It will certainly be interesting. Call me a traditionalist, I wish they wouldn't do these things and keep the conferences and rivalries the way they have been. But looking forward, first of all, there can only be so many conference games. Right now the SEC is at 8 and the B1G is at 9. I really don't see that changing. I also don't see the total number of games increasing either, and right now I think everyone is at 12. One would have to think that as the players gain more power that it won't be long before some sort of union and some sort of collective bargaining agreement will be put in play keeping those numbers where they are.
For Iowa, not much will change. We will end up seeing a USC or a UCLA on the schedule in place of a Rutgers or Indiana, but one would think that the core group of games and rivalries with border states will remain in place in some way shape or form. That means Iowa vs. Wisky, MN, Neb, Illinois, NW will all remain in play. I could see Purdue being moved around, but that only leaves 4 more games. Take your pick for the other 4 between everybody else.
Recruiting wise I don't know if this will have much affect at all, but could be a positive thing for Iowa. USC is a national recruiting power anyway, its not like they now have access to players they didn't have access to before. If X or Proctor wanted to go to USC they could have. Maybe, just maybe it will give Iowa some access into the talent rich west coast and pluck some skill position players? However, at the end of the day geography defines recruiting more than anything and no matter how much realignment they do with teams and conferences won't change that.
Now for the teams that are moving out of a conference into a new conference, so so much will change. They are now going to commit to 8 or 9 games with new teams that they probably didn't play before. How do they handle the other 3 or 4 games? How do they protect rivalries? Or do they? Just look at USC and UCLA, do they do anything with Oregon, or Stanford, or Washington? They probably do not want to add a team like that on top of a 9 game conference slate right? So do they just pack up and leave, telling their fan base that their closest road game is 1000 miles away and their home games are against a bunch of teams that they have no affiliation with, never followed and don't know anything about? Seems like a really really tough sell and I can't think of a reason how those teams come out better than they did going in? Just look at the teams that have moved in the past, either from another conference or as an independent: are you going to tell me that Miami, Florida State, Penn State, Nebraska, West Virginia, TCU, Missouri are all better for it? I would say they all of them were more successful before their move with respect to wins, championships and relevance, however, all of them ended up with more money. Why would anyone think that USC and UCLA will be any different?
