Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The "experts" and conventional wisdom tells us we are heading for 4 "super conferences", 16 teams each that will form the elite of college football and will be the schools that will be "the new BCS", playing some form of tournament to get a "true" national champion.
If my math serves me right, 16 x 4 = 64, a delightful and highly divisible number, but not one that necessarily reflects any reality in determining who belongs in and who belongs out (you think that March Madness causes angst and worse when it comes to the schools that don't make the cut? It will seem like a walk in the park compared to what this ultimate "tournament" will create)
Let's start by being reasonable here: no school is going to opt out of the new set up if the BCS morphs into this super conference set up. And there will be hell to play if any school (are you listening Iowa State and K-State) are kept out of the club.
But that's only the tip of the ice berg. There are a number (perhaps big) of schools that are currently not part of the BCS but would need to be.
So what would the new BCS look like? And who would you add to the list? (For purposes of discussion, let's grandfather in all existing members).
Today, the BCS (based on current membership) consists of 67 schools (already 3 over the magic number of 64). These break down to 12 schools each for the ACC, SEC, B10, and Pac 12, ten schools in the Big 12, 8 in the Big East, and Notre Dame.
As noted, I wouldn't want to see the fire works if schools like Iowa State and Kansas State (arguably the 2 shakiest) didn't make the cut. Any thoughts of what the Iowa legislature would do if Iowa was in and ISU out? How about the Kansas legislature if KU was in and K-State was out? Clearly the Iowa legislature would not allow Iowa to be in the set up without ISU being included, too. And do you think the Big Ten wouldn't literally implode over the notion that the Hawkeyes won't be part of the new club?
So I'm suggesting that 67 are a lock, super conferences be damned.
But what about the rest? Starting with 67 and either freezing at that number or adding on to it, who do you think has to be included in the new set up? And then counting up your numbers, what does that say about the real possibility of four super conferences, 16 teams each? (in other words, does it mean they go to, say, 4 conferences with 18 or 20 teams each, or might the numbers go high enough....as in 96, unlikely though that might be....where you'd end up with 8 conferences, 12 teams each)
So, tell us, who do you see as the elite schools of 67 frozen-in-time members and perhaps a number more? And what will your number mean in the way of conference structure?
certain areas of the nation are underrepresented with BCS level schools:
• chief among these is the mountain west region. In it, I would definitely try to include BYU, Boise State, New Mexico, UNLV, possibly both Colorado State and Wyoming. Not part of this region but associated with it is Hawaii and I would include it, too.
• growth in states like Texas and Florida need to register in the BCS. For Texas, TCU will be part of the mix. I would add UTEP, SMU, and Houston. Texas State is growing to the level where it might be considered, too.I'd also add another former SWC member (possibly at least) Rice. Florida should have schools like UCF, FAU, and FIU considered.
Outside of that, I can't remember if Memphis was in the Big East (if not, I'd include it). Also Tulane which as Rice was once SWC it was once SEC. If Vandy can play at this level, Tulane can too (and I think the SEC is lucky to have Vandy). Temple once played at a higher level; perhaps it could again.
Large schools in the CSU system have been kept down by Cal and UCLA, the two UC's in the Pac 12, neither of which would allow schools like Fresno State and SDSU to play in the big time (particularly in the Pac 12); both of these schools should be considered.
certain areas of the nation are underrepresented with BCS level schools:
• chief among these is the mountain west region. In it, I would definitely try to include BYU, Boise State, New Mexico, UNLV, possibly both Colorado State and Wyoming. Not part of this region but associated with it is Hawaii and I would include it, too.
• growth in states like Texas and Florida need to register in the BCS. For Texas, TCU will be part of the mix. I would add UTEP, SMU, and Houston. Texas State is growing to the level where it might be considered, too.I'd also add another former SWC member (possibly at least) Rice. Florida should have schools like UCF, FAU, and FIU considered.
Outside of that, I can't remember if Memphis was in the Big East (if not, I'd include it). Also Tulane which as Rice was once SWC it was once SEC. If Vandy can play at this level, Tulane can too (and I think the SEC is lucky to have Vandy). Temple once played at a higher level; perhaps it could again.
Large schools in the CSU system have been kept down by Cal and UCLA, the two UC's in the Pac 12, neither of which would allow schools like Fresno State and SDSU to play in the big time (particularly in the Pac 12); both of these schools should be considered.
In the Texas region you forgot UTSA which will probably have a better football team than Texas State as they have Larry Coker as coach, are broadcast on the LHN, and are much larger than Texas State-- plus they get to play all home games in the Alamo Dome, which will be a huge draw to recruits.
certain areas of the nation are underrepresented with BCS level schools:
• chief among these is the mountain west region. In it, I would definitely try to include BYU, Boise State, New Mexico, UNLV, possibly both Colorado State and Wyoming. Not part of this region but associated with it is Hawaii and I would include it, too.
• growth in states like Texas and Florida need to register in the BCS. For Texas, TCU will be part of the mix. I would add UTEP, SMU, and Houston. Texas State is growing to the level where it might be considered, too.I'd also add another former SWC member (possibly at least) Rice. Florida should have schools like UCF, FAU, and FIU considered.
Outside of that, I can't remember if Memphis was in the Big East (if not, I'd include it). Also Tulane which as Rice was once SWC it was once SEC. If Vandy can play at this level, Tulane can too (and I think the SEC is lucky to have Vandy). Temple once played at a higher level; perhaps it could again.
Large schools in the CSU system have been kept down by Cal and UCLA, the two UC's in the Pac 12, neither of which would allow schools like Fresno State and SDSU to play in the big time (particularly in the Pac 12); both of these schools should be considered.
if you include schools like UTEP, Memphis, FAU, FIU, then you need to consider adding MAC teams since several of them have consistently stronger programs.
In the Texas region you forgot UTSA which will probably have a better football team than Texas State as they have Larry Coker as coach, are broadcast on the LHN, and are much larger than Texas State-- plus they get to play all home games in the Alamo Dome, which will be a huge draw to recruits.
if you include schools like UTEP, Memphis, FAU, FIU, then you need to consider adding MAC teams since several of them have consistently stronger programs.
cubsox, you and i are both here in the Chicago area and are atune to the midwest.
you bring up a good point. but i'd like you to consider this:
the culture of the South, the whole South as it swings from Virginia to Texas, is far more immersed in college football than is the midwest.
Now that's not saying it's not a big game here because it is. But what does seem to happen in our region more than in the South is that when you remove the Big Ten and ND, the other schools (mostly MAC) just don't seem to generate the type of interest and support that the South gives E. Carolina, Southern Miss, North Texas, UAB, etc.
I'd say the one program outside of B10 and ND that does have some real power is Cincinnati. But I just can't see any MAC school raising to the level of those schools I mentioned where interest is higher.
Look at our state. Illinois and Northwestern get all the press and interest and NIU, the only other Division 1-a school, is left in the shadows, even though its program has been successful in the MAC. Look at the Chicago media. It views only four schools, U of I, NU, ND, and NIU as part of local interest. Illinois, Northwestern, and Notre Dame get fairly balanced coverage (others may see a bias, but I honestly believe that the three are basically on the same level in local coverage) while NIU is the step child.
I could be wrong on this though so I'd be interested in knowing your opinion on my observations.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
