While I tend to agree that the BE, if it does split, should not go to 12 - the main reason for not going to that number is basically because there aren't enough good programs out there that realistically would want to join.

However, if there were enough teams, I believe 12 is better 9.

First and foremost, from a football perspective, it gives the conference a championship game. Yes, I know, the B12 coaches complain about a championship game all of the time - saying it hurts the chances of the #1 team going to the NC Bowl (if it loses) and hurts the chances of whatever team loses from being chosen for an at-large bid for other BCS Bowls. So theoretically, the #1 team in the conference during the regular season could get shut out of any BCS Bowl berth whatsoever, if it loses that championship game.

Well, there are two errors with this thinking. First and foremost, it points to yet another flaw in the BCS rankings because recent losses count more against a team than early losses. Everyone says that it really doesn't, but it really does. Heck even recent wins can hurt your BCS at-large bid, as Cal found out last year.

The second error, is that, at least for the SEC, B12, and ACC, the championship game brings in more $$$ to the conference than an at-large bid does. In the SEC's case it's almost three times as much and in the other two cases, it's not quite twice as much.

A 12 team conference is likely to have more Bowl affiliations which means more non-BCS $$$.

Only downside, every team doesn't play every other team in the conference each year. So what? As long as the divisions honor the true rivalries, who cares?

As for basketball, which conference has been considered the best bb conference in the nation over the last six-year period? Yet over that time period, only the Pac-10 has had less teams make it to the NCAAs (27) to the ACCs (28). SEC and B12 have both sent 34 teams to the NCAAs while the B10 has sent 30 and the BE 32.

More teams in the NCAAs, better chance of earning more NCAA bb units - although the ACC has done alright in this area, ranking tied for third with the BE with the B12 in first and B10 in second.

Imagine how many more units the ACC might have with more teams? More NCAA units mean more $$$.

TV contracts. Well this can be tricky. ACC went down in per team payout supposedly because they lost some match-ups by losing round robin games. But part of that was also who they added to the league.

BB tournament. In a 9-team league, the first game between the 8-9 team isn't of much value. But in a 12-team league, the first day game match-ups are worth $$$ and the next onward is the equivalent to the 9-team league.

Keep in mind, all of the above is not referring to a specific league but is taking it from a general viewpoint. In the case of the current BE, this cannot apply anyway since the non D-1A schools couldn't allow the BE D-1A side to grow to 9 no less 12.

Thoughts, in general terms, not specific to the BE?

Cheers,
Neil

In theory I agree with your assesment....having 12 football schools and a championship game is good for the bottom line and for the stability of the league...the only concern I would have is going to 12 just for the sake of going to 12 like CUSA did and adding a bunch of dead weight

-- As for the idea of the BE football schools going to 12....I guess that would be possible post split and we probably could find 4 decent football schools...the trouble is the good football schools that would be available to us are poor in bball with the exception of Memphis...schools like Southern Miss, marshall and ECU (still think the Pirates would be pretty good with BCS access) would water down hoops considerably...

-- Another problem with a championship game with our current makeup is the nature of our schools....not many football programs in our league travel very well...WVU/UL would sell out no matter where the game is held...but I'm not sure anyother game that did not inculde Louisville or West Virginia would draw 60,000 at a neutral site

-- Right now I would just be happy with an all sports league and then just go from there

Jackson

Quote:not many football programs in our league travel very well

Wouldn't need to if the stadium were in the right location. I imagine even traditionally poor traveling schools like Syracuse or Pitt could fill their half of a stadium in New York.

But what if Memphis or Southern Miss is the rep from the southern division (a distinct possiblity)? How many of there fans would make it to NYC...probably not to many....So where to have it?....This is a hard question since many of the"new" school are not in or near the northeast and probably don't have much of an alumuni base there etc...My guess the logical place for the championship game would be Paul Brown Staduim in Cincy.....But even in a the geographic center of the proposed league...what would attendance look like for a Southern Miss/Syracuse chamionship game?


Jackson

Nice lead, Neil. I pretty much agree with everything you said. Quality counts for more than quantity, but the #12 seems to have some magic value to it. My comments:

The SEC has been smart and lucky in how they've structured their basketball and football championships, both of which are traditionally in ATL at the Georgia Dome. To begin with, the volume and size of the schools already makes each a real event, but the conference essentially sponsors 3-5 days of entertainment, exhibits and more at the convention center right next door. For seemingly the whole week the whole city is awash in SEC fans playing games, tailgating, going to booths showcasing the history of the league and the schools. It's a fantastic showpiece for the SEC, making even this ACC fan excited! Done right, these events not only bring in money but also serve as wonderful promotional tools and help build conference kinship and identity. That's why I hope the ACC can do the same with these in Charlotte over time, and why the BE might be able to do the same in Manahattan/Jersey someday.

Making that first day of the conference tourny a full slate of four games, helps too. Having just an 8/9 game the night before really singled those two programs out for punishment, and fewer fans would be there for that particular day.

So while having 9 works out for football and basketball scheduling, it makes the post-season awkward. Yet 10 makes the football awkward by having an imbalanced conference schedule. Once there, why not go to 12 and have your own bowl game? Again, quality and affinity among members makes or breaks the idea, but there is soundness to the logistics.

Jackson1011 Wrote:In theory I agree with your assesment....having 12 football schools and a championship game is good for the bottom line and for the stability of the league...the only concern I would have is going to 12 just for the sake of going to 12 like CUSA did and adding a bunch of dead weight

-- As for the idea of the BE football schools going to 12....I guess that would be possible post split and we probably could find 4 decent football schools...the trouble is the good football schools that would be available to us are poor in bball with the exception of Memphis...schools like Southern Miss, marshall and ECU (still think the Pirates would be pretty good with BCS access) would water down hoops considerably...

-- Another problem with a championship game with our current makeup is the nature of our schools....not many football programs in our league travel very well...WVU/UL would sell out no matter where the game is held...but I'm not sure anyother game that did not inculde Louisville or West Virginia would draw 60,000 at a neutral site

-- Right now I would just be happy with an all sports league and then just go from there

Jackson

Oh I bet Rutgers and Connecticut would prove to you that their fan bases will travel. If we win this year we'll bring a bunch of people to the bowl game no matter where it is and who its against. We have a ton of alumni all over the country and they'll travel to see us play thats for certain. Connecticut proved that you can get people to Detroit in the winter last season imagine getting them to a domed stadium in the NY metro area, piece of cake.

----The team that is ranked higher could host the championship game. I think that is how the MAC conducted their championship game and how the new CUSA will as well.

----Also 12 teams would help solidify the BCS bid, because you give yourself another 4 shots at having a top 25 team in the BCS rankings. I think it would be likely that at least one out of the new 4 would have a season in or around the top 25 every year.

The MWC had a down year this year with only 3 bowl eligible teams, but when the monster that is BYU gets it rolling again and teams like Air Force and Colorado State bounce back from their first losing seasons in more than a decade, that could be a league that seriously rivals the Big East. Teams like Utah and TCU will have shots at the top 25 most years, and teams like New Mexico and Wyoming look like upstarts. Going to 12 would give the Big East more power and keep the MWC at bay. It would especially make sense if the MWC went after Fresno and Boise or maybe Hawaii.

Jackson1011 Wrote:But what if Memphis or Southern Miss is the rep from the southern division (a distinct possiblity)? How many of there fans would make it to NYC...probably not to many....

Memphis has played in the preseason and (unfortunately) the postseason NIT a number of times over the last few seasons and taken a repectable crowd to NYC every trip.

I've said this before and some people get mad when I say it, but don't be surprised when the Big XII, ACC, SEC and Pac 10 (the PAC 10 is contemplating going to 9 conference games) start to put pressure on the BCS to require all BCS confernces (that means Big East and Big 10) to have either 9 conference games or 8 games with a championship game.

The prevailing idea is that they will be at a disadvantage compared to the Big East and Big 10 because playing either 9 conference games or 8 plus a championship game makes it harder to finish undefeated than playing only 7 or 8 conference games. Thus, the Big East and Big 10 have an unfair advantage of getting to the BCS Championship Game. You've already heard rumblings about this from the Big XII when Oklahoma lost the last couple of years, but it will only get worse with the ACC adding a championship game and the Pac 10 going to 9 conference games.

3601 Wrote:...but don't be surprised when the Big XII, ACC, SEC and Pac 10 (the PAC 10 is contemplating going to 9 conference games) start to put pressure on the BCS to require all BCS confernces (that means Big East and Big 10) to have either 9 conference games or 8 games with a championship game. 

The prevailing idea is that they will be at a disadvantage compared to the Big East and Big 10 because playing either 9 conference games or 8 plus a championship game makes it harder to finish undefeated than playing only 7 or 8 conference games.  Thus, the Big East and Big 10 have an unfair advantage of getting to the BCS Championship Game.  You've already heard rumblings about this from the Big XII when Oklahoma lost the last couple of years, but it will only get worse with the ACC adding a championship game and the Pac 10 going to 9 conference games.

I for one, would be surprised at this.

a) The Pac 10 voluntarily moved to 9 conferences games because 1) their fans are traditionally fickle and value Pac 10 teams more than other regional neighbors, and 2) it allows them to have a clear conference champ to end internal bickering. Plus they hope to increase their conf. TV contract with this move. And the Pac 10 won't pressure the B10 into anything.

b) The 12 team conferences voluntarily moved to that status to increase their own revenue. Didn't have to, WANTED to. They've got the paychecks to prove it, as well. Supposedly it balances out - smaller conferences generally equal bigger per-school BCS checks but smaller TV contracts.

c) The SEC used to play a 6-game conference schedule with 8 (10?) members because of how valuable out of conference games are for those bigger programs. I'd be very surprised if they and others like them are searching for opportunities to opt out of that bonus revenue available outside the conference. That shot for extra income is one of the big benefits FSU and Miami were counting on in having their annual match-up become a conference game, and a laaaaaarge reason why the 12-game schedule was adopted by D1.

d) Requiring leagues to go to 12 members would likely punish some league (read the MWC or the BE) into an alignment where it might make less money for each school. We're already bickering about the dirth of quality candidates, having the matter forced on them would only lead to more lawsuits. ("Yayyy! MORE lawsuits!!!")

And I thought the rumblings weren't from the B12, but from Oklahoma themselves. Ironic considering that league has benefitted, in the eyes of some unjustly, from the championship game format by having two BCS members quite often. Even losing the conference championship game didn't prevent OU from playing for a national title!

- - - - - - - - - - -

IF there is some arrangement that encourages a 12 member configuration it would also likely mean a resolution has been devised to the NCAA/BCS issue. Having it flow through the NCAA, which of course would require the whole division to support the measure, would stymie the legal objections and suggest a resolution that appeases the non-BCS schools that would be heretofore left outside for good. But that also makes the prospects that much more difficult, IMO. And the standards would have to be tied to more than just # of members, or else the MAC and CUSA would have serious claims for membership and the Sun Belt would recruit the likes of GSU, App St, etc.

3601 Wrote:Memphis has played in the preseason and (unfortunately) the postseason NIT a number of times over the last few seasons and taken a repectable crowd to NYC every trip.

I've said this before and some people get mad when I say it, but don't be surprised when the Big XII, ACC, SEC and Pac 10 (the PAC 10 is contemplating going to 9 conference games) <span style='color:red'>start to put pressure on the BCS to require all BCS confernces (that means Big East and Big 10) to have either 9 conference games or 8 games with a championship game.&nbsp; </span>

The prevailing idea is that they will be at a disadvantage compared to the Big East and Big 10 because playing either 9 conference games or 8 plus a championship game makes it harder to finish undefeated than playing only 7 or 8 conference games.&nbsp; Thus, the Big East and Big 10 have an unfair advantage of getting to the BCS Championship Game.&nbsp; You've already heard rumblings about this from the Big XII when Oklahoma lost the last couple of years, but it will only get worse with the ACC adding a championship game and the Pac 10 going to 9 conference games.

You are hoping it’s true. Maybe then you guy get a shot this time around, F--- that. It was 12 games got PAC-10 to adopt 9 conference games. It was out of convenience of looking for quality opponents for their member. You are trying too hard to come up with a situation that will force the Big East’s hand to expand.

SO#1 Wrote:

3601 Wrote:Memphis has played in the preseason and (unfortunately) the postseason NIT a number of times over the last few seasons and taken a repectable crowd to NYC every trip.

I've said this before and some people get mad when I say it, but don't be surprised when the Big XII, ACC, SEC and Pac 10 (the PAC 10 is contemplating going to 9 conference games) <span style='color:red'>start to put pressure on the BCS to require all BCS confernces (that means Big East and Big 10) to have either 9 conference games or 8 games with a championship game.  </span>

The prevailing idea is that they will be at a disadvantage compared to the Big East and Big 10 because playing either 9 conference games or 8 plus a championship game makes it harder to finish undefeated than playing only 7 or 8 conference games.  Thus, the Big East and Big 10 have an unfair advantage of getting to the BCS Championship Game.  You've already heard rumblings about this from the Big XII when Oklahoma lost the last couple of years, but it will only get worse with the ACC adding a championship game and the Pac 10 going to 9 conference games.

You are hoping it’s true. Maybe then you guy get a shot this time around, F--- that. It was 12 games got PAC-10 to adopt 9 conference games. It was out of convenience of looking for quality opponents for their member. You are trying too hard to come up with a situation that will force the Big East’s hand to expand.

You heard it here first. I'm not denying that I would like to see it happen for selfish reasons, but I find amusing that folks actually get mad at the idea.
Bob Stoops started the rumblings and they will only get louder.

Wait until the first time that an SEC team is undefeated and ranked #1 or #2, they lose in the SEC Championship Game and a #3 ranked Big 10 or Big East team that is finished with their season slips in and takes their BCS spot. The SEC will cause the biggest shat storm that you've ever seen. The same thing would happen with the ACC if it happened to Miami or FSU.

Mark my words. Jackson, you know how things work. Talk some sense into these people. I'm not saying that it's gospel, but you know that something like this is very possible.

3601 Wrote:You heard it here first.&nbsp; I'm not denying that I would like to see it happen for selfish reasons, but I find amusing that folks actually get mad at the idea.&nbsp; Bob Stoops started the rumblings and they will only get louder.&nbsp;

Wait until the first time that an SEC team is undefeated and ranked #1 or #2, they lose in the SEC Championship Game and a #3 ranked Big 10 or Big East team that is finished with their season slips in and takes their BCS spot.&nbsp; The SEC will cause the biggest shat storm that you've ever seen.&nbsp; The same thing would happen with the ACC if it happened to Miami or FSU.

If an SEC team loses in the SEC title game then maybe they don't actually deserve to be in the national title game!?! Seems to me that's a problem with the rankings, not scheduling. And how could the SEC be more pissed over that proposed scenario then having a team actually go undefeated and still not play for the title... as happened last year?!?!?

Stoops should, as they say around here, "siddown and shuddup!" His vaunted status and only championship has come via the BCS, without which OU may have been in less appealing bowl match-ups or played that title game against who many consider was a stronger Miami team rather than FSU. Gee, so sometimes the B12 conference title game features more fans from the opposing team? Instead of being thankful he's there and facing up to the challenge, while collecting the extra $ the game brings, he'd rather play the title game at home! That's honorable!! But don't worry, that position will change the moment OU has to play said title game AT Nebraska or AT Colorado...

GunnerFan Wrote:If an SEC team loses in the SEC title game then maybe they don't actually deserve to be in the national title game!?! Seems to me that's a problem with the rankings, not scheduling. And how could the SEC be more pissed over that proposed scenario then having a team actually go undefeated and still not play for the title... as happened last year?!?!?

I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that the more games you play the more difficult it is to go undefeated. In many years you have to be undefeated to play in the BCS championship game.

If one team plays 15 game and one team plays 10 games which is more likely to finish undefeated? That's obvious. Even the though the odds are less, it is the same idea with a championship game. An SEC team basically must go 13-0, while a Big 10 team basically has to go 12-0. And that 13th game is always going to be against a very good oponent.

Tommy Tuberville didn't raise too much hell last year because the two other undefeated teams were the defending national champs and and Oklahoma team that also played in a confernce championship game. He didn't have much of an argument. However, let Auburn go 12-0 and lose to Florida on a last second field goal in the SEC championship game and an undefeated West Virginia slips into their place. Tuberville will be raising hell. I'm not saying what is right or what is wrong. I'm just telling you what will happen.

3601 Wrote:... let Auburn go 12-0 and lose to Florida on a last second field goal in the SEC championship game and an undefeated West Virginia slips into their place. Tuberville will be raising hell. I'm not saying what is right or what is wrong. I'm just telling you what will happen.

I agree he'll raise hell, but there's more to it than just the extra game. I think it's more a ranking matter. We'll use your scenario and assume an undefeated WVU slips into the championship game versus a now 1-loss Auburn.

If WVU played a legit schedule, with foes like VT, Maryland, Notre Dame and/or Wisconsin out of conference there might be little to complain about it regarding their position. And if they didn't play a tough schedule then chances are they won't be ranked that highly. Same goes for a Big 10 team.

Compare that to Auburn, or most SEC teams, who often knowingly schedule weaker teams because they're conference slate is so strong and because they know they might have the championship game hurdle. After all, who they scheduled supposedly played a large part in Auburn's ranking as #3 as opposed to #2. And if the SEC championship features two teams that did not meet in the regular season, theoretically that could be the strength of schedule boost that sends one team into the national title contest.

Conversely many people chastised USC as a participant because alledgedly their schedule included a lot of patsies, including the supposedly weak Pac 10. So forcing a conference to play X games in conference won't ensure quality. The BE could add Temple, Akron, Army and Navy and meet the criteria under such thinking. Whereas right now they'd be better off simply holding firm and adding quality to their existing out-of-conference slate.

Yes, having a 13th game can damage your chances of making the national championship game. But since this is the bowl system and not the playoffs, qualification is based on so many other factors that shape the polls that the system can work fine with this diversity of scheduling. IMO, anyway.

GunnerFan Wrote:

3601 Wrote:... let Auburn go 12-0 and lose to Florida on a last second field goal in the SEC championship game and an undefeated West Virginia slips into their place.&nbsp; Tuberville will be raising hell.&nbsp; I'm not saying what is right or what is wrong.&nbsp; I'm just telling you what will happen.

I agree he'll raise hell, but there's more to it than just the extra game. I think it's more a ranking matter. We'll use your scenario and assume an undefeated WVU slips into the championship game versus a now 1-loss Auburn.

If WVU played a legit schedule, with foes like VT, Maryland, Notre Dame and/or Wisconsin out of conference there might be little to complain about it regarding their position. And if they didn't play a tough schedule then chances are they won't be ranked that highly. Same goes for a Big 10 team.

Compare that to Auburn, or most SEC teams, who often knowingly schedule weaker teams because they're conference slate is so strong and because they know they might have the championship game hurdle. After all, who they scheduled supposedly played a large part in Auburn's ranking as #3 as opposed to #2. And if the SEC championship features two teams that did not meet in the regular season, theoretically that could be the strength of schedule boost that sends one team into the national title contest.

Conversely many people chastised USC as a participant because alledgedly their schedule included a lot of patsies, including the supposedly weak Pac 10. So forcing a conference to play X games in conference won't ensure quality. The BE could add Temple, Akron, Army and Navy and meet the criteria under such thinking. Whereas right now they'd be better off simply holding firm and adding quality to their existing out-of-conference slate.

Yes, having a 13th game can damage your chances of making the national championship game. But since this is the bowl system and not the playoffs, qualification is based on so many other factors that shape the polls that the system can work fine with this diversity of scheduling. IMO, anyway.

OK. Think of it this way....

Penn State and Miami both finish the regular season 11-0. In a very unlikely scenario, they have the EXACT same strength of schedule but Miami is ranked #2 in the country just a few votes higher than Penn State.

Miami is going to play a quality opponent in the ACC championship. It may very well be an opponent that they've already beaten once this year. Let's just say that it is NC State and Miami has already beaten NC State earlier this year in Raleigh. Well, we all know how hard it is to beat a team twice. NC State wins and knocks Miami out of the BCS Championship Game.

The ACC/Miami folks are going to scream bloody murder saying that it was unfair and that it would be like Penn State having to play Michigan again in the Big 10 Championship Game. They'll say that the Big 10 has an advantage by NOT having a championship game.

I agree that it was their own doing, but now that 3 confernces have championship game they aren't going to want to lose out on possible BCS bids because their teams get beaten in the confernce championship games.

Again, I'm not saying this is the right thing to do, but it will happen.

3601 Wrote:

GunnerFan Wrote:

3601 Wrote:... let Auburn go 12-0 and lose to Florida on a last second field goal in the SEC championship game and an undefeated West Virginia slips into their place.&nbsp; Tuberville will be raising hell.&nbsp; I'm not saying what is right or what is wrong.&nbsp; I'm just telling you what will happen.

I agree he'll raise hell, but there's more to it than just the extra game. I think it's more a ranking matter. We'll use your scenario and assume an undefeated WVU slips into the championship game versus a now 1-loss Auburn.

If WVU played a legit schedule, with foes like VT, Maryland, Notre Dame and/or Wisconsin out of conference there might be little to complain about it regarding their position. And if they didn't play a tough schedule then chances are they won't be ranked that highly. Same goes for a Big 10 team.

Compare that to Auburn, or most SEC teams, who often knowingly schedule weaker teams because they're conference slate is so strong and because they know they might have the championship game hurdle. After all, who they scheduled supposedly played a large part in Auburn's ranking as #3 as opposed to #2. And if the SEC championship features two teams that did not meet in the regular season, theoretically that could be the strength of schedule boost that sends one team into the national title contest.

Conversely many people chastised USC as a participant because alledgedly their schedule included a lot of patsies, including the supposedly weak Pac 10. So forcing a conference to play X games in conference won't ensure quality. The BE could add Temple, Akron, Army and Navy and meet the criteria under such thinking. Whereas right now they'd be better off simply holding firm and adding quality to their existing out-of-conference slate.

Yes, having a 13th game can damage your chances of making the national championship game. But since this is the bowl system and not the playoffs, qualification is based on so many other factors that shape the polls that the system can work fine with this diversity of scheduling. IMO, anyway.

OK. Think of it this way....

Penn State and Miami both finish the regular season 11-0. In a very unlikely scenario, they have the EXACT same strength of schedule but Miami is ranked #2 in the country just a few votes higher than Penn State.

Miami is going to play a quality opponent in the ACC championship. It may very well be an opponent that they've already beaten once this year. Let's just say that it is NC State and Miami has already beaten NC State earlier this year in Raleigh. Well, we all know how hard it is to beat a team twice. NC State wins and knocks Miami out of the BCS Championship Game.

The ACC/Miami folks are going to scream bloody murder saying that it was unfair and that it would be like Penn State having to play Michigan again in the Big 10 Championship Game. They'll say that the Big 10 has an advantage by NOT having a championship game.

I agree that it was their own doing, but now that 3 confernces have championship game they aren't going to want to lose out on possible BCS bids because their teams get beaten in the confernce championship games.

Again, I'm not saying this is the right thing to do, but it will happen.

If conference championship games present such a challenge as you make it out to be, why not just drop the conference championship game? This seems like a more likely outcome rather than the 3 confernce's that host championship games going after the 3 that dont.

The Big10 weilds as much power as anyone, including the SEC, so what makes you think that they will be forced by any other entity to host a championship game?

cuseroc Wrote:If conference championship games present such a challenge as you make it out to be, why not just drop the conference championship game? This seems like a more likely outcome rather than the 3 confernce's that host championship games going after the 3 that dont.

The Big10 weilds as much power as anyone, including the SEC, so what makes you think that they will be forced by any other entity to host a championship game?

1. They won't drop the championship game for one reason. I think you know what that reason is.

2. I'm thinking that the Pac-10 would vote with the ACC, Big XII and SEC.

3. The only real question mark is what to do with Notre Dame. However, I think Notre Dame's days as an independent are numbered.

4. Like I said, this certainly isn't gospel but you heard it here first.

We agree some folks will gripe, I just don't see those gripes graduating from the individually impacted programs into formal actions by the conferences.

3601 Wrote:2.&nbsp; I'm thinking that the Pac-10 would vote with the ACC, Big XII and SEC (into forcing the B10 to host a championship game).&nbsp;

I think where else we're not seeing eye-to-eye is why the Pac 10 would vote as you're theorizing. I can't see them doing something their long-time partners in the Big 10 don't want, and they stand to be negatively impacted if there's a push for 12 members considering the options at their doorstep. If anything, I think the B10 and P10 would rather abandon the BCS and enjoy their hearty Rose Bowl paydays in peace.

Keep in mind, the Rose Bowl is responsible for roughly $14M of the total $17M for each conference, <a href='http://www.bcsfootball.org/index.cfm?page=revenue' target='_blank'>as shown here</a>. None of the other BCS bowls is able to offer near that, with speculation that if the BCS were to die the Sugar would be able to pay maybe $10m, the Orange maybe $7 -8M if it kept both the ACC and BE, while the Fiesta would be also near the $7M range. Thus, if the BCS were to go away the Pac10 and B10 would be the least affected by it, another reason why I don't think the BCS is powerful enough to steer the Pac 10 where you're proposing. We'll see if I'm wrong.

Quote:3. The only real question mark is what to do with Notre Dame. However, I think Notre Dame's days as an independent are numbered.

Considering your other thoughts I can see why you believe this, though I'm more and more convinced it ain't happening, especially after the BCS conferences agreed to give ND and annual share in return for smaller payouts if they make a BCS bowl. (Stupid, IMO) What would force ND into a conference? Two things, IMO:

1) An end to bowl tie-ins with the BE that enables their other sports to remain in a high profile conference without needing to include their football;

2) An end to the BCS and a movement towards having all major bowls revert to contractual tie-ins with the major conferences, thereby freezing ND out of the major bowls.

While ND might still make more money playing on NBC and settling on (for example) a Liberty Bowl match-up against the CUSA champ, the indignity of it all would kill them compared to being part of the B10 or BE. Short of that there is no reason they need to join a conference. And no, you can't say pride because they've proven themselves to be just as gross a money-centered football factory as your Tennessees, Michigans and Oklahomas.

My two pennies...

12 is better than 8 for many reasons. Among them are the following:

1. potential championship game.
2. larger TV market
3. more poll votes
4. more bowl tie-ins
5. better public perception

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. A 12-team conference will have more successful teams than an 8-team conference.

Attendance would not necessarily be hurt. Memphis, Navy, and Army average more fans than half the BE teams. In terms of attendance at a championship game, if that worries us we can hold it at the home field of the team with the best conference winning percentage or highest bcs ranking.

In terms of losing long-time opponents, that need not occur either. Teams would play others in their division and crossover opponents. Miami and FL ST will play every year whether it's in the championship or not. With 8 IC games, that's 3 crossovers; with 9, it would be 4 crossovers.

I'm not sure we should go to 12 yet, but I sure would like to get to 10 ASAP.

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.

The Big 10 and the Big East would have the option of doing either. The Big 10 already has enough members to play 9 league games. The Big East would have to add 2 members. It could be as easy as adding Army and Navy for football only.