BCS leagues expanding - yeah?

Say goodnight, slappy.

 

I like the rumour in the ESPN story about the "Pac-16" wanting two BCS bids. That would pretty much force the other conferences to go to 16 if that were true.

 

Which is why I don't get people saying that if the Big Ten raided the Big East, it would force Notre Dame's hand.

Really?

Even if the Big East lost all eight football members to the Big Ten, ACC or SEC, the Big East would still have EIGHT schools for the non-revenue sports.

There's at least eight reasons why ND can refuse the Big Ten's advances, unless the Big Ten lets ND run that conference like Texas runs/ran the Big 12.

 

Looks like that Texas arrogance is already in full bloom in a new home.

 

It's not that the Pac-10 wants two mandatory bids, the rumor is that even though they have enough for a championship game, they wouldn't stage one so the division winners could theoretically go undefeated and then meet in the national title game.

 

Does that mean if the division winners theoretically go 9-3, they would forgo their BCS bid(s), which would then be redistributed to other conferences?

 

I don't think so. I would assume there would be a tie-breaker of sorts to determine which one team would get the Pac-10 berth.

 

An ESPN piece said two automatic PAC 16 bids. They wouldn't want to give one up if they couldn't meet in a national title game. Having two teams from the same conference play in the title game is meaningless in these discussions. It's all about BCS cash. So if this rumor is true, the other BCS conferences still around would probably go to 16 as well.

 

If that's the case then you'll end up with four power conference leagues of 16, split 8 and 8 with the winners getting auto bids.

 

What a lot of people are going to learn if this ever comes about is what it feels like to be a sub-.500 program. For every game, there is a loser as well as a winner and someone has to be the Baylor/Northwestern/Vanderbilt of whatever conference.

As for TV stuff, why on earth would, say, Texas A&M vs. Oregon State be any more interesting than Texas A&M vs. Iowa State?

I see far more negatives to all of this than positives for most of the parties involved.

 

Virginia Tech to the SEC would be good, but they are a package deal with UVA from what I hear. When the ACC expanded to take it Va Tech it was almost under pressure for the Virginia politicians. They told UVA to get Tech in or they had to leave.
Don't know if any of that is true, but I read it somewhere. (maybe here ... can't remember).

 

What good is a conference if it's so darn big that several teams don't even play one another during the course of a season?

I'm not at all convinced that bigger conferences equal more TV dollars, either. You are still only going to show X number of games per window anyway. If the Pac-10 goes to 16 teams, does that necessarily mean ABC will have two Pac-10 games of the week (Texas vs. Arizona AND Washington vs. Colorado)? I'm skeptical.