IMO, superconferences are a bad idea...

[rooster]

I realize that my opinion is biased by the fact that I want SMU in an AQ conference and there is a chance they are left out of the discussion. However, I really think superconferences will hurt the game I love if we go to 4 16-team superconferences or something similar.

What are you thoughts for and against? I'm trying to get on board with the argument but I'm not sure its impact on SMU.

[ponyte]

Execpt for male enhancement products, bigger in not always better.

[rooster]

good call

[Water Pony]

I think super conferences are a bad idea for college football, traditons, rivalries, fans and, most importantly, the student athletes, who would need to travel much more and feel stressed to meet the payroll for their unviersity, i.e. meida revenue. Not good.

[ObeyMyDog]

I don't get it, I feel like 4 superconferences completely dilutes the BCS' argument how every week is basically the playoffs and every game in the regular season is huge blah blah blah

With 4 superconferences the odds of having 2 undefeated teams emerge is super low, lots of people are going to have 1 loss... and more than likely, there are going to be 3 or 4 1-loss winners coming out of those superconferences. What happens then? Pissed off people, that's what. Same thing as we have now.

Also, what is the incentive for these schools like OU, Oregon, Ohio St, UT, Bama, Florida etc.. to make it harder on themselves? EDIT: I'll answer my own question here; more $$$$$$.

[rooster]

superconferences don't make sense to me either. basically, you will have 4 conferences that mimic the NFL...to run the table, including a playoff, will be next to impossible. Teams beating each other week in and week out. All played for seeding to get a playoff spot.

However, I have been taking too narrow a view on SMU as it relates to conference expansion. Granted, it doesn't necessarily look like the Pac-12 would add SMU if they expanded by 4...but, in terms of football, I could see the ACC and Big East evaporating and 2 superconferences taking it's place, with some movement among the teams. SMU might even be in better position than schools such as Washington State, Iowa State, Rutgers or Vanderbilt, given it's location and TV market.

Point is, we need to starting winning now to prove our case to the other presidents/ADs as the superconferenc techtonics continue to shift. I wish when Orsini was talking during the A&M game, we would have had a pick 6 to the house...

Ok, now I can go back to work knowing that if we continue to have good seasons and win, we will be in the conversation. You can't beat the Dallas market people!

[docabel]

My reading of this whole "supercoference" is that when the idea was floated in the last couple of years, it took hold because the TV executives liked it.

Probably easier for them to bid on 4 stable conferences, versus the myriad of conferences available now, plus, every time the conference makeup changes, they have to re-negotiate.

[Charleston Pony]

16 members didn't work very well for the WAC; I prefer 12-14 for scheduling purposes

[03Mustang]

The anti-trust issue will come up with all of these "superconferences"....no one is talking about that, but I have to imagine that it will become an issue.

You can't just step up and exclude half of the D-1 teams from a shot at the money without some big-time lawsuits. That's a large part of the reason why non-AQ teams get a shot at BCS bowls now.

I am not a lawyer and I certainly am not an expert on anti-trust legislation, but I have to think that it will be an issue at some level.