well, fbg, the SEC/BigXII only control one third of the BCS consortium votes, let alone the broader ACC Division IA votes, perhaps only 1/5 of these votes...

So where are all those pro-12 team championship game votes going to come from?
???

btw, notre dame's lone single vote, if it comes to full NCAA DivIA voting will be against also... they don't want conferences to grow to 12 either.

Javaman, while I also think the vote concerning the "12 to 10" is only 50-50, I've read the alignments for that issue quite differently. 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.

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.
- 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 agree with your assumption that this action by the ACC is related to the outcome of their expansion process, but less from the perceived folly of having 12 members and more a matter of which members they're taking in. ie, An issue of quality versus quantity. Since there is no easy candidate available and willing that would also contribute to the coffers, this motion is the next alternative. Even if it passes, I can see the ACC accepting a 12th if it was a PSU or Kentucky...

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...



am not sure 1-AA folks will get to vote...just I-A, but will try to check into this later...



Amen



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...
:D

In reference to the Pac 10, I beg to differ. Believe it or not, giving the Pac 10 a championship game right now would be a big mistake. I can see the Pac 10 going for the idea if it had OSU-Iowa problems like the Big Ten, but they don't. What you're more likely to see is a potential Pac 10 champ like USC paired up against someone who really has no business in competing for the conference like Washington State. Big $$'s could be lost if WSU beats USC in a title game. Ditto for the BE. Why should ND have to potentially play a team it already played before for the conference title? Again, this could be a major loss of revenue if ND goes down.
I could see the WAC going for this, not sure on the MWC.

My thinking grows from the perspective of conferences assuming they're the next in line for #6. I agree that the MWC will vote for "10," feeling they could then add Fresno and Boise St and easily be the 6th best conference out there, unless... a revamped CUSA or BE reaches 12 members with enough pedigree to keep the MWC at bay. In that case, assuming the MWC could get the schools they want, and they think they can, an additional 2 more schools would prove a financial wash given they could hold a championship game, which, if the requirement stays at 12, fewer conferences could do and there might likely be one less conference left standing.

This is the role of power and stability in all this conference "raiding", whereby schools may be trading some additional shares of revenue in return for healthier conferences over the long run. This is also why I see some conferences playing thier hand based upon their ability to not only take advantage of the rule but also to impact the other conferences they're competing with. I don't know for sure that a championship game for the WAC as it is now would provide riches or BCS credibility, compared to the prospects of 2 more credible schools and added markets if they feel they can get the schools they want.

Keeping a minimum of 12 teams for a title game has merit. The rationale was that with eight conference games and two divisions, the two best teams may not have played each other during the regular season or one team at or near the top had a somewhat different set of opponents to reach the chapionship level/game.
Despite the Iowa-Ohio State oddity last year, in a ten team conference with eight conference games per team, chances are high the two best will have met during the regular season.
Having a championship game in a ten team conference could be troubling---could you imagine a UCLA-USC game or a Michigan-Ohio State game being repeated one or two weeks later? I doubt they winners or the conferences involved would want that.
I see the 10/11 championship proposal an ACC ploy (though understandable), and also a new BE lure in that, if it involved Notre Dame with a partial conference role, it saves/enhances their status.
In a way, the ACC may secretly wish their own playoff proposal gets defeated. Then, they could add ammunition to convince some of the more conservative conference members to further expand and reach twelve. Then, they could use the money/playoff matter to justify another "raid".
I would not be surprised to see the 10/11 playoff proposal defeated or tabled.

javaman I know that but usually presidents vote the SEC/Big 12 way anyway if they say no to 10 team championship. Which they will to stick it to the ACC for what they did. IMO Big 12, SEC, MAC, PAC 10, Big 10 and Notre Dame will vote no on this issue ACC, CUSA, MWC and Sunbelt will vote yes IMHO.

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

This is an interesting line of reasoning that has some merit, considering everything that has gone on, in other words a face-saving gesture to validate any further action whatever ("we've done the good thing first"). Trouble is it may backfire on them. Aren't politics interesting?

Hasn't it dawned on eveyone though that all twelve-team scenarios, including all those proposed here, in the new ACC reality, have a fatal flaw: with the exception of NotreDame to Big10, there is simply no good twelfh team available to any "below-twelve" conference, especially ACC, without hurting another conference. For some (BE) there is going to be trouble enough getting to 10. How is this going to influence votes? No-one wants to see their conference raided. Only Big10/Pac10 are confident their conferences won't get raided. BigXII or SEC can both be raided by very potent Big10 or now-potent ACC, since the potential ACC payout will likely exceed SEC in the future.

Our good NCState friend foxy MarieAnne really screwed things up royally for all you twelve-team fans. Her vote/action not only empowered NotreDame to become the arbiter of BE future, it changed the pattern of twelve-team certainty to twelve-team uncertainty, and the ACC petition was the first confirming signal that the stone was beginning to be pushed the other way, or at least there was doubt in which direction it might roll in the future.

"for want of a nail the shoe was lost, for want of a shoe the horse was lost, etc..."
;)

For all of those who are concerned about playing a team for a second time in a conference play-off, it's about the money. You all make wonderfully compelling arguments, but they are all irrelevant to what the issue is. It's about the money.

This same argument went on for years in basketball. The ACC started the post-season tournament & ACC teams got screwed right & left due to upsets in the tournament, which were especially galling since the were almost always played in North Carolina. Maryland & South Carolina, in particular, had great teams lose in the tournament.

How many conferences do not have post-season basketball tournaments now? The Ivy League. You may say that football is different, & you'd be right. Football is about even more money. ::) ;)

First, it wouldn't happen that way. The divisions would be arranged to provide for the most appealing potential championship game match-ups, and then cross-divisional games would be played earlier so that any re-matches would take place at least several weeks apart. Or at least this can be done this way. The SEC and Big XII save some cross divisional match-ups for later in the season as part of preserving tradtional game dates ("3rd Saturday in October for ___") and perceived big games.

Today at 08:06am; Posted by: javaman


I've chanted this one for a while, and it's why I can see the ACC accepting an Army or Temple for football only (if they need 12 for a title game). It's also one of the reasons many conferences may support the vote to amend the membership needed for such a contest. Unless they feel immune, in which case they may wish to see the other conferences devour each other and thin the herd.



Good luck convincing others with this. My head hurts from my own attempts to sell just the possibility to some!

I have been following the detailed financial reasoning elsewhere also, and am a bit mystified why SEC/BigXII folks don't appreciate this very real possibility. Perhaps I can illustrate with just one possibility. Its been stated by some that Mizzou would never jump to the BigTen. I'll offer several reasons why it would.

1) Presidents make these decisions ultimately. Mizzou aspires to the enhanced academic status of Big10 schools. Only Texas (and perhaps Colorado) match the overall academic excellence of Big10 schools.
2) There are the additional benefits of the academic consortium, detailed elsewhere. BigXII has no parallel consortium.
3) The coaches would probably play in a division with Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, and Northwestern. There certainly would be either OhioState or Michigan, probably the former, but that might still look more appealing than Colorado, Nebraska, etc.
4) StLouis and KansasCity are both Midwestern cities. At the edge of Kansas City starts the great plains, the true geographic home of the BigXII.
5) Columbia is within a couple hours drive of the locations of at least four Big10 schools.

Iowa State would jump even faster, but would not be as attractive to Big10.

The crucial thing to understand is that Big10 is more than just an athletic conference, and since the relationships are as strong in academic interchange as on the athletic fields, the presidents and faculty wield much more influence.
;D

I would contend that if the trend is towards twelve team conferences (with two divisions each), there is also a trend (or push) towards some sort of a play-off. Right?

If so, wouldn't the conference championship game become more of a negative?

• If six major conferences each had one, would the $ be there that is currently so lucratively in place for the two (XXII and SEC) that currently exist? I doubt that.

• 16 may be too big of a number for a play-off. Eight seems more logical. Wouldn't the conferences be shooting themselves in the foot by creating the opportunity for their weaker of the two divisional winners winning the league championship game and then going on to represent the conference with what may well not be its best team?

• Wouldn't a lot of the revenue lost in conference championship games be made up with the $ that would come in with a play-off. For 8 teams, that would be 4 games in round one, two in round two, and and one in round three: 7 very high revenue producing games.

A 12-team, divisonless conference could be used if at least 10 conference games could be scheduled. As I said before, in the case of a tie, I would see the logic of a conference title game (as in OSU-Iowa).

Bgdz, all good points. :)

Regarding the specific point I highlighted, conference championships do not eliminate a league's also-rans from the BCS under the current rules - nor will they from any national play-off, I suspect. Once the 8 teams qualify, the 2 highest BCS rated teams are paired in the national championship game, regardless of whether either of them won their conference. As a result, we had the ridiculous scenario in 2001 in which Nebraska failed to qualify for its league championship game but was placed in the national championship game by the BCS. In a true national play-off, I believe the same situation would occur in regard to seeding, so an upset in a league championship game wopuld not eliminate a top contender from the national play-off.

I read the trend as power conferences favoring the conference title games as an alternative to the playoffs whereby they get more direct control over the money. Think of it as having the playoffs before the bowl games.



Part of my argument with many SEC fans, wherein there seems to be a lack of communication regarding relative values. All the other conferences want their stake in "Championship Saturday;" Instead of just the Big 12 and SEC getting the three hours of hype and commercials, so would the ACC, MWC and others. This may be the only reason the Big 10 and Pac 10 have similar games, so as to avoid being shut-out of a big day in football. Losers in this scenario - Army/ Navy, who currently don't have too many other championship games to compete with on the first Saturday in December.

Mind you, there is a chance this could benefit the SEC/ Big 12, too, if it leads to a bidding war for a package of these games, much like the BCS. Many people expect to see other conferences with their own broadcast deals, a la the SEC. Surely the TV execs will seek to package some of these, such as CBS offering a weekend slate of bakc-to-back ACC and SEC games, including the championship. Less incentive for someone to change the channel, so to speak.

- - - - - - -

Similar vein, but rarely discussed, what about the prospects for bowl realignments? Obviously prospective ACC match-ups will improve in the future, and as other conferences shuffle their line-ups some tie-ins will die and others will grow more lucrative. Perhaps instead of three SEC/Big 10 contests there'll be one more ACC/Big 10 game and one more SEC/MWC game. Thoughts on possible moves here?

This may be the only reason the Big 10 and Pac 10 have similar games, so as to avoid being shut-out of a big day in football.

*************

I have to plead ignorance on what the set-up the various conferences have with the networks, but do you think that the Big Ten and Pac Ten, by virtue of no divisions and thus more excitement at the end of their regular seasons, make up some of the difference by season ending revenue games like Michigan-Ohio St and UCLA-USC that the XXII and SEC can't duplicate????