MSA populations of new BE markets | The Boneyard

MSA populations of new BE markets

Status
Not open for further replies.

RS9999X

There's no Dark Side .....it's all Dark.
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
5,628
Reaction Score
562
MSA populations of new BE markets (17.5 million)

SMU- Dallas MSA. Ranked #4. Population of 6.3 million. 23% growth rate.
Houston- Houston MSA. Ranked #6. Population of 5.94 million. 26% growth rate
SDSU- San Diego MSA. Ranked #17. Population of 3.1 million. 10% growth rate.
UCF- Orlando MSA. Ranked #26. Population of 2.15 million. 30% growth rate

Projected population add during this decade: Another +3 million by 2020 on the low side. (or equal to the entire state of CT's 3.8 million on the high side estimate). 3 million is approximately the size of the outgoing no growth Pitt, SU and WVU MSAs combined.

Notes: Boise MSA will pass Syracuse this decade. Orlando will pass Pitt. Based on population alone WVU is statistically irrelevant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outgoing MSA markets (3.15 million)

Pitt - Pittsburgh MSA. Ranked #22, Population of 2.36 million. -3.1% growth rate
Syracuse - Syracuse MSA. Ranked #80, Population of 663,000. 1.9 % growth rate
WVU - Morgantown MSA. Ranked #297, Population of 130,000. 16% growth rate
Estimated population growth next decade - Flat or a 1% decline.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

RS9999X

There's no Dark Side .....it's all Dark.
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
5,628
Reaction Score
562
It's really an execution thing in the BE. They have the market size to be the premier conference brand in demographic and audience reach. Frankly, that's all Marionette can deliver. If Rutgers or Depaul insists on sucking and loyalty to ineffective ADs or coaches, you can't blame the BE Conference on that score. All Marionette can do is push legislation to disinvest members with years of substandard performance and substandard facility improvement.

The pressure on the ADs to produce winners drove SU, BC, WVU, and Pitt out of the BE.

WVU after Rich Rod? Unimpressive. When you hear Oliver Luck yapping its to deflect the press from WVUs ongoing problems. The new mantra: the BE affiliation hurt recruiting.

SU after Bernie Fine and Greg Robinson? Meh. The BE affiliation hurt recruiting.

Pitt after the coaching fiasco of swapping Wanstadt for a Wife Beater? The BE affiliation hurt recruiting.

BC under Flipper's "We suck but still get an ACC paycheck" and "We will be New England's top club by fielding losers"? Flipper's the new model of AD. Take the money and run. Building a conference is too much work.

Miami? Bwaah Haaah Haaah. Not even worth commenting.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
2,015
Reaction Score
1,753
RS, always enjoy your contributions; you are obviously in the television marketing department! From these numbers, it sounds like demographics is dominating the subject of big east expansion, similar to the original philosophy of the basketbll conference so many years ago. Big East returning to its roots. Makes UCF a no brainer, along with any school in Texas. San Diego is an excellent location for travel. An away game in San Diego is like a trip to Hawaii, only a lot closer. A December game in San Diego would be like a bowl game, golf at Torrey Pines, etc. As football location, it's far enough away from Los Angeles (two hours+ with the traffic) to be its own recruiting territory in a very populous area. San Diego makes sense demographically.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
1,485
Reaction Score
2,587
All well and good, but would you rather be in a conference with Pitt, WVU, Cuse, BC, VT and Miami or with UCF, SMU, Boise, Houston, etc? And outside of Boise, are any of the schools even 1 or 2 in their TV market in terms of ratings? With the exception of Boise, all of the large markets have the same issue as BC, large market and very far behind in the ratings and appeal to the large population base. SMU is behind TX, the Boys and probably aTm. Houston is definitely behind TX, aTm and probably the Texans. You can do the rest.

The BE has a basic issue that has not and will not be addressed because the opportunity to do it passed in 2004, split. Since some schools lacked the balls/foresight to do it after VT and Miami lost, the end result is a hybrid conference that is inherently unstable and now is forced to look 3 and 3 time zones to the west for survival. Every school that wants to join wants the AQ. Every school that is in the BE or joins continues to hope that at some point they will get an offer to join an all sports conference with more stability.

I applaud you trying to put a cherry on top of this poop sundae, but the reality is that those markets don't mean a lot and certainly do nothing for conference stability and longevity. Given the lack of viable options, keep the happy face going.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
2,015
Reaction Score
1,753
All well and good, but would you rather be in a conference with Pitt, WVU, Cuse, BC, VT and Miami or with UCF, SMU, Boise, Houston, etc? And outside of Boise, are any of the schools even 1 or 2 in their TV market in terms of ratings? With the exception of Boise, all of the large markets have the same issue as BC, large market and very far behind in the ratings and appeal to the large population base. SMU is behind TX, the Boys and probably aTm. Houston is definitely behind TX, aTm and probably the Texans. You can do the rest.

The BE has a basic issue that has not and will not be addressed because the opportunity to do it passed in 2004, split. Since some schools lacked the balls/foresight to do it after VT and Miami lost, the end result is a hybrid conference that is inherently unstable and now is forced to look 3 and 3 time zones to the west for survival. Every school that wants to join wants the AQ. Every school that is in the BE or joins continues to hope that at some point they will get an offer to join an all sports conference with more stability.

I applaud you trying to put a cherry on top of this poop sundae, but the reality is that those markets don't mean a lot and certainly do nothing for conference stability and longevity. Given the lack of viable options, keep the happy face going.
Frankly, I do not prefer the ACC over this new conference. These are my reasons. I think Uconn in the ACC would be great for basketball, so I would be OK with it for that reason. As for football, it would be the death spiral for our program. We would forever be mired in lower mediocrity, without any hope of getting out of it. We would be similar to Duke, Maryland, Wake, BC, Syracuse, Virginia. Our "better" years would resemble those of NC State, Pitt, North Carolina, Ga Tech. We would never compete in that conference. If a recruit wants to play in the ACC, and has ACC level talent, why would he pick Uconn over any traditional ACC school? Certainly, the kid will not pick Uconn over Clemson, Miami, VT - three schools that have built in structural advantages over us that we cannot surmount, ever. I don't think in the ACC we have any advantages over the first group of schools I mentioned, but we can at least compete with them for recruits, and hence, resemble them on the field. I don't think that is good long term for the Uconn program.

Teams like BSU, Houston, TCU, BYU - have all managed to excel in the BCS polls, and establish national reputations, because they have worked in the interstices of the major conferences, including the big east. These programs created excitement in their coaching staffs, players, style of play. I would include last year's Nevada in that category. Jim Calhoun did that with a generally moribund basketball program. How did he do that? Most here thought that impossible. Not possible. This new conference, nationwide, fertile recruiting grounds, FL, TX, CA, means a fresh start, a fresh opportunity, and a chance to establish a winning tradition. That's what we need more than anything. We need to be winning.

Uconn in the ACC is BC in the ACC. In very short order. Success will no longer be an urgent priority. Getting into the ACC will, in the short term, mean stability and a better TV conference contract. And we will quit right there. Susan Herbst will move on to other issues. No kid who wants to play ACC football has BC or Uconn as his top choice. Uconn and BC can only offer one thing to an ACC recruit: a scholarship. To be great - we need to keep the pressure on. We need great coaching - which I think we have btw - and we need more under the radar recruits. We need more fishing grounds, like TX, CA, and FL. It's a matter of energy and passion - which the ACC will drain us of completely. Do you really want to play Syracuse for the rest of your life?
 

Fishy

Elite Premium Poster
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
17,958
Reaction Score
129,189
I tried to think of a nice way to put it, but I can't - if you prefer the Big East with the rumored additions to the ACC, you are really too far off the duck*ing wall to contribute to this thread.

It's a duck*ed conference that will be largely irrelevant on and off the field. The populations of the various markets are fine and dandy, but no one in those markets gives a flying duck* about those programs.

People in Dallas are not SMU fans. People in Orlando do not care about UCF.

These programs are also-rans in their home town. They're warm bodies and placeholders and that is all they bring to the Big East. Television won't pay for that conference which will eventually put enough drag on our programs to bring the whole ship to a halt.
 

ConnHuskBask

Shut Em Down!
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
8,936
Reaction Score
32,588
Frankly, I do not prefer the ACC over this new conference. These are my reasons. I think Uconn in the ACC would be great for basketball, so I would be OK with it for that reason. As for football, it would be the death spiral for our program. We would forever be mired in lower mediocrity, without any hope of getting out of it. We would be similar to Duke, Maryland, Wake, BC, Syracuse, Virginia. Our "better" years would resemble those of NC State, Pitt, North Carolina, Ga Tech. We would never compete in that conference. If a recruit wants to play in the ACC, and has ACC level talent, why would he pick Uconn over any traditional ACC school? Certainly, the kid will not pick Uconn over Clemson, Miami, VT - three schools that have built in structural advantages over us that we cannot surmount, ever. I don't think in the ACC we have any advantages over the first group of schools I mentioned, but we can at least compete with them for recruits, and hence, resemble them on the field. I don't think that is good long term for the Uconn program.

Teams like BSU, Houston, TCU, BYU - have all managed to excel in the BCS polls, and establish national reputations, because they have worked in the interstices of the major conferences, including the big east. These programs created excitement in their coaching staffs, players, style of play. I would include last year's Nevada in that category. Jim Calhoun did that with a generally moribund basketball program. How did he do that? Most here thought that impossible. Not possible. This new conference, nationwide, fertile recruiting grounds, FL, TX, CA, means a fresh start, a fresh opportunity, and a chance to establish a winning tradition. That's what we need more than anything. We need to be winning.

Uconn in the ACC is BC in the ACC. In very short order. Success will no longer be an urgent priority. Getting into the ACC will, in the short term, mean stability and a better TV conference contract. And we will quit right there. Susan Herbst will move on to other issues. No kid who wants to play ACC football has BC or Uconn as his top choice. Uconn and BC can only offer one thing to an ACC recruit: a scholarship. To be great - we need to keep the pressure on. We need great coaching - which I think we have btw - and we need more under the radar recruits. We need more fishing grounds, like TX, CA, and FL. It's a matter of energy and passion - which the ACC will drain us of completely. Do you really want to play Syracuse for the rest of your life?

Nominated for the stupidest post in the history of the Boneyard.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
2,015
Reaction Score
1,753
I tried to think of a nice way to put it, but I can't - if you prefer the Big East with the rumored additions to the ACC, you are really too far off the duck*ing wall to contribute to this thread.

It's a duck*ed conference that will be largely irrelevant on and off the field. The populations of the various markets are fine and dandy, but no one in those markets gives a flying duck* about those programs.

People in Dallas are not SMU fans. People in Orlando do not care about UCF.

These programs are also-rans in their home town. They're warm bodies and placeholders and that is all they bring to the Big East. Television won't pay for that conference which will eventually put enough drag on our programs to bring the whole ship to a halt.
OK. don't agree, but ... OK. I can see you're upset. LOL. We'll be fine.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
2,015
Reaction Score
1,753
Nominated for the stupidest post in the history of the Boneyard.
Thank you. I consider that an honor by one exceptionally well-qualified to speak on the subject of stupidity.
 

ConnHuskBask

Shut Em Down!
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
8,936
Reaction Score
32,588
Thank you. I consider that an honor by one exceptionally well-qualified to speak on the subject of stupidity.

Well, when you have to read your posts on the Boneyard everyday you become quite familiar with the subject.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
7,407
Reaction Score
18,916
You really need to lighten up. If you don't like what he said respond to it with your opinion. Your response makes you look like a newbie. When you call a well thought out opinion (key word opinion) the worst you....well...enough said.

You obviously are a BB fan. You must be excited about the current/upcoming season yes?



Well, when you have to read your posts on the Boneyard everyday you become quite familiar with the subject.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
7,302
Reaction Score
23,617
It's a duck*ed conference that will be largely irrelevant on and off the field. The populations of the various markets are fine and dandy, but no one in those markets gives a flying duck* about those programs.

People in Dallas are not SMU fans. People in Orlando do not care about UCF.

quote]

A bit of an exaggeration on your part. If these programs elevate their profile and improve the quality of their teams, fans will follow. Nobody cared about UCONN football 10 years ago. Pitt and Syracuse aren't selling out their home games and Houston and Boise are.
 

RS9999X

There's no Dark Side .....it's all Dark.
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
5,628
Reaction Score
562
A bit of an exaggeration on your part. If these programs elevate their profile and improve the quality of their teams, fans will follow. Nobody cared about UCONN football 10 years ago. Pitt and Syracuse aren't selling out their home games and Houston and Boise are.

Villnova basketball is a good example. They didn't sell out the Campus Pavilion for consecutive seasons until the mid 90s (1995-1997). They commited to the new Wachovia Center for 2 games in 1996 and did well the first year before tailing off to about 13,500 per game in 2003-04 for their 3 games at the big arena. Then Jay Wright built the fans back up to 5 games a season at the Wachovia and 19,500 fans in the 2007-10 era (sell outs). Now they are trying to make 6 games a season work there -- struggled a bit with that last year.

Teams that want to coast and be the middle of the pack will add nothing. Teams that commit to excellence will have a national venue.

The BE can make a niche with these upwardly mobile universities in growing markets that are commited to improving facilities and make a commitment to excellence. Hey, it's all the BE has got in its bag of tricks but it does separate them from the have nots..
 

Fishy

Elite Premium Poster
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
17,958
Reaction Score
129,189
A bit of an exaggeration on your part. If these programs elevate their profile and improve the quality of their teams, fans will follow. Nobody cared about UCONN football 10 years ago. Pitt and Syracuse aren't selling out their home games and Houston and Boise are.

No one cares about UConn football now. We're semi-popular in the state of Connecticut and we were a nice story a couple of times over the past decade, but we're not a draw.

You don't become a name in ten years which is why we're in this spot -- from soup to nuts, assuming lacrosse is not a soup or nut, UConn's athletic department is bigger and more successful than Syracuse in nearly every way. But...they've been a 'name' in football for a hell of a lot longer and therefore they're gone and we're debating dreck like Houston and Boise.

And you take Boise and Houston into your TV contract negotiations and I will take Pitt and Syracuse into mine. You'll starve to death.

I am not arguing that they aren't nice programs and they're certainly successful this year, but they're not going to add any value past the fact that they exist. The conference merely avoids dying completely by adding these programs - which is the point and the only real option.

You're going to be able to watch UConn basketball on Big Monday and then UConn football on Smalltime Tuesday.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
7,302
Reaction Score
23,617
No one cares about UConn football now. quote]

Plenty of people care about UCONN football but the economy is forcing many to watch on their televisions as it is with basketball too. If you are correct that nobody cares, then we are in the league we deserve to be in.
 

Fishy

Elite Premium Poster
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
17,958
Reaction Score
129,189
You have a simpleton's view of this.

The economy, I assume, also affects life in Boise and Houston. If they're selling out, as you state, then the economy is not limiting them. They're also winning - we're not. What may be true is that there is a limit to what people will pay for the marginal product we're putting on the field - the economy no doubt moves that slider in the wrong direction.

Which goes back to my point - we're not at the point where people care enough to show up in droves on any given Saturday. It's not in our DNA yet - we have great, great football fans, we just don't have enough. That will take years. Pitt and Syracuse are not gangbusters, but they've had time to build a name and that's why they get to move on.

And it may never happen if we're left in a conference with the likes of Boise and Houston and San Diego State. Boise will eventually fall back to being just a team in Idaho with a funny blue field, Houston will go back to being the 12th best college team in Texas and the weather at San Diego State will still be 72 degrees and the football program will still be awful.

Which all goes back to my central point - if you think that Franken-Big East is a better place for us than the ACC, you're freaking dim.
 

Chin Diesel

Power of Love
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
32,411
Reaction Score
97,277
Everyone knows we would be adding larger markets than we are losing and everyone on the board agrees the new teams are in markets that are increasing populations and the teams leaving are stagnating or decreasing.

And I'm going out on a limb but I'm guessing DFW, Houston and Orlando have more people with deep pockets than Syracuse, Pitt or Charleston.

The only question is relevancy in those three markets.

UCF is definitely relevant in Orlando. I go there for work about once a month and have family in the area. You can't go any distance at all on I-10, I-75 or I-4 without seeing vehicles with UCF stickers, license plates, etc. And around the area, there is UCF stuff everywhere.

As for SMU and Houston, they are definitely #3 in their markets (maybe 4th). But, to me, that's like saying the Mets are the #3 team in Connecticut amongst MLB fans. Sure, the Mets will forever trail the Yanks and Sox, but they still have a sizeable market share and it's a dedicated, core fan base. I do some travel to Ft Worth and SMU definitely gets play there.
And as has been mentioned, SMU has some old moneyed deep pockets to keep them relevant.

I can't vouch for Houston, but I have a hard time believing they're less followed in Houston than Northwestern is in Chicago or BCU is in Houston.
 

ConnHuskBask

Shut Em Down!
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
8,936
Reaction Score
32,588
You really need to lighten up. If you don't like what he said respond to it with your opinion. Your response makes you look like a newbie. When you call a well thought out opinion (key word opinion) the worst you....well...enough said.

You obviously are a BB fan. You must be excited about the current/upcoming season yes?

Preferring the Big East 2.0 to the ACC isn't an opinion, it's lunacy. I shouldn't even have to defend my saying that without facts, but here goes.

1) Stability
2) Better television contract
3) Better bowl tie-ins
4) Better football
5) Better basketball
6) Better tradition in basketball and football
7) Our rivals are now in the ACC (assuming we go with Rutgers this is even more so the case)
8) Sets our whole athletic department up for long term sustained success
9) Academic prestige. Virginia, UNC, Duke, etc. or Boise State, Houston, UCF, etc.

I like UConn football and basketball equal; but I'm way more concerned with where we end up for football. That's why I think it's
 

RS9999X

There's no Dark Side .....it's all Dark.
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
5,628
Reaction Score
562
Which all goes back to my central point - if you think that Franken-Big East is a better place for us than the ACC, you're freaking dim.

The aggravating circumstances are the ACC fielding a really mediocre set of teams. Smallish fans bases and smallish markets and little TV draw for football outside of the top 4 teams.

There are some scenarios for the BCS that will hurt the ACC as much as the BE. Outside of the BCS game the bowls are the usual breakeven affairs after team reimbursements and 12-way distributions. The 7 participating non-BCS ACC bowl teams average $1.6 mil gross and are generally revenue neutral after all the fuss and bother and 12-team distribution.

The Orange Bowl would be brilliant to contract with a non-ACC team. The best the ACC can muster for their #2 team is an SEC #6 or SEC #7 in the $3.2 million Chick-a-Fil bowl. That will change with the BE top 3 draw leaving. Likely another breakeven bowl and nothing more

A better regional home for the Huskies to be sure.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
1,485
Reaction Score
2,587
The Orange Bowl would be brilliant to contract with a non-ACC team. The best the ACC can muster for their #2 team is an SEC #6 or SEC #7 in the $3.2 million Chick-a-Fil bowl. That will change with the BE top 3 draw leaving. Likely another breakeven bowl and nothing more
What non-ACC conference would you suggest since all but the BE are fully tied in with other bowls? The B1G is not leaving the Rose Bowl, the SEC is not leaving the Sugar, etc. Are you suggesting that some conference gets a second AQ? With the ACC, at least the Orange gets 75% of the teams within one day driving distance. Only the SEC can match that.

On the Chil-fil-a, it is not the definitive #2 ACC team in the bowl. It has had #3 and #4 in recent years and has had SEC #3 in it as well. So why would the payout diminish with the BE additions? The bowl still remains the top non-BCS bowl for the ACC and #3 for the SEC. That will not change. The bowl has sold out for the last 10+ years so I do not see any change happening in the payout.

The only change to bowl structure that will likely be happening is the Champs bowl (ACC -v- BE/ND; looks like ND will be taking that slot this year) or the Belk Bowl (former Meineke Bowl in CHarlotte) if the BE does not get reasonable replacements for the 3 departing schools. Even those chances of change are slim although the loss of WVU and how well they travel is a consideration.
 

HuskyHawk

The triumphant return of the Blues Brothers.
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
31,869
Reaction Score
81,503
The aggravating circumstances are the ACC fielding a really mediocre set of teams. Smallish fans bases and smallish markets and little TV draw for football outside of the top 4 teams.

There are some scenarios for the BCS that will hurt the ACC as much as the BE. Outside of the BCS game the bowls are the usual breakeven affairs after team reimbursements and 12-way distributions. The 7 participating non-BCS ACC bowl teams average $1.6 mil gross and are generally revenue neutral after all the fuss and bother and 12-team distribution.

The Orange Bowl would be brilliant to contract with a non-ACC team. The best the ACC can muster for their #2 team is an SEC #6 or SEC #7 in the $3.2 million Chick-a-Fil bowl. That will change with the BE top 3 draw leaving. Likely another breakeven bowl and nothing more

A better regional home for the Huskies to be sure.

So how is this not a fit? A group of mostly strong academic schools on the eastern seaboard, many of which have good basketball and mediocre football. Soccer is also very strong along with solid baseball. To describe the ACC is to describe UConn. We are a perfect fit. If Notre Dame joins, that northern division is the old BE with ND for football, plus UMD/UVA, VT, with regular hoops against UNC and Duke. What's not to like?

Now some of you may believe that with just the right combination of unwanted institutions from across America, UConn football will be the next Oregon. It's absurd. UConn football, at its best, will be a North Carolina/Georgia Tech level program. Getting to some bowl games, being ranked every so often. Coming from a 1-AA program that wasn't even that strong, I'm happy with that. If we can use basketball tie-ins to bring some big non-conference teams to Storrs, that would help. The ACC provides legitimacy that the NBE will never have. If big time football competition is what you really want, ask yourself this; with bowl eligibility on the line this week, would you rather be facing Cincy or Alabama? I'd say our odd are slim enough as it is.
 

RS9999X

There's no Dark Side .....it's all Dark.
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
5,628
Reaction Score
562
What non-ACC conference would you suggest since all but the BE are fully tied in with other bowls? The B1G is not leaving the Rose Bowl, the SEC is not leaving the Sugar, etc. Are you suggesting that some conference gets a second AQ? With the ACC, at least the Orange gets 75% of the teams within one day driving distance. Only the SEC can match that.

On the Chil-fil-a, it is not the definitive #2 ACC team in the bowl. It has had #3 and #4 in recent years and has had SEC #3 in it as well. So why would the payout diminish with the BE additions? The bowl still remains the top non-BCS bowl for the ACC and #3 for the SEC. That will not change. The bowl has sold out for the last 10+ years so I do not see any change happening in the payout.

The only change to bowl structure that will likely be happening is the Champs bowl (ACC -v- BE/ND; looks like ND will be taking that slot this year) or the Belk Bowl (former Meineke Bowl in CHarlotte) if the BE does not get reasonable replacements for the 3 departing schools. Even those chances of change are slim although the loss of WVU and how well they travel is a consideration.

It the BCS goes with the National Game only then the Orange should look at the SEC if its going to pay more than $5 million per team. This is exactly what the Big 3 are voting for. No AQ and the top tier New Year bowls will select the most TV friendly teams. 3 SEC, 2 BiG, 2 B12 and`1 P-12. The ACC and BE can suck eggs and play before Christmas.
 

RS9999X

There's no Dark Side .....it's all Dark.
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
5,628
Reaction Score
562
So how is this not a fit? .

You misunderstand me. I'm not arguing that the ACC isn't a good fit. Just noting that the ACC has its own share of problems in the post-season bowls depending on how the BCS is structured. Adding Pitt and SU didn't really help their football prestige any for bowl money.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
1,485
Reaction Score
2,587
It the BCS goes with the National Game only then the Orange should look at the SEC if its going to pay more than $5 million per team. This is exactly what the Big 3 are voting for. No AQ and the top tier New Year bowls will select the most TV friendly teams. 3 SEC, 2 BiG, 2 B12 and`1 P-12. The ACC and BE can suck eggs and play before Christmas.
Then there would be no contracts with any conference in that scenario, which is not going to happen since the B1G and Pac 12 are NEVER giving up the Rose Bowl affiliation. Using your scenario, it would be based on rank with the top 12 teams getting the bowls. In that event, the ACC would have been included in a BCS bowls (based on current conference affiliations) in 2011 (VT will be top 12), 2009 2 teams GT was #9 and VT was #12, 2007 two teams VT was #6 and BC was #11, 2005 2 teams Miami #8 and VT #10.

Reality is what it is today, not what rumors say it will be tomorrow or what anyone believes it can be. The BCS is a cash cow for all involved. All attempts to change the structure in the past has been met with extreme resistance by the Rose Bowl, B1G and Pac 10/12. That will not change. And you will be hard pressed to find any conference that would be willing to cede an additional slot to the SEC just because they are TV friendly. If they did, it was because they hired Mike Tranghese as their commissioner.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
560
Guests online
3,913
Total visitors
4,473

Forum statistics

Threads
155,812
Messages
4,032,281
Members
9,865
Latest member
Sad Tiger


Top Bottom