Gunnerfan, you and I are just not going to agree on the value of 10 member conference verses 12 member conference. Beside its too late for the ACC. We will surely have a good indictation of how well the Pac 10 fares and how well the ACC does in few years.

If you use simple math or mabe fuzzy math 9 conference games using a consersative average of 35,000 fans x 9 games x 20 dollar ticket is over 6 million.

There are many factors to beneift 12 team conferences as well with 12 team, however, not all the 12 schools will get an extra home game.

So maybe this is really fuzzy math --

There are other more pressing concerns with 12 team conference the ACC is yet to face. Texas push really hard get an at large bid, however, the ACC may not have the same pull. What happens if the ACC championship game cost the conference a potential at large bid of 15 million. This will take three years of championship game to make up the difference. I truly believe the ACC could have made the same progress in football by expanding with only Miami as Duke and NC fought so hard to preserve.

Will the ACC maintain its stable of fan interest without the intence round robin basketball that made the conference famous?

There are a lot of ifs yet to be determined.

The options available to the Big East are far less than the ACC had for expansion and so the Big East will most likely always have 10 or less football members.

Conf USA and MAC are both mid major because the championship game is played at the highest ranked team. What does this prove other than convince the nation of your mid major status.

My preference is round robin basketball and football and no amount of money will make up for the lose of this with a football championship game. I would still be in favor of 10 if Miami, Florida State, Penn State, and Notre Dame wanted to join the Big East. Well maybe drop a couple teams to maintain 10 to allow this expansion.

Less face it Miami and FSU highjacked the ACC due to competation from the SEC and hopefully everything will be OK in the future.

If there is any justice to the ACC/BE expansion war was seeing the ACC fight so hard to prevent the 12 team regular season football game and lose that battle.

At the moment not sure of of break up of Big East. If so, my current thinking of today is Memphis and Houston for all sports or maybe convince TCU to leave the way west MWC. In roads to both Texas and Florida requiting would make even Miami a bit envious.

Now here's a new twist on things. The ACC didn't hold up the Big East. They were the ones who got hi-jacked by a Florida conspiracy. It just took 12 years for the second shoe to drop. First, George W & now this. They sure know how to manipulate events in Florida.

And Louisville & Cincinnati hi-jacked the Big East. You know, Lash, you may be onto something. I certainly have felt the demise of Eastern Football every time I look at this new Ohio Valley league. If it plays out the way you, suggest, will Memphis & houston become eligible for the Lambert Trophy?

It really is amazing how conferences let in new members & the new members take over. Georgia Tech & Florida State, expansion members themselves, led the move to football expansion. And Carolina & Duke were powerless to stop it. And Wake & State just quivered on the sidelines not knowing what to do, finally doing what they were told to do.

I foresee the same thing in the Big East as Louisville & Cincinnati stat calling the shots with help from USF, WVU, & Pitt. Things get curiouser & curiouser.

A mystery wrapped inside a riddle wrapped in an enigma. Thanks for standing my world on its ear, Lash. ;D

I believe a 2nd BCS bid from a conference only get $4.5 million while the first team that gets in gets the conference $15-17 mill.

If there is an upset in a conference tournament there certainly can be a significant effect.(not being in the national championship bowl)

PanterSC97, I stand corrected and your are right on the less pay out for BCS at large bid. Although 4.5 million is pretty darn close to a conference football champioship TV game so my view is not changed on value of 10 member conference. Tigershark adds more value to the arugument as a lose by Miami and/or Florida State in championship game could very well cost those schools a shot at the national title. It would be ironic if a Pitt, WVU, or Louisville were undefeated Big East team bumping the ACC champions from the title matchup. It surely can happen. It would be funny!

Frairfan, good points and enjoy your post as always. Florida politics may have cost the lives of many of our hard fighting soliders that should be in
Afghanistan looking for the real enemey. More reasons that Boston College is very misplaced this days.

Time out. Even I said the concept of going to 12 can be ludicrous, and past records should indicate I'm all for 10 member conferences provided they're happy. But if you're saying, in essence, the ACC should've just expanded to 10 and play 9 conference games, then wouldn't they have simply been better off at 9?

I'll argue there're merits to either size membership, and that the real and perceived benefits can often be marginal.
In the case of the SEC I think the benefits are very real. $7M of their $45M TV contract comes from the conf title game. Take away that and their exposure in SC and Ark and they're making at least $500k less per team. For the B12 the cash benefits are lower but the conference as a whole garners much more publicity for its members then if there were two conferences.


IMO, the 9th conference game is more likely to increase road games then have a net impact at the home gate. Average attendance doesn't fluctuate too greatly based on opponents, thus what's important from a scheduling standpoint is trying to secure 7 home games. A feat made at least more difficult by 5th conference road game every other year.

As I said, the Pac 10 has essentially confessed they're more the oddity then the norm: They did not want to use the 12th regular season game as a chance for the western mid-majors to turn the tables, and they have to pay more $ for visiting teams because of the higher travel costs compared to the east. Thus they optioned for a 9th conference game. Might that also serve to prevent a second BCS bid if, say, a team like California has to travel to Oregon State rather than host Utah State?


The BCS figures here have been clarified, and I'll agree the ACC was on pace to maintain solid football without the additions. IIRC, there was never a vote to just add Miami only. The idea was floated, but never raised officially. I'm of the impression that may not have been as viable an option as many people think, unlikely to raise the revenues needed to justify the addition and leaving the ACC with an almost equally undesirable 18 conference games for basketball, which Coach K and Williams also opposed.

Yes there is the potential for the conference title game to knock the ACC from the national title game or to eliminate the chance of an at-large bid. It can also be said, however, that the boost of another top opponent in that game might put an ACC team INTO the NT game. Further, it's been proven at least once (Nebraska) that a second team can make the BCS without even playing in the conference championship game, while Kansas State has played their way in to give the B12 2 teams instead of one. Not to mention there's still debate about whether or not the national championship can truly be called that, given the lack of a playoff.


I agree. The two things that suggest the ACC will continue to prosper in basketball, even if not as the "best basketball conference:" 1) The SEC, B12 and B10 have 1, maybe 2, schools that are basketball first. The ACC has Duke and UNC, with their rivalry as THE sports commodity going, plus Maryland, Wake and, to a lesser degree, NCSU. It will be impossible for the league to abandon this side of the equation. 2) VT will buy into the ACC mentality whole heartily, as their fans showed last year. Their renewed committment, plus that of UVA, will ensure that basketball will remain at the heart of the ACC.

Even as the BE looks to stride miles away from the other conferences in terms of appeal and depth, and even while other conferences will have their moments, the ACC will not whither away as a basketball enterprise. And should the BE split, the possibility remains that the ACC could catch them in terms of basketball depth.


The MAC has started playing their game at Ford Field, and for both conferences it will be one of the few chances they'll be on a major network with a national telecast. I'm not saying the payoff will turnout, but that's what they're seeing. And I agree, the BE should'nt go past 9 or 10 unless a true giant falls into their laps.


Fairly accurate, IMO. But for all the blame laid at the laps of FSU, GT and Clemson over this matter recall that at least 4 other schools sided with them to make this happen. In at least this matter they followed conference policy and allowed a clear majority to decide the fate of the league. And then it took Miami, VT and BC to accept the invitations to make this move final. For right or wrong, better or worse, the consensus was the amount of security and strength that could be added to the football side would not dilute the basketball enough to make the end product weaker. Even without the guarantee of an at-large BCS bid the move has produced the financial returns promised, so it's tough to argue against them regarding the short term results. As you said, we shall see.

I don't think a conference championship game is the automatic cure or right answer for desigining conference size and membership. But I think done right it can remain a positive and, more importantly, I think the concept is here to stay.

Gunnerfan, thanks for the time and in depth view of conference championship game. There is nothing in this that changes my view of the value of 12 member conferences. It sound just like the argument the ACC commish stated over and over again to gain acceptance on expansion.

It will come down to the future to see how ACC is impacted as a formal basketball first conference. We can debate many issues, however, its the long term future that is important and not a few years of TV contract money.

I truely wish the ACC well and to be successful. Again it is like the old song "its too late to turn back now".

I do prefer the Big East to keep to a minimum of 10 football members regardless of which teams are available.

Again as a fan on the bottom line: I prefer round robin basketball and football. The first signs of the failure of the old Big East were expansion behond schedules that allowed for round robin play. We have already lived what the ACC is going to face down the road.

This week I am turning my debate back to the value of Big East remaining together as 16 basketball teams and will get to that in a moment. Since this is Mike T thread this is the appropriate place for my thinking of a new BCS type basketball championship replacing or taking place after the NCAA 64 tournament.

If the NIT wins the law suite verses the monopoly of the NCAA as the football schools did with Oklahoma and Texas, we may get a national championship final four BCS basketball championship. Of course I am on Bobby Knight's side with arguments to the current head of the NCAA. I am still laughing at his comments made at James Madison U that ACC expanded for academic reasons. The current head of the NCAA has made some very stupid statements in the past.

Basketball actually makes more money than football there are just many more mouths to feed. Every community college has become a divsion 1 school since the NCAA cant get a grip on schools moving up in both football and basketball.

If we get a final four BCS basketball championship with big bucks attached, the 16 Big East basketball schools are going to look really good. Suddenly Cincinnati looks as good as Va Tech and St John's and Georgetown make as good of sense as expanding with Miami to ensure football revenue.

The new 16 Big East basketball schools would have a very good chance of making or better put being selected each year for the BCS Basketball National Championship final four that would be played after all college tournaments including the NCAA 64/65 playoff.

Hey whats fair for college football is fair for college basketball.

If a BCS basketball takes over generating bigger revenue payouts (could mean millions for strong basketball conferences), we can just say the Big East expanded to 16 members for academic reasons.

Yes the NIT could easily become the BCS for bb.Instead over 300 schools in 1A sharing the money to about 25% of the amount.

a) The NCAA Tourney makes as much money as it does BECAUSE of all the mouths involved. Take away the extra 200+ schools and the appeal of the events diminish, especially if there is an alternative tournament where those schools are playing.

Granted, a tournament made up of only the BCS leagues would command the most money, and would possibly surpass the Bowls in per-event revenue, but it certainly couldn't be a field of 64: Only 10 teams would be left out!! Thus, with smaller fields the fewer at-large bids the BE would get.

b) If there is a smaller tournament of just the major conferences, 1) basketball would be subject to the same cries of lunacy regarding the lack of a clear national champion (unless there's a rewrite of classifications behind this), and 2) there's the increased liklihood of weaker programs like Rutgers, Oregon and Auburn attracting more/better talent. Thus, as with football, the narrowing pool of teams in the upper-most echelon would see a lot more parity. IMO, anyway.

c) If some variation of a BCS-style basketball tournament is comprised then the reasoning behind a BE split remains: A larger share of the $ for the remaining members. (Same logic for making the Tourney a BCS contest, right?) I suspect the 1-A members would still remove themselves from the non-1-A's in this scenario, and, in fact, suspect the other BCS conferences would treat them more favorably if they did. Plus there'd probably be more legal weight behind having the tournament for major all-sports leagues than allowing just the BE affiliates.

- - - - - -

Does this mean, Lash, that you favor such a move?

Bobby Knight does.He is still after Miles Brand.

Gunnerfan, I think you misunderstood my point. I dont favor a smaller tournment with BCS schools splitting from the NCAA. I favor a final four BCS type tournment after the NCAA 64, NIT, etc. Since the BCS type schools make up most of the final 16 schools each year and for that matter most of the final 32, would the NCAA continue to demand the huge dollars to share with the 200 schools you mentioned if there were a BCS type playoff that shared those dollars with schools and conferences that actually deserved the payout due to TV interest. If your point were true on interest of the 200 other schools making up the TV revenue interest, why do we not see those 200 schools on regular week night TV games during the season.

I think the Big East 16 schools will survive and stay together in same fashion as the 12 schools of the ACC. TV is the driving force in modern day expansion and markets will be very important in the next few years. As for Big East bids, it will come down to the best 32 teams getting at large bids and 16 teams have better odds of getting more at large bids that 12, than 10, than 8. It really does not matter much if you get 4 bids with 8 members or 8 bids with 16 members on a conistent basis. Sort of like the ACC plans to get sometimes two BCS bids with 12 members as opposed to one bid with 9 members on a regular basis. As to your own argument it comes down to TV interest on benefits of football championship game which leads to TV dollars which leads to requiting benefits which leads to more bids and revenue and interest of TV. The same is true for basketball. More bids with more random teams will lead to more TV interest which leads to more revenue.

As for the future, I am in favor of the 16 Big East schools remaining together to maintain the largest major BCS type conference. It really does not matter much if its slanted more to basketball strenght or football strenght if the Big East maintains BCS football membership as I predict it will do so. At first I had some concerns with scheduling, however, the new format is allowing regional interest in cross over games and the new format does not look bad on paper. Will have to wait and see how it plays out on the court. Sort of how the ACC will play out on the football field with missed regular season football games each season between schools in different divisions.

The Big East basically followed the same rationale in expansion as the ACC. The only difference is Big East favors basketball and ACC favors football and at the present time football is driving TV contracts so ACC is making much more revenue and appears to made the best decisions in expansion.

A few thoughts on this recent discussion . . .

Now that the NCAA has bought the NIT, there will be no victory in court for the NIT & no repercussions as there were in football.

The primary factor in reducing pay-outs in the NCAA tournament is not the fact that there are more mouths to feed. This is a minor factor since you only make money for each game you play & minor conferences typically play only one game - 2 in a good year. The basketball tournament is still far more lucrative than the bowls. What reduces pay-outs is the fact that the NCAA itself takes over half the prrevenue. The NCAA gets no revenue from BCS bowls.

A 16 team basketball conference does not preclude round robin play. It precludes DOUBLE round robin. The Big East for reasons of TV match-ups & the desire for a 16 game schedule has decided not to have even single round robin scheduling.

Friarfan, thanks for the update on NCAA. What does the NCAA do with all that loot? Maybe the NCAA uses the money to fight legal battles with school mascot issues.

I dont see why the 6 BCS conferences do not seperate from the NCAA and form a new organization and keep all the basketball money as well. Any thoughts on negative impacts of this idea?

Agree on double round robin and thanks for the catch. Why did the Big East decide not to schedule 18 regular season games and allow round robin and have three cross over games as well?

Hi, Lash. I expect some day to see a BCS basketball tournament. The only reason that I can think of as to why they haven't done it already is that they may just not want to mess with a good thing. They may also not want to be perceived by the rest of the college world as all that greedy. Almost all other championships are achieved through an open process as far as I know, like track & field, swimming, etc. Maybe someone else has some other thoughts.

The Big East coaches feel strongly about a 16 game conference schedule. something about this leaving room for local rivals, intersectional games, prestige non-conference TV games, & not wanting to start the conference schedule before New Year's Day. all of this makes absolutely no sense to me. In the past, it was okay to schedule Louisville & Marquette as your 17th & 18th games after the conference schedule, but now you can't do the exact same thing because they're part of the conference? Where's the logic in that? I must be missing something. Maybe someone with more brains than me can explain it to me.

Cheers,
Friar