QUOTE(HoustonHornedFrog @ Apr 23 2010, 02:02 PM) [snapback]549385[/snapback]
Sorry but the evidence doesn't support your theory. If you think about the changes to TV coverage of college football over the last 10 - 15 years, coupled with things like scholarship limits, the chances for schools like TCU to compete with the schools like Texas and OU on the field and the opportunity for them to be seen on TV has greatly increased. With an ever increasing number of channels to fill, "TV" needs all 120+ schools in the present mix and then some to fill space. "TV" has no incentive to narrow the field; in fact they have the opposite incentive.
Remember it was "TV" that was behind the increase to 92 teams for the NCAA basketball tourney. If you are going to continue to put more and more games on TV, which all evidence points to, the last thing you want to do it make many of them seem less important by decreasing by 40% the number of schools who are playing at the top level...
True that the money that TV has brought into the game have influenced things like conference alignment, but TV isn't trying to artificially limit the field.
P.S. If your theory is correct, I assume you are going to let USC (also a private school) in with ND.
You make some good points, many of those changes were designed as you say, to "level the playing field," however, was this done in an egalitarian effort to help smaller school or to make the games more enjoyable and attractive to view on TV, therefore increasing viewership?
TV does not necessarily have an incentive to limit the field, but they do have an incentive to sharpshoot a particular relevant audience with regional coverage and packages.
All these are pretty consistent with the Big Boy model.
