Bcs Expansion To 12 Teams

[eulesseagle]

Does anyone know of any BCS expansion to 12 teams and any time table?

[Guest GrayEagleOne]

There are really only two that could expand.

The Big XII, ACC, and Southeastern conferences are already there. The Big 10 has left Notre Dame an offer on the table and that seems to be the only one that they are interested in. Since ND is already a BCS member, that wouldn't change much.

The Pac 10 has adamantly refused to go to 12 because of the universities that they should logically take. The California institutions do not want San Diego State and Fresno State (I assume to much competition for recruiting, state funds, etc.). The Utah/Brigham Young package is complicated by BYU's refusal to play on Sunday and that there are no other church-related universities in the conference. Hawaii would give them major travel complications.

That leaves only the Big East as even a remote possibility. The conference already consists of 16 teams. Seven of those do not play football. Eight play all sports. Notre Dame plays basketball in the Big East but does not compete in the conference in football. They are considered in the Big East in football for bowl purposes only. Bottom line is that the basketball schools would have to form a separate conference for the football folks to expand. Someone would have to show the Big East that they would actually be stronger financially to expand and I can't find any evidence of that happening. I check their boards weekly for any indication of this and I've found none.

Actually, there is a second even more remote possibility. The Big Ten could decide to take in a Big XII or Big East team and not wait for Notre Dame in which case it would force a shift of one team to replace the one that was lost.

[PlummMeanGreen]

Does anyone know of any BCS expansion to 12 teams and any time table?

eulesseagle, your thread title has all the marking and too familiar sounds of the past of the Big Boys wanting to tweak their numbers if this "expansion" is the case.

By adding 12, they would still be leaving out many schools who still have the "D1-A" classification. You know, such as a large number of that group that have stadiums just barely meeting the present NCAA D1-A criteria seating capacities of 30,000 (and a few barely above that)? Any one who doesn't think the Big Boys don't have the power to change NCAA D1-A criteria again (as past tradition suggests they will) please stand up.

Even more reason I hope whatever Big Donor UNT comes up with for our new stadium will also be a visionary as to what has gone one, what is going on and what could go on (once again) when the Big Boys use stadium capacity (again) as one of their main criterias to be in their elite group.

NOTE: At the present time, though, I think we are all considerred "BCS" schools. I think many of us use "non-BCS" to describe the "have nots" of D1-A and the schools who are not in the Big 6 conferences that get the bulk of all TV revenues.

Edited June 26, 2007 by PlummMeanGreen

[Eagle1855]

Does anyone know of any BCS expansion to 12 teams and any time table?

are you referring to post-season play?

[LongJim]

With the BCS advantages the Irish currently have, they would be insane to join the Big 2.

[NT80]

That leaves only the Big East as even a remote possibility. The conference already consists of 16 teams. Seven of those do not play football. Eight play all sports. Notre Dame plays basketball in the Big East but does not compete in the conference in football. They are considered in the Big East in football for bowl purposes only. Bottom line is that the basketball schools would have to form a separate conference for the football folks to expand. Someone would have to show the Big East that they would actually be stronger financially to expand and I can't find any evidence of that happening. I check their boards weekly for any indication of this and I've found none.

Here is an interesting two-part column on why/when the Big East should expand. Of course I think the writer is pushing for East Carolina to get a bid too:

http://www.bonesville.net/Articles/DennyOB...1107_OBrien.htm

But hey, I'm all for CUSA losing a member or two also...

[Eagle1855]

But hey, I'm all for CUSA losing a member or two also...

Actually, Im all for us joining a BCS conference.

Why not think big, start acting our size? We're a rapidly growing 34k+ student school in a major market with facilities that rival many BCS schools (save the stadium--- which will eventually be remedied). Why limit our options to C-USA? As I have always said, we just need to worry about what we can do- which is to build our program as much as we can, adding baseball and couple complementary women's sports. If we continue to build on the things we have done well, regardless of what happens with the rest of the conferences, who knows how it will all shake out?! If by some off chance the MWC becomes a BCS conference (yeah, long shot), TCU might like to have a travel partner. You just never know.

South Florida starting playing football 10 years ago. Now they are a contender in a BCS conference. Boise State used to be a freaking community college.

It's only as far-fetched as we want it to be.

[greenminer]

Lets just focus on getting better.

[Guest GrayEagleOne]

With the BCS advantages the Irish currently have, they would be insane to join the Big 2.

You're right about that. They won't do anything unless someone can come up with a solution that would force (or at least make it less profitable) for them to remain an independent.

The Fighting Irish could give a damn about anyone but themselves and it's for that very reason I don't like them. The Big 2 could make more for themselves but they choose to be a part of a conference (although a somewhat greedy one) and help support some of the lesser lights. However, the Big 2 is now pretty much becoming the Big 4. Penn State and Wisconsin are close to matching the money UM and OSU can generate.

The only way that I can see to control Notre Dame's selfishness would be for the Division to refuse to play them and that would take a LOT of backbone.

[Guest GrayEagleOne]

I should have checked the BE board before I posted. This is nothing official but it may have happened and makes an interesting read.

http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?S=159#S=159&a...08&T=652260

[Eagle1855]

I should have checked the BE board before I posted. This is nothing official but it may have happened and makes an interesting read.

http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?S=159#S=159&a...08&T=652260

thanks for sharing. Very interesting read indeed. Though I've heard some of this before, I thought this section was particularly interesting:

Mike Tranghese has been employed a long time with the Big East and has been its only commissioner. June 17, 2010 is his anniversary date of 20 years as commissioner and he has said that twenty years is enough. The five-year requirement for NCAA conference validity ends in 2009, as does the current round of the BCS format with the 2009 regular season followed by the 2010 bowl season

Basically, could have some shakeups towards the end of the decade. Which could bode well for us-- I mean, it's unlikely we could be any worse off, just dont want to be "left out". If the Dodge is firing on all cylinders and the basketball team continues its success, who knows what could happen...

[PlummMeanGreen]

thanks for sharing. Very interesting read indeed. Though I've heard some of this before, I thought this section was particularly interesting:

Basically, could have some shakeups towards the end of the decade. Which could bode well for us-- I mean, it's unlikely we could be any worse off, just dont want to be "left out". If the Dodge is firing on all cylinders and the basketball team continues its success, who knows what could happen...

Sorta' apples and oranges, but (basically) what sealed the deal for Baylor to get into the Big 12 (over TCU) is that (then) AD Grant Teaff had methodically been impoving BU's athletic facilities for several years preceeding the SWC implosion (which included BU's own version of the Super Pit, ie, Ferrell Center). So FWIW, many times it really is all about what kind of facilities you have and if they fit in the foot-print or mold of what the Big Boys really prefer a school to have in place so said school(s) can be a part of their very elite fraternity.

BAD TIMING, TCU ..........TCU AD Frank Windegger and his President Tucker sat on their hands and all their most impressive half billion endowment and did little for athletic facility improvement for the Horned Frogs. TCU did turn their lemons into lemonade post SWC split, but they, too, (like the rest of us) now find themselves on the outside looking in with a whole bunch of their alums saying a lot of "what if's" concerning if they had only taken care of their facility business. Sadly, I speak to some TCU'ers who somehow think Baylor will be kicked out of the Big 12 and they will conveniently take the Bear's place. As former President George H. W. Bush would say to TCU'ers: Wouldn't be prudent--not gonna' happen.

We all need to have hope above all hope that UNT at this time in our history has true visionaries starting at the very top of our administration (and BOR's) who are looking ahead as to what can happen almost over-night with the power-brokers of NCAA D1-A..........

.................... and will not allow a shortage of large-enough facilities (specifically, as in our future new football stadium) be the very thing (as Fouts Field & its smallish capacity has done to us in the past) that cuts us off at the pass before we have a chance to make our case to those power-brokers (if & when it comes to that).

NCAA Re-alignment------The first time all this happened with NCAA D1 in the late 1970's AD Fry was in his last days at UNT. I can't remember exactly what UNT did back then, but I do know we were able to buy some time to stay a bit longer with the Big Boys.

After Fry left Denton, I believe the story goes that a UNT AD did not (in a timely manner) send in some required paperwork and a fee to the NCAA offices at Shawnee Mission, Kansas, as to keep us in what was the NCAA version of their newly-named NCAA D1-A back in the day. There were other things (politically) going on at NT back then as well (which I beleive dropping football was even a consideration) Anyway, UNT (obviously) kept football on campus and would shortly be forced to go with our only other option, ie, the new NCAA D1-AA division and spend the next 12 or so years in what was a very frustrating time for many of our alums.

Just like when the SWC imploded those SWC schools that didn't make the Big 12 cut from what I recall reading back then supposedly lost some of their key donors who threw their hands up on the matter. When UNT was forced to leave the "Big Time" for NCAA D1-AA and that largely because our stadium wasn't large enough and turnstile counts were low.[/b]

Many of our elect also believe we lost fans from the beginning of our purgatorial co-existance in NCAA 1-AA because being at that level (especially in the Lone Star State) gave UNT the appearance of being a 2'nd rate school and athletic operation (as compared to the rest of the other D1-A schools in Texas). We probably lost very much momentum during those 12 years in NCAA D1-AA with what could have been a most strategic time of fan-base building; therefore, some of those giant steps made during the Fry years were all but wiped out as UNT did its version of the Cotton-Eye joe and started back-peddling--a practice many of us now hope is part of our storied past.

Edited June 27, 2007 by PlummMeanGreen

[Arkstfan]

There isn't a great probability of major short-term change (ie. quicker than 15-20 years).

As noted above, the SEC, ACC, Big 12, are already at 12. Part of what makes splitting 12 ways financially desirable is the conference title game. Adding two more means a huge blockbuster addition that can bring true mega-bucks to the table to offset the split. There aren't many of those. You are talking about a Texas, Ohio State, or Tennessee changing conferences. Not impossible but not likely.

The Pac-10 just doesn't have viable choices and need unanimous approval. BYU is the only one in the region with the attendance and TV numbers to look like BCS and a group of large mostly liberal institutions that do academic collaboration aren't likely to happily invite a very conservative institution that frowns on much of what they advocate as OK.

The Big 10 could go after a blockbuster like a Texas but other names other than Notre Dame mentioned have been Nebraska (right athletic profile but not academic) and Missouri (right academic profile but not athletic). They are also moving toward finishing the season in 12 weeks. Extending for a title game may not fit their ideal.

The Big East has to figure out if they want to remain married to the non-football schools but the other part that equation is who can they add that doesn't hurt their play level? The new BCS deal requires re-evaluating each conference after a few years to insure they are among the top six. Who is available that scores high enough to not hurt? Any addition has to be at least as good as their average team to avoid hurting them. Last year four non-auto bid schools fit that profile. Boise State, BYU, Hawaii and TCU. The year before the list was a bit larger: Tulsa, Toledo, TCU, Utah (by fractions of a point), Boise, Fresno, and Navy (by even smaller margin than Utah). There just isn't a consistent performer in their footprint or close to their footprint. It looks much the same the year before with Bowling Green sneaking in, the rest, outside their region.

The last rounds of realignment were triggered by three factors.

1. New model for television.

2. New model for post-season.

3. Disparity withing a conference.

The new television model after the NCAA monopoly was broken caused the Big 10 to add Penn State and caused the SEC to add Arkansas and South Carolina. That also caused the Big East to form. It triggered ACC expansion.

The BCS riches helped shape who the ACC admitted in the last expansion and who the Big East added to replace who they lost.

The TV factor coupled with a wide disparity in value within the SWC caused its collapse. ABC reportedly claimed that any telecast involving Oklahoma or Nebraska drew better ratings in Dallas than ANY game featuring SWC teams that didn't include Texas or TAMU.

Unless the marketplace has a dramatic shift (successful court challenge to conference TV putting it in the hands of the schools, change in TV market system to a near total PPV system or a change in post-season that favors smaller higher quality leagues and makes them more valuable than 12 member leagues) we are probably looking at the basic line-up of the rich six leagues for another 15-20 years. One caveat would be that the Big East if it splits hoops/football might look to add one or MAYBE two teams, they aren't likely to find four of the needed quality in order to protect in numbers but a nine member Big East with Notre Dame not playing Big East football (8 football) but playing four Big East opponents each year in football may well meet their needs.

The rich six leagues would remain rather constant in that situation until a league gets in a SWC situation where less than half of the league is very high value (1 to 4 teams) and half of the league is very low value. That could happen. If say Florida, Tennessee, Alabama and Auburn become annual top 10 contenders and say six of the SEC schools stagger through non-conference at around .500 every year, are playing in front of half full stadiums, and can't deliver TV viewers. Then a break becomes inevitable but that is a couple decade process. You can tolerate Vandy sucking and Ole Miss, Miss State, and Kentucky being mediocre to bad as long as they can still win their patsy games and post a winning record enough to keep fans somewhat interested.

That leaves the shuffling down below for the time being, with some shifting among the other five I-A leagues to get better TV and travel fits.

[Arkstfan]

After Fry left Denton, I believe the story goes that a UNT AD did not (in a timely manner) send in some required paperwork and a fee to the NCAA offices at Shawnee Mission, Kansas, as to keep us in what was the NCAA version of their newly-named NCAA D1-A back in the day. There were other things (politically) going on at NT back then as well (which I beleive dropping football was even a consideration) Anyway, UNT (obviously) kept football on campus and would shortly be forced to go with our only other option, ie, the new NCAA D1-AA division and spend the next 12 or so years in what was a very frustrating time for many of our alums.

Just like when the SWC imploded those SWC schools that didn't make the Big 12 cut from what I recall reading back then supposedly lost some of their key donors who threw their hands up on the matter. When UNT was forced to leave the "Big Time" for NCAA D1-AA and that largely because our stadium wasn't large enough and turnstile counts were low.[/b]

Many of our elect also believe we lost fans from the beginning of our purgatorial co-existance in NCAA 1-AA because being at that level (especially in the Lone Star State) gave UNT the appearance of being a 2'nd rate school and athletic operation (as compared to the rest of the other D1-A schools in Texas). We probably lost very much momentum during those 12 years in NCAA D1-AA with what could have been a most strategic time of fan-base building; therefore, some of those giant steps made during the Fry years were all but wiped out as UNT did its version of the Cotton-Eye joe and started back-peddling--a practice many of us now hope is part of our storied past.

Plumm I've looked back through tons of materials related to the great I-A/I-AA realignment of 1981 (actually happened for the 1982 season but passed after the 1981 season. UNT did not have the numbers to make it.

UNT had the schedule in place to get back quickly, but to pull it off there would have had to been a rapid fire construction project getting Fouts to 30,000 seats in time for kickoff of the 1982 season. Then it would have meant either a fast bulk sale of tickets to reclassify I-A for the 1983 season.

From what I've found the close calls who didn't make it were ASU, La.Tech, Delaware and UNT. McNeese State made it but opted to stay in the Southland while ULL opted to go independent. The Big West and MAC each had a bunch of close calls who came up short but skated on the conference waiver.

If they had given us a year to prepare instead of just taking the 1981 results and making the new rules effective 1982, I think ASU and La.Tech would have both made it along with McNeese and ULL saving the Southland as I-A league. Most likely UNT would have been able to adjust as well but would have probably come on in the Southland to take advantage of the conference waiver for protection. Tulsa and Wichita quite likely would have come along as well as both actively sought conference affiliation and couldn't get anything going.

Could have been a vastly different world with a one year head's up.

Remember though, back in 1981/1982 being I-AA was not nearly as bad for a program as it has been in the past.

I-A schools could play up to 4 I-AA opponents. It was not that unheard of for I-A to travel to I-AA. There were only 12 bowl games at the time and little chance of making a I-A bowl. There actually was TV access under the NCAA contract. It was when the NCAA TV contract was struck down in 1984 followed by I-AA games not counting for bowl eligibility at the end of the 80's that I-AA became a really bad deal. The bubble shaped end zone game between UNT and UT was among the last I-AA games to count for bowl eligibility.

Up to that point you really didn't see much move to go from I-AA to I-A. You had Southland teams drawing numbers that rivaled Rice, Houston and at times TCU. Once those I-A games dried up it was a stampede to get out because the lack of those games not only hurt the budget, they hurt fan interest because fans lost a benchmark.

[Eagle1855]

thanks for the insight, ArkStFan... found it to be very informative, interesting.

[Arkstfan]

thanks for the insight, ArkStFan... found it to be very informative, interesting.

Glad you enjoyed it.

We have become so used to all the realignment 1989-present that it we take it for granted as being normal.

University leadership tends to like incremental change and of course politics gets involved as well.

Looking at additions but not departures

The Big 10 went from 1917 to 1953 without adding a member and then another 40 years before adding Penn State.

The Pac-10 from 1964 to 1978 without an addition and none since.

The SEC went from 1933 to 1992 without expansion.

The ACC from 1954 to 1978 then to 1992 and then 2004 and 2005.

The Big 8 1948 to 1958 to 1996

The SWC 1923 to 1958 to 1976.

That preference for incremental change really led to realignment dragging out.

There was a push for the ACC to join the SEC at 12 and instead went to 9 before going to 11 (after getting hung up over Virginia politics) and then 12.

As discussed here before, the SWC nearly lost Arkansas, Texas and Texas A&M in one fell swoop in the realignment that sent Arkansas to the SEC in 1991.

That resistance to change made it drag out.

[PlummMeanGreen]

Glad you enjoyed it.

We have become so used to all the realignment 1989-present that it we take it for granted as being normal.

University leadership tends to like incremental change and of course politics gets involved as well.

Looking at additions but not departures

The Big 10 went from 1917 to 1953 without adding a member and then another 40 years before adding Penn State.

The Pac-10 from 1964 to 1978 without an addition and none since.come

The SEC went from 1933 to 1992 without expansion.

The ACC from 1954 to 1978 then to 1992 and then 2004 and 2005.

The Big 8 1948 to 1958 to 1996

The SWC 1923 to 1958 to 1976.

That preference for incremental change really led to realignment dragging out.

There was a push for the ACC to join the SEC at 12 and instead went to 9 before going to 11 (after getting hung up over Virginia politics) and then 12.

As discussed here before, the SWC nearly lost Arkansas, Texas and Texas A&M in one fell swoop in the realignment that sent Arkansas to the SEC in 1991.

That resistance to change made it drag out.

BTW, welcome back to this forum, Arkstfan, where the heck you been?

Always love to read your insight of college football from an attorney's perspective & point of view. Hope your school and ours will survive whatever the Big Boys dish out to all of us in the future (no matter their time-table).

Yet a question for you: Wasn't there a flirtation and even some semblance of action by the NCAA to separate the "haves" & "have nots" back around 1978 or 1979?

Maybe fellow alum SUMG can help with this one because I think he along with many on this board were more than concerned with what seemed to be a developing trend for doing such things (re-alignments); all in the name of TV revenue and greed, of course.

Edited June 29, 2007 by PlummMeanGreen

[Arkstfan]

BTW, welcome back to this forum, Arkstfan, where the heck you been?

Always love to read your insight of college football from an attorney's perspective & point of view. Hope your school and ours will survive whatever the Big Boys dish out to all of us in the future (no matter their time-table).

Yet a question for you: Wasn't there a flirtation and even some semblance of action by the NCAA to separate the "haves" & "have nots" back around 1978 or 1979?

Maybe fellow alum SUMG can help with this one because I think he along with many on this board were more than concerned with what seemed to be a developing trend for doing such things (re-alignments); all in the name of TV revenue and greed, of course.

I try to take a couple sabbaticals from the net during off-season so it takes me a bit to catch up enough to visit our brothers-in-arms.

Back in 1975 there was talk of forming what was referred to as Division IV or I-A. Membership criteria being roughly what was adopted after the 1981 season. There was some talk of making it across the board for all sports but that didn't get traction. What ended up happening was in 1978 Division I football was split into I-A and I-AA. To be I-A you had to sponsor a minimum number of sports (remember everyone was still ramping up adding sports in the wake of Title IX) to be I-A or if you did not meet the minimum number of sports you could be I-A if you met the lower Division I sports sponsorship requirement and met attendance and stadium size criteria. In 1981 the "or" became an "and".

I really don't see the NCAA taking any steps to reduce the size of football. I don't think secession of the big schools is very likely. However the growth of Division I basketball may bring some changes. Right now to be Division I you have to sponsor 14 sports and award more than half of the scholarships for those sports. For I-A its 16 sports and a minimum of 200 scholarships. I have no evidence, but I suspect that down the road that the membership in Division I may shift to be more consistent with that requiring 15 or 16 sports awarding maybe a minimum of 75% of the scholarships in the sports played to discourage schools from moving from Division II and putting economic pressure of those barely getting by.

[PlummMeanGreen]

I try to take a couple sabbaticals from the net during off-season so it takes me a bit to catch up enough to visit our brothers-in-arms.

Back in 1975 there was talk of forming what was referred to as Division IV or I-A. Membership criteria being roughly what was adopted after the 1981 season. There was some talk of making it across the board for all sports but that didn't get traction. What ended up happening was in 1978 Division I football was split into I-A and I-AA. To be I-A you had to sponsor a minimum number of sports (remember everyone was still ramping up adding sports in the wake of Title IX) to be I-A or if you did not meet the minimum number of sports you could be I-A if you met the lower Division I sports sponsorship requirement and met attendance and stadium size criteria. In 1981 the "or" became an "and".

I really don't see the NCAA taking any steps to reduce the size of football. I don't think secession of the big schools is very likely. However the growth of Division I basketball may bring some changes. Right now to be Division I you have to sponsor 14 sports and award more than half of the scholarships for those sports. For I-A its 16 sports and a minimum of 200 scholarships. I have no evidence, but I suspect that down the road that the membership in Division I may shift to be more consistent with that requiring 15 or 16 sports awarding maybe a minimum of 75% of the scholarships in the sports played to discourage schools from moving from Division II and putting economic pressure of those barely getting by.

Thanks for that info, Arkstfan. I knew there was some kind of re-alignment movement back in the late 1970's and you have confirmed that for many of us.

Sorta' funny, but if the Big Boys actually let TV revenue-greed completely dominate them and (subsequently) they stream-lined to about 50 or 60 schools fo form their so-called Super Conference or Division, might they start beating up on each other causing way too many losses in the W/L columns to such an extent that may cause disgruntled alums and fans at the lower half of those (50 or 60) schools to start demanding even more HFC's job turn-over than there is already? (And sort'a sad to have to say this but: I guess the Big Boys need the rest of us to beat up on to be bowl elgible and to pad those W/L columns to satisfy all of their respective constituencies and alum/fan bases, eh)?

ANOTHER QUESTION: I've been out of the SBC loop a few weeks, but what has your school and all the other "Indian" mascot schools changed all your new mascot names to? Since the NCAA got all this P.C. business started in the first place, wonder if they'd like to help under-write the high cost all of your schools will have to make all those across-the-board changes?

Edited June 29, 2007 by PlummMeanGreen

[Arkstfan]

ASU appointed a committee to look at the issue. The committee has said we need to drop Indians, so far the Board of Trustees has not acted on the suggestion so we are still the Indians. It is expected once the decision is ratified that another committee will be formed to begin the selection process.