16 vs 18

[Dann]

16 is always the "goal" it seems when talking expansion. why? well i don't mean why more i mean vs 18? 16 gets you 2 divisions, more product more $$ etc. but 18 does that also. but with 18 you can play 2 divisions that work better regional wise and that gets you 8 divison games and a 1 rival/crossover game. in bball that gets you the max product in a round robin with that 1 rival/cross over game. how come the answer isn't 18? with the bcs looking to make major changes 18 seems more of the answer.

 

[metsfan2323]

Its like 7 minute abs.

 

[HuskyHawk]

If the BCS is making changes, or a playoff if coming, 10 or 12 is the answer.

 

[Adios]

If the BCS is making changes, or a playoff if coming, 10 or 12 is the answer.

If that was the case, the SEC would have stayed at 12. 18 schools allows for 2 9-team divisions where the 9 teams play each other in football every season (along with 1 or 2 cross-division games) and then a conference championship between the two divisions. That's what would make a playoff easier to accomplish. 4 18-team conferences and 3 playoff games: two semi-finals and a final. 72 teams in play, altogether. I believe about 45 teams (117 FBS schools right now?) would get left out of the 4 super-conferences and there's definitely plenty of schools that have no hope of ever winning a national title in football any time soon. The MAC, the Sun Belt Conference, etc. If we went to 5 16-team conferences, there would be 80 schools in play for a national title. Also would allow for easier cross-division scheduling and more OOC games.

 

[RS9999X]

12 is the new model.

If you look at the PAC-12/ BiG arrangement they decided that the expansion answer is a tighter alliance with premium teams. The PAC-12 affirmed a 9-game conference schedule, and 1-game BiG challenge and is looking to make it 2 games with the BiG. This is in all sports BTW including Olympic sports and Basketball.

Scott is pushing for the BiG and PAC to play a series of China games together, the Rose Bowl of course, and to bid out other premium matchups to neutral sites--both post-Season Bowls and more importantly regular season games.

The vision is to own their own basketall tournaments instead of going to Maui or wherever in Basketall and to bid neutral court/field rights for premium regular season matchups in Football.

It builds both Brands and establishes then PAC/BiG as the premium media product. The media networks do not overlap geographically and complement each other in time zones.

The model is so powerful it demands an SEC response by forcing the B12 to rethink their Texas-first 10-team model. China can't wait to see a TCU-Ole Miss matchup.

 

[Orac]

I wouldn't be surprised if the new way to exclude "outsiders" is by cutting down on OOC games by the BCS conferences. If the B1G and the PAC12 plan to play 8 conference games (5 vs division, 3 vs other) and then 2 vs the other conference, this leaves 2 games on their schedules. How many of these will be "cupcake" games, and how many will actually be there for exciting matchups?

If 10 conference games becomes the norm (and with the B1G and PAC12, it would include those 2 inter-conference games due to their alliance), then I actually see 14 teams being a logical number for the ACC and SEC to stay at. 2 divisions of 7 teams each, play each division opponent for 6 games, have 1 permanent cross over, and then alternate between the other 6. You still get to play everyone in your conference in a 2 year period, so the term "conference" has some meaning.

Hopefully when the music finally stops, UConn has a chair...

 

[RS9999X]

That's what Scott is proposing. The PAC will have 9 conference games and 1 BiG game and he wants 2 BiG games. That leaves 1 game for prime time rivalries Utah v. BYU or USC v ND or UCLA v. Air Force, etc.

The rest of the BCS can go screw themselves.

I like Larry Scott.

 

[Adios]

I am sure the SEC is going to kick out two schools to go back to 12 now...

 

[RS9999X]

I am sure the SEC is going to kick out two schools to go back to 12 now...

They should. Vandy and Miss State.

Things will move slowly.

Look at the position Texas is in. They are in Face-saving mode.

It was proposed they add WVU and Pitt before they lost Missouri and Texas A&M to get to 12 teams. Instead they screwed around with the PAC-12, Notre Dame, BYU and the Longhorn Network and finally went on tilt and added TCU after the ACC took Pitt. If they add Cincy and Louisville to go with TCU that means they lost Missouri, Texas A&M, and Pitt to get Cincy, LU, and TCU.

Talk about looking dumb and cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

I expect the B12 to move slowly. They screwed up.

 

[IMind]

To answer the OP's question. It's about dollars per school. If you aren't adding enough value to at least keep the amount of money per school the same then you shouldn't expand. Eighteen schools is an awful lot of mouths to feed... no matter how big the pie.

It almost seems like the B1G pulled a fast one on everyone by talking huge expansion then just taking Nebraska. Texas and Oklahoma missed the boat by not jumping on the first wave of PAC-12 expansion... because it looks like things have stabilized there too. If you mean the Big 12 screwed up because Texas and Oklahoma didn't kill the conference outright... then yes.. that's probably a huge screw up by Oklahoma and Texas. The Big 12 is STILL the most dysfunctional conference. They make the Big East look good by comparison. Their saving grace is Oklahoma and Texas are huge commodities... It's what puzzles me about the West Virginia move to the Big 12. I guess they're going for the short term payout with the hopes of aligning themselves with OK and TX in the future...

I just wish the PAC-12 had gone to 16... and the Big 12 died. It would have made UConn's position much stronger...

 

[Adios]

They should. Vandy and Miss State.

Things will move slowly.

Look at the position Texas is in. They are in Face-saving mode.

It was proposed they add WVU and Pitt before they lost Missouri and Texas A&M to get to 12 teams. Instead they screwed around with the PAC-12, Notre Dame, BYU and the Longhorn Network and finally went on tilt and added TCU after the ACC took Pitt. If they add Cincy and Louisville to go with TCU that means they lost Missouri, Texas A&M, and Pitt to get Cincy, LU, and TCU.

Talk about looking dumb and cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

I expect the B12 to move slowly. They screwed up.

Then we might as well forget the ACC...

 

[IMind]

It still all comes back to: Is 16 the end game? Is ESPN pushing the "super conference" model. If 16 team conferences are still inevitable then UConn will be in one. In my mind the worst case scenario for us is the one that's playing out where we're sort of stranded with the schools with big time football programs that don't really have a history... which isn't THAT bad... I'd just rather have some regional programs to play vs. schlepping all over the place.

It seriously is ironic that UConn could be left in the Big East football conference while having no other northeast teams... That just sucks.

Alll that being said... everyone is STILL just waiting for Texas and Notre Dame to make some sort of serious move.

 

[Dann]

so if the $$ is good enough then 18 could happen. hmm how can i make the acc die in this 1

pac+tex/tt/ok/okst
sec+ncst/vt/wvu/kan
big+uva/unc/md/ruty/uconn/nd

 

[Silk City]

The Big 12 is STILL the most dysfunctional conference. They make the Big East look good by comparison. Their saving grace is Oklahoma and Texas are huge commodities... It's what puzzles me about the West Virginia move to the Big 12. I guess they're going for the short term payout with the hopes of aligning themselves with OK and TX in the future...

How do you say that? The Big 12, even in its current state, has some of the most marketable and traditional programs in the country. They are predominantly state schools and have alumni and fan bases as sizable as any in the country. The Big 12 could pluck pretty much any Big East school away if they felt like it (as we saw with WVU and may see with Louisville or Cinci). They are also centralized geographically and can pretty easily appeal to most of the country. Plus they're not dealing with basketball only members.

I'm sorry but the Big East is the gold standard of conference chaos right now.

 

[IMind]

How do you say that? The Big 12, even in its current state, has some of the most marketable and traditional programs in the country. They are predominantly state schools and have alumni and fan bases as sizable as any in the country. The Big 12 could pluck pretty much any Big East school away if they felt like it (as we saw with WVU and may see with Louisville or Cinci). They are also centralized geographically and can pretty easily appeal to most of the country. Plus they're not dealing with basketball only members.

I'm sorry but the Big East is the gold standard of conference chaos right now.

And the Big 12 could be gone tomorrow. They've shed more schools than Big East in this round of expansion. They have an inherent stability problem due to the over-sized ego of Texas and the income disparity. Outside of Texas and Oklahoma they have zero national brands... unless you think Kansas or Texas Tech are national football brands. How great will it be to be in the Big 12 if Texas and Oklahoma decide to leave for the PAC-12? You really think playing Iowa State, Baylor, and Oklahoma State are gonna make up for it? At the very least they're just as unstable as the Big East.