Cal AD: BCS Contracting from 6 to 4 Conferences?

[2ndandlong]

i know, but a kid can dream.

[03Mustang]

I will get some joy if TCU finds itself back on the outside of the BCS in 2015.

Rest assured the Frogs will be included..."some" may not be so fortunate.

TCU fans are starting to sound an awful lot like Longhorn fans...the school (and coach) can do no wrong, and the path from here on out is straight up. Nothing lasts forever, especially your ever-growing egos.

[SMULaxer]

the 58 ought to ban together and refuse to play the 64. Let them beat up on each other.

[SoCal_Pony]

Ugh

Well put.

There are currently 65 BCS teams, when you add Utah and TCU that takes you to 67.

Notre Dame and BYU are BCS locks, now you are at 69.

Factor in Boise State, SMU, Fresno State, Houston and UCF, maybe Air Force and suddenly there are 75 schools vying for 64 spots.

Ugh indeed

Good News is that hopefully we have 4-5 years to increase our profile. Here’s hoping JJ’s spiritual quest at SMU will last for the entire journey.

Other good news is that this is money driven and SMU has money. 4-5 years from now, states will be more cash-strapped than they are today. If SMU offers to buy its way into the big leagues, maybe there is a chance. As I had posted last fall, if $100M got us BCS membership versus its alternative, I would make that investment. Hopefully some of our big donors feel the same way.

And to these annoying frog posters. Never lose sight of the fact that when we put our minds to something, we can far exceed anything you could possibly achieve. You want to talk smack, go to the NTSU board; I concede you are better than them.

[NavyCrimson]

What makes everyone think this is going to happen?

You can bet this will be in the courts.

How do you kick a 'former' bcs-BS member out? How do you can an entire league? (BE / ACC) With enough players, why join their league when you can make your own?

What are you going to have, 64 BS-bcs teams beating the $%$# out of each other & all with 500 records? This whole thing is laughable when you think it through.

Now the big test is we're going to see if these spineless presidents (ours including) roll right over & take it risking millions of dollars? You would think not??!! Would all these university boards roll right over? I doubt it. College administrators are known for being wimps but these board members are, more than not, businessmen who tend to be quite hardnose because they wouldn't be where they are now. I'd be willing to bet a fight will be forthcoming.

At the same time, what happens if the remaining teams unite & start their own league - remember the NFL - AFL & what eventually happened. Consolidation. This whole think stinks to high heaven & I can't see happening without a fight in the courts or somewhere else.

[SoCal_Pony]

I agree this will probably be litigated, but it looks like they are moving towards an NFL-type format, so losses don’t matter as much as long as you make the playoffs.

If the FB playoff payout is anything like the BB tourney payout, more power to them.

[1983 Cotton Bowl]

I don't think this scenario comes as a surprise. The only surprise to me is to see a BCS AD publicly admit the possibility. If we go to 64 teams playing in the top tier, that of course means four 16-team conferences. I see those being the PAC-whatever, the Big-whatever (formally known as the Big-10), the SEC, and the ACC. The Big-12 and the Big East will be cannibalized and the leftovers will fall out of the top-tier.

How this will affect schools like SMU (or TCU), I don't really think anyone can say at this point. Within the 64-team scenario, there are a ton of moving parts that could affect what it ultimately looks like. I don't have an axe to grind against TCU (except when we play them), but I am not sold on the notion that TCU has a secure spot at the table and is a made member of the big-time now. Their recent scheduling problems indicate to me that the traditional powers do not view TCU that way; and it is the traditional powers who will decide how this all shakes out.

With respect to TCU going to the Big East, the most interesting part of that IMO is that it has once and for all destroyed the idea that geographic proximity is a primary criteria for conference affiliation at the BCS level. Other BCS schools/conferences had toyed with the concept (see Texas/Pac-10), but TCU and the Big East actually did it. That makes future conference realignment much more of a wild-card. If the four power conferences can look across the entire map to pick and choose who they want to take, who knows how the dominoes will ultimately fall.

[Water Pony]

The way to minimize the issue being so heavily contested in the courts is not 4 x 16, but 6 x 12. So, don't substract one conference, add one plus bring Jeff's World into BCS mix.

[RGV Pony]

The way to minimize the issue being so heavily contested in the courts is not 4 x 16, but 6 x 12. So, don't substract one conference, add one plus bring Jeff's World into BCS mix.

Reinebold?

[ponyboy]

I will get some joy if TCU finds itself back on the outside of the BCS in 2015.

Rest assured the Frogs will be included..."some" may not be so fortunate.

I don't think so. On field success is not nearly as important as alumni base and therefore regional and national following. I see many worthy teams being left out if this occurs.

[Charleston Pony]

exactly; this idea about having 64 teams in "super" conferences is all about "equitably" sharing revenue at the very top. It will be all about attendance, TV and merchandising and Notre Dame will be one of the few private schools invited.

If you can't draw 50k plus no matter who you are playing, you don't get to compete. Who knows, the bar might be set higher than that and there may not be 64 schools willing to compete at that top level? The programs that pack 80-100k plus into their stadiums just may not want to share with even the medium size players. If you don't have a football budget of "X" dollars, you don't play. Simple as that.

I'm not sure it ever happens, though because there are too many long standing rivalries/traditions affected. Duke vs Carolina comes to mind in my part of the country, although I can't imagine their bball rivalry suffering because they no longer play football against each other.

On the plus side, I would expect TCU and Baylor to be available again as conference mates and for SMU to actually have a shot at competing for national titles at a lower level of competition.

[SoCal_Pony]

exactly; this idea about having 64 teams in "super" conferences is all about "equitably" sharing revenue at the very top. It will be all about attendance, TV and merchandising and Notre Dame will be one of the few private schools invited.

If you can't draw 50k plus no matter who you are playing, you don't get to compete.

CP, by that standard, there are only 5 teams in the 2 most football-rich states that would qualify.

Texas, A&M, Tech, Florida and Florida State.

[Stallion]

If they go to 4 Conferences-they will stick with the conferences that presently exist but 1 Eastern Conference and 1 Western Conference will have to go-probably the Big East(leaving TCU in the wilderness again) and probably the Big 12(leaving Baylor out). Duke, Miami and other privates already in the probable surviving conferences likely will make the cut. ie PAC, SEC, Big 10 and ACC, The question I see is out West-would the dregs of the PAC or the dregs of the Big 12 get left out when the Western Conference emerges. Right now I say the PAC survines and the Big 12 doesn't but what they ought to do is drop dead weight from both conferences-ie let the Top 8 programs in the Big 12 survive and the Top 8 programs in the PAC survive and let them form logical Divisions-that's would require an intermediate conference reshuffling which might be politically impossible or unlikely especially in the PAC

[Mexmustang]

Great! What we all need is a public employee from the State of California managing college football! You don't manage college football on the basis that his state's academic and athletic budgets are being cutback through budget mismanagment of the state legislature. I agree, Florida and Texas legislatures will indeed get involved, if it means fewer big games will be played in their states and fewer of their public and private universities get to particpate--all because California can't or won't manage it public employees' unions?

Just check the statisitics of U-Haul, they are reporting that rentals from California to Texas is now three times the number from Texas to California. I am sure some of our recent California recruiting success reflects partially reflects the attititude and problems in that state. The voters and corporations are voting with their feet.

If their were only four conferences and also a playoff system, there would be a great deal of unhappy alumni. A school like Cal might never get close to a conference championship. Over the years there would be only 2-3 elite teams per conference (8-12 total nationally) and the rest would be also rans, resulting in constant turnover of ADs and head coaches. I would think expanding the number of BCS conferences rather than contracting, would provide for a larger number of elite schools, happy alumni and less turnover of personnel. It seems to me that the pressure is on the Big 12 to expand, rather then get p;icked apart. Schools like Texas, BYU and Notre Dame might want to reconsider being unaffiliated with a major conference.

[Charleston Pony]

let's face it...IF this happens, it is going to be out with tradition and in with big money to compete at the highest level. There are plenty in the SEC who would easily say goodbye to Vandy. Baylor and Iowa St are vulnerable as are Wake, Duke and Northwestern. BYU might make it in.

I could see this kind of separation really shaking up the top of college football. In a 64 team scenario, possibly 8 divisions of 8, with the 8 winners advancing to playoffs.