Is the glass half full or half empty? Depends on your paradigm

Same is true in college football. We seem to think the parts (conferences and universities) have to work in fitting together to create (and satisfy) the whole.

We spend less time thinking about what the whole has to do to fit the parts.

Sounds convoluted? Let me clarify. All this talk of conferences needing to expand to 12 (or 14) teams, the need for Notre Dame to join a conference, etc. doesn't take into consideration that the whole of college football could be hurt the parts feel too required to fit some sort of a national profile.

The Big Ten and Pac Ten were happy for years playing in the Rose Bowl as their "championship" without being part of the BCS. Who is to say that that couldn't occur in the future if needless pressure was put on them to expand?

And, if such a scenerio occurred, what would it do to the meaning of a national championship game? Lest we forget, the BCS needs representation from across the country to keep it viable. It needs the conferences as much as the conferences need it.

Nice intentions here, bgdz. It could be said this is another argument for the BCS as at least a minimally disruptive solution to the national championship hoopla. (BCS formula, excluded, of course.) But, if I'm reading you right, the schools and pundits must be careful not to bite the hand that feeds them. College football has succeeded to great ends, and it would be foolish to upset that success.

After the formula flaws, the biggest BCS issue is disrupting the bowl-conference alignments. I'm a traditionalist when it comes to bowls and know that the way conference members can dream about going to Pasadena, New Orleans, etc, is good for the game. It builds conference pride, rivalries and regionalism. Schools may not be thrilled with going to Boise in December, but we'll be d**ned if we want some other conference to whip up on one of our own!

I say the glass if half full, though the direction taken in response to the realignment issues could alter that. However, we may be righting some wrongs and strengthening the cause for football pride and success. Look for school records in attendance at many places (UVA, NCS), and more and more people appreciating the gameday experience.

Hmm, if I catch the drift of this, its all about the big conferences, particularly Big10/Pac 10 singing Tevya's song, "Tradition, tradition, tradition, tradition." That was the gist coming out of the famous BCS newsconference as well, and some recent news that RoseBowl/Pac10/Big10 might be willing to expend some muscle to restore this heritage come what may.

Yet Pac10/Big10 were sort of forced into the BCS scheme because it looked like their teams were forever going to be excluded from championship consideration. The intriguing out of course is that they can achieve both at the same time by the following:

1) Opt for a post-four-big-bowls playoff game. Many of the commissioners have been providing hints in this regard, and
2) Allowingthe four-big-bowls to revert to traditional matchups, which idea I developed in a thread elsewhere, but didn't get many takers on scenarios--yet the commissioners are hinting at this folks...

I personally think its all headed in this direction, and think the BCS conferences will not give up their own "power ideas". I particularly think the Big10/Pac10 at heart think they have better standards, overall ideals, academics, tradition, academic consortiae, etc., than the other conferences, and rightly or wrongly, whatever you may think, they will be a potent force to negotiate with. Their pact with the RoseBowl and ABC is STILL independent of other BCS contracts...

Growing beyond 12 is not feasible, regardless of how much its advocated on any thread. Plain financial reality is the arbiter here. Easier to split the pie (even championship game) 12 ways rather than 14. AND IF PERMISSION TO PLAY CHAMPIONSHIP WITH ONLY 10 IS GRANTED BY NCAA, YOU WILL SEE A TREND TO DOWNSIZE CONFERENCES TO THIS MAGIC NUMBER. Simply more money in it.

And mark my words and this bold prediction, even SEC and BigXII will not be immune... The time horizon on this is not one-two years, but rather five-ten. If the 10-team championship game rule were in effect as we speak, you can bet your bottom dollar the BIGXII presidents would at this moment be trying to oust Baylor.

And, of course, as we all know, there are things more powerfull than "tradition", namely $$$, and as Tevya learns, his "traditional" life is as fragile as a "fiddler on the roof"...

:D

And, of course, as we all know, there are things more powerfull than "tradition", namely $$$, and as Tevya learns, his "traditional" life is as fragile as a "fiddler on the roof"...

*******

Love the Fiddler anology, Javaman.

So, how do we get Notre Dame make nice-nice and join the Big Ten (Matchmaker, Matchmaker)?

How do you tell the story of the Big East's rise and ACC induced fall (Sunrise, Sunset)?

Nice one, bgdz,

By the way, I've always speculated on your acronymic name. Is it by any chance the acronym for "bigdozen?"

;D

After the formula flaws, the biggest BCS issue is disrupting the bowl-conference alignments. I'm a traditionalist when it comes to bowls and know that the way conference members can dream about going to Pasadena, New Orleans, etc, is good for the game. It builds conference pride, rivalries and regionalism. Schools may not be thrilled with going to Boise in December, but we'll be d**ned if we want some other conference to whip up on one of our own!

*******

As Javaman's college football traditionalist, GunnerFan, I agree with you. I'd love to see a nat'l championship tournament with the Big Ten and Pac Ten champs in Pasadena on New Years Day, the SEC champ in the Sugar Bowl, and the Big 12 in Miami (as successor to the Big Eight). As for the minor bowls: keep playing 'em. There are so many schools in 1-A and they all want (and deserve) exposure. Nothing wrong with spreading the pot, I say.

Javaman, nothing gets past you....Bgdz is for Big Dozen. I figure the Big Ten will go up to 12 at some point and think that should be the name (even if there is already a Big 12.) Now, Rumplestilskin, the supreme test, the test that will test your mettle: what's my soc. sec. # ????

bgdz I like The Twelve formely known as the Big 10. Anyway the NCAA will vote against 10 Tean championship game you have to have 12 plain and simple.

Lets say they do vote 10 team championship who does the ACC get rid?

Who does the SEC get rid of?

Who does the Big 12 get rid of? Baylor and ?

What about the Big 10? Northwestern?

The way I see it the vote yes on 10 team championship we will see alot not alittle alot of realignment.

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

The way I see it the vote yes on 10 team championship we will see alot not alittle alot of realignment.

********

I'll go with my original point. If a demand is made for conference size, you will see mass abandonment of the BCS. Certainly from the Big Ten.

Javaman, ever heard of a song called "Read your mind"?
It talks about thinking out of the box, which is something the traditionalist absolutely, positively hates to do!!! Traditionalists would rather jump out of ten story windows (ala' the great stockmarket crash of 1936), than think out of the box, IMO. Clearly, two things are needed:
1. a semi-return to traditional BCS bowl matchups. Allow me to explain. Let's say the Sugar Bowl is hosting the BCS title game this year, and let's say that neither the Big Ten champ or the Pac 10 champ will be playing in it. In that case, those teams would play in the Rose Bowl. The problem comes in when you have the Big Ten champ in the BCS title game like last year, the the Pac 10 champ in the BCS title game, or the Rose Bowl hosting the BCS title game. I don't think the Rose Bowl will want to cut their nose to spite their face (i.e. no revenue from a BCS title game), so I can see them staying in the BCS, but they will force some changes to be made in the system. At the same time, I look for the idea of 10 team conferences having title games to die an ugly death in a NCAA subcommittee somewhere. Therefore, there will definitely not be a return to more "traditional" sized conferences, and pressure will be put on the ACC, the Big Ten, and the Pac 10 to expand again. This will completely wreck the Big East as a football conference, but to be honest, the Big East was shaky to start with. You have too many programs wanting to bail on the league for a different conference. WVU wants the SEC. Pittsburgh wants the Big Ten. BC & Syracuse coveted the ACC at one time, and might still jump if given the choice. This does not lead to conference stability but rather conference instability, and unstable conferences are prime targets for solid, expanding conferences. There is very little difference between the Big East and the WAC, IMO, with the exception that the Big East is currently in the BCS and has a better tv deal than the WAC. That's the only two differences I see.
I also expect the Mountain West to gain some members and lose some members.

2. an additional BCS bowl added for non-BCS conferences worthy of competing for BCS bowls. This probably won't help the Sunbelt, the WAC, or the MAC much, but it will help CUSA and the MWC, and maybe some BE leftovers.

Javaman, kudos on calling out "Big Dozen." And if you guess his SSN, then may I invite you down to my house for a review of upcoming lottery drawings?!!!

And as for you and bgdz carrying the "Fiddler" theme, again kudos! This must be the only board capable of such cultural and witty references, I'm proud to say. Although, bgdz, I was waiting for more on the ACC courting of the BE three: Needing to find matches for the others (BC, Cuse, VT) in order to have the one truly coveted (Miami)! That may be closer to Shalala/Taming of the Shrew territory, but I digress.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

DnDFan2 hit one point on the head regarding the prospects of having a championship tilt within the bowls, which is the case for the defense for the BCS: There should be an out for bowl/conference tie-ins in order to support a potential national championship match-up. Especially now that the BCS bowls are all tied into one nice, neat little package to allow this arrangement, not even the Big 10 and Pac 10 would like to lose that possibility, or the money that comes with it. Having two undefeated schools after the bowls makes the post-bowl match-up easy. It's addressing three or four schools with best records that makes it tough. Suppose UGA and FSU were to meet as undefeated schools in the Sugar Bowl, and Oklahoma was undefeated as well. Would the Rose Bowl be willing to give up an undefeated Ohio State s it could play OU and ensure a championship game later? Would it be more amenable to this if it were always guaranteed a Pac 10-Big 10 match-up as best as possible. (Big 10 #2 gets the nod, but the payday is muted)

And while you may be right about some conferences downsizing, I think those moves might not occur or would certainly be much more complex.
- Just as there are penalties for schools wishing to leave, schools may be justified in filing suit if they forced out of a wealthy scenario just for money. Baylor may have reason for exclusion, but surely the SEC wouldn't dismiss an Alabama for infractions as a means to thin their herd?! And we know Vandy won't be cheating anytime soon!
- The Big 12 and SEC are not the widespread WAC or BE. They're stable, like the markets they're covering and are two of the wealthiest conferences going.
- The Big 10 is on record opposing a championship game, anyway. No need for them to downsize to make the number of members more efficient.
- In the ACC, I can see Duke dropping football in return for a modest stipend from the football revenue. But, in relation to the above, I can also rationalize them working out a deal with the Big 10 to acommodate a PSU move and developing a larger research consortium. (Then again, I can dream most anything weird thing...)

Some conferences may indeed shrink back from 12, but I think it will only happen as member schools volunteer to do so by finding another suitable home. Then again, we're basically asking the Big 12, SEC and ACC to help create a new conference that could end up being their rival.

Have I just talked myself into a circle?

Agreed the Big 10 will let one team go more than liekly Penn St. if they join Maryland in Great East we are talking a major conference.

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

Javaman, ever heard of a song called "Read your mind"?
It talks about thinking out of the box, which is something the traditionalist absolutely, positively hates to do!!! Traditionalists would rather jump out of ten story windows (ala' the great stockmarket crash of 1936), than think out of the box, IMO. Clearly, two things are needed:
1. a semi-return to traditional BCS bowl matchups. Allow me to explain. Let's say the Sugar Bowl is hosting the BCS title game this year, and let's say that neither the Big Ten champ or the Pac 10 champ will be playing in it. In that case, those teams would play in the Rose Bowl. The problem comes in when you have the Big Ten champ in the BCS title game like last year, the the Pac 10 champ in the BCS title game, or the Rose Bowl hosting the BCS title game. I don't think the Rose Bowl will want to cut their nose to spite their face (i.e. no revenue from a BCS title game), so I can see them staying in the BCS, but they will force some changes to be made in the system. At the same time, I look for the idea of 10 team conferences having title games to die an ugly death in a NCAA subcommittee somewhere. Therefore, there will definitely not be a return to more "traditional" sized conferences, and pressure will be put on the ACC, the Big Ten, and the Pac 10 to expand again. This will completely wreck the Big East as a football conference, but to be honest, the Big East was shaky to start with. You have too many programs wanting to bail on the league for a different conference. WVU wants the SEC. Pittsburgh wants the Big Ten. BC & Syracuse coveted the ACC at one time, and might still jump if given the choice. This does not lead to conference stability but rather conference instability, and unstable conferences are prime targets for solid, expanding conferences. There is very little difference between the Big East and the WAC, IMO, with the exception that the Big East is currently in the BCS and has a better tv deal than the WAC. That's the only two differences I see.
I also expect the Mountain West to gain some members and lose some members.


dnd2 I agree with you 110 percent I see the NCAA telling the ACC no go find another member. As PAC yes they will expand as for the Big 10 its going to be hard to sell them on it. The Big 10 and there darn tradition.

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

Interesting that the sense I get from reading some of the opinions on the ACC 10-team championship petition is that about half of you think it won't pass...

Lets think about in whose interest it is to pass:

ACC, definitely
BE, or future BE, definitely (more chance of ND joining)
PAC10, definitely
Big10, doesn't care, but always kind to PAC10 interests
C-USA, definitely
MWC, definitely
WAC, definitely

BIGXII/SEC. no way, do like we did, get 12 teams
MAC, no way, but do we have influence?

Now what is the political structure of the NCAA and its committees-- broadly representational of the entire conference membership structure. I think the votes are there to pass the ACC petition, with only SEC/BigXII voting against it. I even think the MAC people might possibly vote for it, because it is to their financial advantage to have a smaller conference to split revenue with.

Guys, the ACC petition is a belated confession and acknowledgement by the ACC that their "12-team thinking" may have been wrong, and a realization on their part that probably a lot of other conferences feel the same way, that the BigXII/SEC model, while perhaps ok for them, is not necessarily the way other conferences prefer to think, and there is more money in it besides.

Of course, just my two cents worth (smiling)

:D

He who has alot of money controls the NCAA. Beleive it or not The SEC and Big 12 combine control at least half of the NCAA. The other half is divided between the rest. Mostly Notre Dame.

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