The SEC and Big 12 commissioners have already stated their support for the action, largely for 2 reasons; 1) they'd appreciate it if other conference champions had to confront the extra game hurdle that their's do in reaching the national title, and 2) this rule may prevent the need/desire for other conference to lure SEC and Big 12 schools, and it may also prevent another conference from being as big and "bad" as theirs.
Interesting, I did not know this, but that would make it near unanimous for 10-game championships if my other low-powered caffeined-up logic holds at all...
The people I see voting against it:
- Many 1-AA schools and those who feel they'd never be part of the BCS puzzle. Why allow the rich to get richer, in their eyes.
am not sure 1-AA folks will get to vote...just I-A, but will try to check into this later...
- Pac 10 and Big 10. Why allow the other conferences an easier path to more money and notariety? Plus, this allows these two conferences to remain the "stauch traditionalists" and have their own easier paths to the national title game. Big 10 may also see this as the move that sends ND their way, eventually.
- Any conference that sees this as the light at the end of the Playoff/BCS tunnel. The larger the conference, the fewer the conferences. The fewer the conferences, the more likely yours is a player with bowl or playoff access. IMO, the WAC will do this if they get their members to sign commitment papers and it feels it's the next in line to reach 12 and gain BCS entry.
I'm not sure I read this the same way. I think the MWC schools, for example, would prefer to stay at 10, if moving to twelve would dilute the number of quality schools represented to the BCS. Its better to have a quality package at minimum number required, than to have a larger package in which the quality of members drops off. WAC would be even worse than MWC...
Your points are well-taken though...