the program. FCS is for 3rd rate institutions like SFA.

[Stallion]

The root of all evil is the Supreme Court decision in Board of Regent of Oklahoma v. NCAA in 1981 or so which held that the NCAA is not entitled to an anti-trust exemption as a collection of educational institutions and that the indidual schools are separate business entities which each own their own TV rights. Note Baseball incredibly has an antitrust exemption but universities do not. Its been great for TV viewing but the Supreme Court really did screw up by not recognizing the educational interests of universities to control what ought to be part of an educational mission not a semi-pro-football minor league. What I've always found incredible is the Supreme Court said each individual SCHOOL not each indidual CONFERENCE owns its own rights. See for example, the Longhorn Network, Notre Dame and BYU. If the NCAA can't control individual school's TV rights then neither can the conferences such as Big 10 or SEC and networks should be free to negotiate TV scheduling directly with each school. By analogy each school should be free to negotiate bowl bids with indidual bowls without control by Conference bowl contracts. Heck if a separately funded business say run by Mark Cuban wanted to set up a College National Championship they should be able to negotiate directly with the schools they want. I think the entire BCS Bowl system could be successfully attacked in Court. We have just traded to NCAA for the BCS

[dbone]

Completely agree. 1984 "Regents" USSC decision was the dam breaking...its just taken this long to develop.

Problem is...to its logical conclusion...college football will have to eventually separate from amateur college affiliations. Then we have the Poulon Weedeater SMU Mustangs?

[mrydel]

Or the SMU Ford Mustangs. USC Trojan Condoms. Rice White Owl Cigars. Texas Longhorn Steakhouses. Baylor Bear Sternes. Houston Mercury Cougars. Alabama Crimson Tide starring Denzel Washington. The opportunities are endless.

[Stallion]

Mry-del Frisco Steakhouse