Contrary to the disaster that the BE comm. said ACC expansion would be, IMO it could be the best thing to happen to college fb (except maybe for Pitt, WVU and VT). With 12, the dominos could lead to the end of the CUSA, WAC and SunBelt monstrosities and lead to 5 BCS conferences that overlap only in Iowa (B10+1/B12) and Georgia, S. Carolina and Florida (ACC/SEC) and 4 non-BCS conferences that are geographically compact and overlap very little (W.WAC+MWC--reformed WAC, E. WAC + western CUSA--New SWC, MAC, and leftover BE+eastern CUSA--new BE).

With the new BE likely to retain BCS status until it gets lost, there will be little gap between the bottom of the BCS and the top of the rest. That will increase the pressure for a playoff which will benefit all the schools financially and narrow the gap between the BCS and the rest.

Here is how I see the dominos falling if the ACC-12 happens:
New WAC
MWC-8 + Fresno, Hawaii, Nevada and Boise St.
New SWC (maybe Gulf Athletic Conference)
UTEP, Tulsa, Rice, SMU, La Tech, TCU, UH, Tulane, So. Miss., Memphis, UAB., S. Florida, Army, Navy
New BE
Pitt, VT, UConn, Rutgers, WVU, Temple, Cincinnati, Louisville, ECU, UCF.
MAC
Same less UCF + MTSU or maybe Southwest Missouri or UMass moving up.
There will be lower travel expenses and better rivalries for many of these schools-and the possibility of a group TV contract which would increase their bargaining power.

SJSU and most of the Sun Belt drop to I-AA or drop fb. Remaining Sun Belt members wait for the next shoe to drop in the 2003 realignment, which, like the 90s realignments, will have continued aftershocks for a decade or so (PSU to B10, Ark + USC to SEC, FSU-ACC, BE formed-triggered the SWC breakup, CUSA + Wac 16 which split to MWC and WAC 8--and to a bunch of changes in the Div. I conferences that don't play fb).

On the contrary, a 14 or 16 team ACC may not lead to a lot of change-and the WAC and CUSA need a lot of change to get more logical alignments.

Bullett i agree with you about changes in d1 is coming i figure the ncaa will step in and say hey if you don't have a certain enrollment at your college you will be dropped to d2 maybe even d3. Because there are a couple of d2 schools that should be d1 csla is one example. But i also figure that some schools will be grandfather in for example airforce, army and navy. But teams like birmingham-southern and campbell should be in d2 not d1-a or d1-aa.

_________________
The Bear may be dead but he still hates Tennessee. Roll Damn Tide

What's your magic number for enrollment, footballgod?

I would say 6000 on would you agree.

_________________
The Bear may be dead but he still hates Tennessee. Roll Damn Tide

That would eliminate quite a few PRIVATE schools from D-1A: Rice, Wake Forest, Tulsa, etc.; also, would lower admission standards at institutions that would be trying to reach a minimum. Enrollment and athletics do not necessarily correlate. Schools with large student bodies, such as Southern Illinois and Indiana State, prefer 1-AA.

dognthingys those schools you metioned would be grandfathered in. second of all you can tell me a school of 2000 has the budget and the crowds of a school with lets say 15,000 can you honestly say that.

_________________
The Bear may be dead but he still hates Tennessee. Roll Damn Tide

At the high school level where enrollments are used to determine levels for competition, schools are always allowed to move up if they think they can compete at a higher level, but larger achools are not allowed to move down. I think that enrollment is irrelevant since size does not increase the talent pool. Youare not selecting from your student body as you do in high school; you recruit instead. Your example of the college with 2000 students ignores the fact that at the enrollment level you specified, you still have schools with undergraduate enrollments 5 and 6 times that of the minimum level.

The real issue is the fact that the big schools who generate most of the profits don't want to share their revenues with other Div I-A schools who don't contribute much to the pot. Every effort that tries to set criteria for Div I-A ignores this basic fact. So, they should stop the hypocrisy & set TV ratings & minimum revenues as the criteria. This would allow a school like Notre Dame (undergrad enrollment = 7500), which barely makes your cut-off, to continue to compete as long as they are a high revenue school, but it eliminates big universities whose football programs are not profitable.

frairfan Notre Dame has 10,126 undergrads. Second i just think they should be by the number thats enrolled more enrollment the more money you get. I will do the numbers later for Division 1-A, 1-AA,1-AAA,2,3,NAIA and NJCAA

_________________
The Bear may be dead but he still hates Tennessee. Roll Damn Tide

Dear god,

The information you are posting is simply WRONG. I suspect you took it from the Big East website, which does list that number. However, that is TOTAL enrollment - undergrad & grad, full & part time. However even that number is out-of-date. Notre Dame enrollment - as listed on the official Notre Dame website - is as follows:

Total enrollment - 11,311

Undergrad enrollment - 8,261 (Full Time AND Part Time)

My most recent issue of US News & World Report "Best Colleges" lists FULL TIME undergrad enrollment as 7900.
For many years, full time undergrad enrollment at Notre Dame has been betwee 7500 & 8000.

actually it was college compass.com anyway i know what you mean when you said"The real issue is the fact that the big schools who generate most of the profits don't want to share their revenues with other Div I-A schools who don't contribute much to the pot. Every effort that tries to set criteria for Div I-A ignores this basic fact. So, they should stop the hypocrisy & set TV ratings & minimum revenues as the criteria. This would allow a school like Notre Dame (undergrad enrollment = 7500), which barely makes your cut-off, to continue to compete as long as they are a high revenue school, but it eliminates big universities whose football programs are not profitable. " I don't disagree with you all i am trying to say is how can a school with 4,900 enrollment compete with a ohio state which is about 50,000 or so. I know recuriting has alot to do with it. I just don't see it is fare. I don't see how like schools like example in th naia have 400 students compete with a school with 15,000 i would rather go to 15,000 because more than likely the college or university has more chicks.<- just 1 point.

_________________
The Bear may be dead but he still hates Tennessee. Roll Damn Tide

Enrollment is less important than game attendance and general profitability. Frankly, every sport should either be revenue-producing, in which case it's run as the school sees fit, or debt-laiden, in which case it should meet tougher academic, fiscal and title IX rules. Conferences could be another vehicle for managing this, by requiring each conference to have it's own athletic program guidelines.

The case that the athletics should be managed separate from the academics is growing stronger. Students should still be required to meet their academic criteria, but otherwise let the ADs run that show. If the professors don't want the ADs telling them how to do their job, don't let the professors tell the ADs how to do theirs.

look at my enrollment figures why don't these schools apply for division 1 and see how much profit they can make.

_________________
The Bear may be dead but he still hates Tennessee. Roll Damn Tide

This is well stated!
Enrollments standards usually work better for football where there are more sheer numbers involved, but they fail miserably in basketball.

In the late 80's (or early 90's?) out in California, the state high school basketball championship for Division I was a school out of Alameda called St. Josephs. Their enrollment qualifed them for Division V. They chose to play D-I. Their point guard was Jason Kidd. Perhaps you've heard of him?

Currently the California HS state football champion for D-I also has a lower than average D-I enrollment. Their name is De La Salle HS in Concord. Perhaps you've heard of them? They haven't lost a football game in over 10 years.
They've also been the "mythical" #1 in U.S.A. football for a number of years.

Enrollment has very little to do with competition. It's about recruiting, support, and committment to the athletics program.

Limiting participation at a given level based on enrollment has no merit at the college level. 8-)

thanks daddywags and gunnerfan for clearing this up because i could not figure why a school with 15,000 students didn't go to d-1. Now i know thanks again guys.

_________________
The Bear may be dead but he still hates Tennessee. Roll Damn Tide