The Bishin Cutter wrote:
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
I really don't get it. Why most conferences that have 12 teams are getting greedy with having like over 14 teams as a minimum? Like having 12 as the maximum is NOT good enough? No wonder this decade's conference realignment is washed up. And because of that, the WAC no longer will sponsor football, and the Big 12 couldn't find any worthy pair to have 12 of their own yet.
In football, the rotation is already pretty much ruined after 10. Even at 12, if a conference is divided, a good rivalry is jeopardized, so if it's protected, some teams are seen more than others. Of course, if all parties are willing, 11+ can be fine, but once the cord is severed, why not expand and bloat?
I'm not much of a Big XII fan, but what I do admire about their sticking to ten is that it at least appears that they value playing each other every season. Once the Big 8 and sWc "merged," it set things adrift, and suddenly schools who had each other as a commonality didn't even have that. So, Colorado saw its place on a map, and Nebraska realized it wasn't as far from the Big Ten it thought it was.
I don't believe Texas and Oklahoma pose the greatest flight risk. I think it's Kansas. The value of KC is a big one, and if expansion does happen, it puts the eyes back into Texas (Dallas). And in those "best case scenarios" where the Big XII gets its Florida State and other ACC school, I think KC gets the boot. And that will pretty much end the "pax" between them and the conference.
They should pick any other Southeast school BUT Florida State! The Noles will always be ACC-bound! I believe that it could had been Houston (won't happen because the Cougars will be in the fb-old Big East) or Rice or UTEP to join and prove something, just like TCU has done this season after leaving the WAC, C-USA and the MW within the past decade and a half; just for the sake of bringing old sWC conference rivalries. And having West Virginia is like "hurting" the Big XII because it's not anywhere deeply South (except that they're in the South Atlantic/Appalachia area). West Virginia should have joined the ACC.
That's the "rock and a hard place" thing, then. Because schools like Tulane, Rice, or Air Force meet the academic standards and general contentment with the conference that the Big XII would want in a prospective member, but they offer nothing in terms of athletics or feel awkward in the space. You could shove the schools into the conference, divide the divisions into something other than "Texas and Oklahoma vs. all" and maybe keep the northern schools happy and a bit more "giving" geographically.
Doing business with FSU, Miami, or even BYU is going to mean some pretty divisive demands that will not favor the northern members.
Both of you are making some good points.
To get specific on schools, agree with you Ncaa--a, I don't think FSU is going anywhere.
With this GoR in the B12, could Kansas really leave before it expires? I don't know the fine print or who shall test it, but doubt it would be Kansas unless the B10 is willing to carry UK through it.
There's growing rumblings that WVU is getting more uncomfortable within the B12. Geography does matter. Aside from all this academic charade, WVU belongs in the ACC. That should have been an ACC priority over taking ND for limited fb games-plus.
As to the SEC, they are not currently in the mood to further expand. They are seeing what size does to scheduling & frequent rivalries. However, they would be receptive to hear from a couple of "aces" (UF Pres.) if a major conference breaks, and the B10 goes adding again and so forth.
I agree about 10, that's a good number if a CCG is not sought. But with the playoff picture coming, and the financial impact, the B12 may decide to relent on the issue.
I'd like to see the B1G and the SEC take a break on expansion. But within five years from now, I expect both may have 16 members. Hope not, but it could be more with the way re-alignment may go.
Some point to the B12 having Texas and Oklahoma as the attraction to join. That's certainly true, but it is largely limited to schools seeking to move "upward" in conference affiliation, and are receptive to the B12's structure and domain.
If the B12 is hoping on the ACC to break apart, that could be a very long while. Even if the ACC lost another school or two, that may not mean a bunch will then head to the B12. It depends on "who" would leave and when.
I have had issues with the ACC for years. It's been too politically and operationally controlled in North Carolina. Some of their expansion choices could have been better. However, it's awesome conference bb; and they do have a few schools strong in fb. I don't see a need to dismantle their east coast (north to south) footprint, depicting that it is not worthy, and their more desirable schools need to go elsewhere. Even if there are 4 superconferences for the playoffs, major bowls, etc., and each is at 12 to 16, there would still be an appreciable number of quality schools left out due to geography and influence.
The four super conferences advocates may want to assure each gets a fb playoff spot. The SEC may not be totally keen on this, because as is, they could often land multiple placements in the playoffs. The motive is also to further limit access to grand bowls, contain full power over revenue, and enhance their respective developing networks; but such shall have much frustration in trying to reach, and proven to be too exclusionary. Colleges and Universities do have changes among them over time; and to lock-in structures that narrow flexibility shall keep such unsettled. That noted, conferences are just one party to controlling all this, so the thinking is 'it's better to be an included school', than on the oustside looking and begging to get in'.