JIM15068 Wrote:People look at how many successful teams a conference has, not on many losers. No one calls the SEC weak because they have teams like Kentucky and Vanderbilt. A 12-team conference will have more successful teams than an 8-team conference.

Good point.

Regarding Notre Dame, they may soon be forced to join a confernce because they would have no other choice. There TV contract won't be worth anything if nobody will play them.

I grew up a huge ND fan and still pull for them, but ND ain't what it used to be. The BCS included Notre Dame when the BCS was formed for two reasons. First of all, ND would help TV contracts. Secondly, nobody would have accepted a BCS as a true national champ if ND wasn't eligible to compete for it.

Well, ND ain't what is used to be. I hate to say it, but it's true. I think that the Big East and the Big 10 have a lot more leverage against Notre Dame than both conferences believe.

If the 6 BCS confernces decided that either ND had to join a confernce or leave the BCS, what could ND do? Do you think NBC would want them if there schedule consisted solely of MAC, Mountain West and C-USA teams?

3601 Wrote:I never said that they would require a championship game. I said that they would require EITHER 9 regular season games OR 8 regular season games with a championship game. The SEC, ACC and Big XII have the 8 games plus the championship game. The PAC 10 is discussing going to 9 regular season games.

Sorry about the confusion, but... now I'm still confused. Equating the 9th conference game to a championship game doesn't work for me here. Playing the 9th conference game is merely substituting an out of conference opponent with a conference opponent, but in the scheme of the national title doesn't alter the total number of games played or the relative odds of reaching said title game. Whereas the Conference championship game IS an additional game all together. So, I can't see how those two issues could be offered up as an "either/or" option, because their not equal.

Quote: Regarding Notre Dame, they may soon be forced to join a confernce because they would have no other choice. There TV contract won't be worth anything if nobody will play them.

I grew up a huge ND fan and still pull for them, but ND ain't what it used to be. The BCS included Notre Dame when the BCS was formed for two reasons. First of all, ND would help TV contracts. Secondly, nobody would have accepted a BCS as a true national champ if ND wasn't eligible to compete for it.

I agree on your first point here, but I don't think Michigan, USC and others would pass up the chance to play ND. It would have to be some BCS-wide agreement, which ain't happening.

As for the last point, the one thing I think going inn our favor here is there really is no true championship anyway, so the BCS leagues should get over it and realize all they're doing is subsidizing the Irish.

3601 Wrote:I never said that they would require a championship game. I said that they would require EITHER 9 regular season games OR 8 regular season games with a championship game. The SEC, ACC and Big XII have the 8 games plus the championship game. The PAC 10 is discussing going to 9 regular season games.

Sorry about the confusion, but... now I'm still confused. Equating the 9th conference game to a championship game doesn't work for me here. Playing the 9th conference game is merely substituting an out of conference opponent with a conference opponent, but in the scheme of the national title doesn't alter the total number of games played or the relative odds of reaching said title game. Whereas the Conference championship game IS an additional game all together. So, I can't see how those two issues could be offered up as an "either/or" option, because their not equal.

Quote: Regarding Notre Dame, they may soon be forced to join a confernce because they would have no other choice. There TV contract won't be worth anything if nobody will play them.

I grew up a huge ND fan and still pull for them, but ND ain't what it used to be. The BCS included Notre Dame when the BCS was formed for two reasons. First of all, ND would help TV contracts. Secondly, nobody would have accepted a BCS as a true national champ if ND wasn't eligible to compete for it.

I agree on your first point here, but I don't think Michigan, USC and others would pass up the chance to play ND. It would have to be some BCS-wide agreement, which ain't happening.

As for the last point, the one thing I think going inn our favor here is there really is no true championship anyway, so the BCS leagues should get over it and realize all they're doing is subsidizing the Irish.

Jackson, while I don't agree with CUSA going to 12 teams after we got raped (well after UL, USF and UC begged for an invite), I understand why they did it and I wouldn't necessarily call them dead weight schools. 12 seemed to be the magic number for these reasons:

Reason 1 - Conference Championship game. Gotta have 12 schools to do that. While of the surface it looked like we added "deadweight" as you called it, Rice & SMU along with Tulane brings academic value to CUSA which is sorely needed. UTEP and Tulsa have fielded competitive football and basketball programs as of late. But the main reason we went to 12 was to have a championship game. Whether it was worth is yet to be determine.

Reason 2 - The BE. Bano knows that the BE (unless they keep their BCS status or if by some miracle all confs. get the same BCS access) will come looking at CUSA for another round of raping. If we lose two or three schools we can invite a Troy, N. Texas or La Tech to get back to 12 schools and keep our championship game.

JIM15068 Wrote:Let me elaborate on number 5. People look at how many successful teams a conference has, not on many losers. No one calls the SEC weak because they have teams like Kentucky and Vanderbilt.

I agree, and also I think conference's long-term strength doesn't come from its top teams.

The Big 10 is not viewed as a power conference because of Michigan and Ohio State, but rather because teams like Wisconsin, Iowa, and Northwestern can step up in a given year.

Same with the SEC; Big 12, and Pac 10; it's the non-top schools that step up on occasion that make these power conferences.

The BE, just to get to 12 teams, by adding schools like Temple and Army, who have would have no shot of ever competing on the national level would do nothing for the conference.

CardHouse Wrote:

JIM15068 Wrote:Let me elaborate on number 5. People look at how many successful teams a conference has, not on many losers. No one calls the SEC weak because they have teams like Kentucky and Vanderbilt.

I agree, and also I think conference's long-term strength doesn't come from its top teams.

The Big 10 is not viewed as a power conference because of Michigan and Ohio State, but rather because teams like Wisconsin, Iowa, and Northwestern can step up in a given year.

Same with the SEC; Big 12, and Pac 10; it's the non-top schools that step up on occasion that make these power conferences.

The BE, just to get to 12 teams, by adding schools like Temple and Army, who have would have no shot of ever competing on the national level would do nothing for the conference.

However, there are teams who could step up in a given year, e.g. Navy, Memphis, ECU, and S Miss.

Also, it's relatively new that the B10 has had lesser teams who can consistently step up as contenders. When I grew up, we called them the Big 2 and little 10. In those days, Michigan State was the only one who occasionally gave OH ST and MICH any competition.

Jim

GunnerFan Wrote:  So, I can't see how those two issues could be offered up as an "either/or" option, because their not equal.

Their?!!! Ugh, I can't believe I missed that one. (sigh)

I have to echo Dragon's points regarding CUSA, as I think both carry a lot of weight. The CUSA championship game won't be a real money maker for the league ($1.2M, I believe) save for the team that plays host. What it will do is provide some national exposure and a sense of "Big Boy" status, particularly as that league tries to duel it out with the MWC and WAC for recruits and national attention. This is also very important as the league shifts from being a basketball centered conference to a football one, particularly given the presence of so many down programs right now (Rice, SMU, Tulane...)

CardHouse Wrote:  The BE, just to get to 12 teams, by adding schools like Temple and Army, who have would have no shot of ever competing on the national level would do nothing for the conference.

I think this is a crucial part of the discussion and something I consider a tad erroneous.

First, I think too many people are caught up in this realignment issue that the BE HAS to strive for some B12 level of football prowess. I can understand that line of thinking, especially in light of press reports about BCS changes, bowl affiliations, etc. But at the same time many fans are remarking how the BE is arguably the most balanced conference in the nation, with several programs that have the resources and committment to field perennial Top 25 teams. I'm not advocating adding a quartet of Buffalo, Akron, EMU and Delaware, but I do think that the BE can afford to take 1-2 programs, depending on the total # of additions, that need not be football powers provided they're committed to the BE minimum standards. I'd be perfectly happy if no one in the league avg 60k fans, per se, provided everybody was around the 40k mark and the BE is clearly among the upper echelon of leagues. I think the league is healthy enough that it has some leeway.

Secondly, traditional conference bottom feeders within football or basketball are acceptable provided those schools give something beneficial to the conference. Temple was the worst team in BE football, but because of their status offered nothing else to the league and did not show committment to improving. At least Duke, Vandy and other similar football programs provide their conferences with basketball, olympic sports, strong local fan presence in a major market... something to compensate for their consistent losing in one of the profitable sports. Similarly, the BE has never needed or, to my knowledge, vested much interest in WVU basketball. It's all a trade off based on the ultimate value brought to the league. The BE wouldn't turn down Indiana's request for membership, would they? So, corelating with my thoughts above, I can accept a weaker football power provided the member offers something else of value to the conference. Mark my words, Temple might never excel in football but if their fans were at Cincinnati-ish levels of support for basketball the Owls would be the first choice after a conference split. USF could never draw more than 4k for basketball but if they come close to their stated potential for football than all sins would be forgiven.

So while I agree that conferences are viewed favorably for their depth I don't want any decision regarding the fate of the BE and my Orange(men) to be based soley on football but on the overall value to the league, and I think the BE has the margin of error to shop for programs with less than top-shelf appeal in football. My thoughts, anyway.

Quote:Secondly, traditional conference bottom feeders within football or basketball are acceptable provided those schools give something beneficial to the conference. Temple was the worst team in BE football, but because of their status offered nothing else to the league and did not show committment to improving. At least Duke, Vandy and other similar football programs provide their conferences with basketball, olympic sports, strong local fan presence in a major market... something to compensate for their consistent losing in one of the profitable sports....Mark my words, Temple might never excel in football but if their fans were at Cincinnati-ish levels of support for basketball the Owls would be the first choice after a conference split. USF could never draw more than 4k for basketball but if they come close to their stated potential for football than all sins would be forgiven.

-- I don't think anyone who has followed this expansion stuff closely would be shocked if Temple comes back...but a couple points...Temple bball and the fan support it gets was never or will never be the problem...the issue is does Temple want to be competive in football at all? While they were in the BE that answer was no...there on campus practise fasciltys were a joke and there coaches constently complained that the administration did not provied them with the tools to win (labtop computeres especially)....I have no problem with a school that has troubel winning in football but I would like to see a struggling school "try" to turn things around by putting money into the progrm etc....that in the final anylasis is the difference between Rutgers and Temple....Rutgers has built an on campus staduim, improved fasciltyes etc and tried to get better....temple has down noting more then pocket the BCS check...If Temple wants to come back there are going to have to make a commitment to improve in football

-- the strange thing about all of this is Temple football wasn't too bad in the 1980s....only when they went into the BE did the whole thing go down the toilet

Quote:Similarly, the BE has never needed or, to my knowledge, vested much interest in WVU basketball.

-- Hopefully that will change this yr...from what I am hearing WVU is going to replace Pitt this yr was one of the marquee BE teams for the TV networks

Jackson