One of the theories I've seen floated for why ESPN would be willing to pay the same amount of money for a 10-team conference that they did for a 12-team conference is that it would still be cheaper than renegotiating their $2.25 billion dollar deal they signed in 2008 with the SEC. ESPN had a vested interest in seeing the SEC stay a 12-team league for now, so making a promise to pay the Zombie10 the same amount of money we've been making on our current television contract didn't cost them anything; as a starting point for negotiations, it probably even helped ESPN. One of the other theories I've seen floating around is that BCS executives became involved in helping the television negotiations, taking the side of the Big 12, because they fear an era of four 16-team superconferences that would usher in a ready-made four-team playoff for a national championship. Regardless of which theory to subscribe to over what happened these past few days, it seems fairly obvious that there is a real fear that the era of new 16-team superconferences could change college football as we know it.

The fear is that with 64-teams in four power conferences, the gap between the have and the have-not programs will grow ever larger, as programs outside these four conferences will struggle to keep up with the chosen 64 in revenue and television exposure. Call me elitist, call me arrogant, but I'm not sure this would be a bad thing. There are currently 120 D-IA football programs in the NCAA, and that number will probably continue to grow. In Texas alone, with Larry Coker heading up a new program at texas-San Antonio and Lamar University in Beaumont bringing back football, it isn't difficult to imagine we'll have two more D-IA programs here soon. This would make for a total of 12 D-IA programs in the State of Texas, and that is too many to claim true competitive balance. I think the culling of the herd that a change to four 16-team conference would bring would be a good thing, and I think it may even be necessary, if you truly want to keep competitive balance. Let's be serious; Rice isn't ever going to be on an even playing field with A&M or texas or Texas Tech; they are a small school and the discrepancy in athletic budgets and revenues is simply staggering. I would argue that a move to four 16-team superconferences would create a fourth, upper level of  competition in college football, and they should be separated from the current 120-team D-IA and given their own designation.

The new top level of college football would include all members of the four 16-team superconferences, and that is it. This may seem harsh or unfair to teams not included in those four superconferences, but I argue that is almost a necessity. We need to tighten up the requirements to be included in the top level of college football, and the creation of a new, top level of super conferences is that step. This would be like the Premier League in professional soccer. You would want to keep a sense of competitive balance, even at the highest level of college football, so you would be including only schools that can reach a minimum balance of an athletic budget. This starts with having a minimum capacity for college stadiums, and then a minimum attendance rate expected at those stadiums. I would argue that if you don't have a minimum stadium capacity of 60,000, and you're not averaging at least 75% capacity for home games, you don't belong in the top level of big-time college football. If everyone is hitting a minimum number of attendance, you have a chance to at least set a minimum balance for an athletic budget. Currently, in order to be a member of D-IA, you need only average 18,000 in attendance every year; this requirement is much, much too low when you consider that you have schools that sellout 100,000 seat stadiums every weekend. To argue that a program which averages 18,000 in attendance belongs at the same level as a program that averages 100,000 is disingenuous, yet we have that situation right now with UNT and texas. UNT averaged 18,228 fans per home game last season, while texas averaged over 100,000 per gome game, yet both schools are included at the D-IA level. It takes UNT six home games to come close to even matching texas' attendance for one game, yet according to the NCAA right now, these are equal programs; who are they kidding?

Let the creation of four superconferences happen, and UNT can stay at a level with the Baylors and Rices of college football, and be competitive with institutions with similar sized athletic budgets. One of the current constraints of college football right now is that we have these smaller schools trying to be involved in making rules to help reign in the larger schools and try to keep a sense of competitive balance; this is an exercise in futility, because larger schools with larger budgets will always find a way to make themselves stand out. Take away lavish athletic dorms, we'll build player lounges and turn locker rooms into mini-palaces. Put a rule in place on player lounges and specs for locker rooms, and you'll see the film and meeting rooms for teams become gargantuan. This isn't a battle that the smaller schools can ultimately win, so we should keep them on a level they can compete on.

With the creation of four superconferences, you could also have a definitive college football playoff to decide the national champion. Put the top four teams of the lower level of D-IA in two play-in games like they have the in NCAA basketball tournament, and all schools have a chance at the national championship; this will reward schools of lesser means who overachieve given their budgets, and give them a chance to win it all. Similar to how the Premier League awards teams who win and moves them up a level, we are rewarding teams who win and giving them a shot to win it all. This ensures the SMUs, Ohios, Tulanes, the Eastern Michigans all have their fair shot at winning it all, while also ensuring they aren't forced into participating in an arms race with programs with which they have no chance of winning. If one of non-superconference programs grows to a point where they are meeting the minimum standards for inclusion in a superconference, like building and consistently filling a 60,000 seat stadium while attaining a certain winning percentage, they can be petition to be added to one of the superconferences. Conversely, if one of the superconference programs falls below the minimum standards, they can be considered to be dropped from the superconference, and another program added in their place. This ensures a high-level of competition is always maintained the superconferences, while also making it fair for lowe-rlevel D-IA programs by giving them a chance to be included with the big boys if they grow their program and their brand.

If we create four superconferences, we put the other remaining 54 D-IA programs in a lower level of competition, but it is a more balanced level for them, and by letting them compete in a playoff and possibly rise to the level of being a superconference program, we ensure that they are not kept at a permanent  underclass status. In this matter, creating superconferences could be the next evolution of college football, but it would be for the good of the game and all programs involved.