PAC commissioner voted authority to expand conference
- Thread starter froginaustin
- Start date
Portland Frog
Full Member
Does it concern anyone else that TCU doesn't seem to be mentioned very often in the scenarios being floated around? All we hear about is BSU joining the MWC. In other words, if the BCS changes to become 4 conferences of 64 teams (Pac 10, Big 10, ACC, SEC), where does that leave the Frogs? Big 10? No. Pac 10? It appears not. The only hope is the SEC, if all of the "big boys" from the Big 12 go west.
gdu
Active Member
QUOTE(Portland Frog @ Jun 6 2010, 09:49 PM) [snapback]569657[/snapback]
Does it concern anyone else that TCU doesn't seem to be mentioned very often in the scenarios being floated around? All we hear about is BSU joining the MWC. In other words, if the BCS changes to become 4 conferences of 64 teams (Pac 10, Big 10, ACC, SEC), where does that leave the Frogs? Big 10? No. Pac 10? It appears not. The only hope is the SEC, if all of the "big boys" from the Big 12 go west.
SEC isn't happening. We are going to be left out if 4 16 team conferences is the way this all shakes out.
Does it concern anyone else that TCU doesn't seem to be mentioned very often in the scenarios being floated around? All we hear about is BSU joining the MWC. In other words, if the BCS changes to become 4 conferences of 64 teams (Pac 10, Big 10, ACC, SEC), where does that leave the Frogs? Big 10? No. Pac 10? It appears not. The only hope is the SEC, if all of the "big boys" from the Big 12 go west.
SEC isn't happening. We are going to be left out if 4 16 team conferences is the way this all shakes out.
Portland Frog
Full Member
QUOTE(tcugdu @ Jun 6 2010, 09:54 PM) [snapback]569663[/snapback]
SEC isn't happening. We are going to be left out if 4 16 team conferences is the way this all shakes out.
Isn't there a sliver of hope that the SEC would want a presence in Texas?
SEC isn't happening. We are going to be left out if 4 16 team conferences is the way this all shakes out.
Isn't there a sliver of hope that the SEC would want a presence in Texas?
Long Time Fan
Long Time Fan
I agree, I don't think the SEC is viable. Our real hope is a MWC 16 that includes Kansas, KSU, and by some miracle Nebraska that would be the 5th conference.
I think things will move pretty quickly for the PAC 16 scenario. I think things will shake out in the next two weeks or so to stay ahead of the big 10 or whatever it will be.
I think things will move pretty quickly for the PAC 16 scenario. I think things will shake out in the next two weeks or so to stay ahead of the big 10 or whatever it will be.
gdu
Active Member
QUOTE(Long Time Fan @ Jun 6 2010, 10:04 PM) [snapback]569671[/snapback]
I agree, I don't think the SEC is viable. Our real hope is a MWC 16 that includes Kansas, KSU, and by some miracle Nebraska that would be the 5th conference.
I think things will move pretty quickly for the PAC 16 scenario. I think things will shake out in the next two weeks or so to stay ahead of the big 10 or whatever it will be.
Nebraska ain't blowing up the B12 to join the MWC.
I agree, I don't think the SEC is viable. Our real hope is a MWC 16 that includes Kansas, KSU, and by some miracle Nebraska that would be the 5th conference.
I think things will move pretty quickly for the PAC 16 scenario. I think things will shake out in the next two weeks or so to stay ahead of the big 10 or whatever it will be.
Nebraska ain't blowing up the B12 to join the MWC.
Portland Frog
Full Member
QUOTE(Long Time Fan @ Jun 6 2010, 10:04 PM) [snapback]569671[/snapback]
I agree, I don't think the SEC is viable. Our real hope is a MWC 16 that includes Kansas, KSU, and by some miracle Nebraska that would be the 5th conference.
I think things will move pretty quickly for the PAC 16 scenario. I think things will shake out in the next two weeks or so to stay ahead of the big 10 or whatever it will be.
I agree this is likely the scenario, but unfortunately, the MWC 16 won't be a BCS conference. There is little to no chance the BCS will expand from its current limit of 64 teams. Why would they do that?
Why would the BCS expand from 64 to 80 teams?
I agree, I don't think the SEC is viable. Our real hope is a MWC 16 that includes Kansas, KSU, and by some miracle Nebraska that would be the 5th conference.
I think things will move pretty quickly for the PAC 16 scenario. I think things will shake out in the next two weeks or so to stay ahead of the big 10 or whatever it will be.
I agree this is likely the scenario, but unfortunately, the MWC 16 won't be a BCS conference. There is little to no chance the BCS will expand from its current limit of 64 teams. Why would they do that?
Why would the BCS expand from 64 to 80 teams?
Long Time Fan
Long Time Fan
QUOTE(Portland Frog @ Jun 6 2010, 04:14 PM) [snapback]569679[/snapback]
I agree this is likely the scenario, but unfortunately, the MWC 16 won't be a BCS conference. There is little to no chance the BCS will expand from its current limit of 64 teams. Why would they do that?
Why would the BCS expand from 64 to 80 teams?
You are probably right. The only thing is if Kansas and KSU (maybe Colorado) are in a MWC and are on the outside you have another state in addition to Utah, Idaho, New Mexico etc. that may bring about pressure to make sure their teams are included in this new 80 team format. The small pressure happening now might increase. Who knows.
I agree this is likely the scenario, but unfortunately, the MWC 16 won't be a BCS conference. There is little to no chance the BCS will expand from its current limit of 64 teams. Why would they do that?
Why would the BCS expand from 64 to 80 teams?
You are probably right. The only thing is if Kansas and KSU (maybe Colorado) are in a MWC and are on the outside you have another state in addition to Utah, Idaho, New Mexico etc. that may bring about pressure to make sure their teams are included in this new 80 team format. The small pressure happening now might increase. Who knows.
Portland Frog
Full Member
QUOTE(Long Time Fan @ Jun 6 2010, 10:21 PM) [snapback]569687[/snapback]
You are probably right. The only thing is if Kansas and KSU (maybe Colorado) are in a MWC and are on the outside you have another state in addition to Utah, Idaho, New Mexico etc. that may bring about pressure to make sure their teams are included in this new 80 team format. The small pressure happening now might increase. Who knows.
You are probably right. That would be our only chance for the BCS: Increased pressure by those few current BCS teams that would be on the outside looking in with the new 4 conference, 16 team scenario.
You are probably right. The only thing is if Kansas and KSU (maybe Colorado) are in a MWC and are on the outside you have another state in addition to Utah, Idaho, New Mexico etc. that may bring about pressure to make sure their teams are included in this new 80 team format. The small pressure happening now might increase. Who knows.
You are probably right. That would be our only chance for the BCS: Increased pressure by those few current BCS teams that would be on the outside looking in with the new 4 conference, 16 team scenario.
jadailyTCU
Active Member
The other possibility, and I know it's a bit of a stretch, is that it'll be three 16-team conferences and two 12-team conferences. Let's just say the Pac-10 takes six from the Big 12 (Colorado, not Baylor, and the rest of the Big 12 South), the Big Ten takes Nebraska, Missouri and three from the Big East (Rutgers, Syracuse and UConn, maybe). Then the SEC takes out the southern wing of the ACC (Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami and Florida State), the MWC brings in Boise, Kansas and K State, and the eight remaining ACC schools bring in Louisville, West Virginia, Pittsburgh and Cincinnati (nobody really wants South Florida). The ACC and the MWC wouldn't have many (if any) schools that really add a whole lot for expanding the conference, and so might just stick with only having 12 mouths to feed. Counting independent Notre Dame, this would make for 73 Bc$ schools, only a rather slight increase from the current 66.
Not terribly likely, but it seems more likely when you consider that the ACC would have to bring in South Florida, Central Florida, Memphis and, I don't know, maybe Southern Miss.
Not terribly likely, but it seems more likely when you consider that the ACC would have to bring in South Florida, Central Florida, Memphis and, I don't know, maybe Southern Miss.
Frog Brother
Full Member
QUOTE(Portland Frog @ Jun 6 2010, 05:14 PM) [snapback]569679[/snapback]
I agree this is likely the scenario, but unfortunately, the MWC 16 won't be a BCS conference. There is little to no chance the BCS will expand from its current limit of 64 teams. Why would they do that?
Why would the BCS expand from 64 to 80 teams?
Because they already expanded past the current ~64 when they made BCS bowls accessible to Utah, Boise, TCU and Hawaii.
When the musical chairs stop and the Big-12 and Big East no longer exist, the MWC will have the opportunity to fill a vacuum immediately under these 3 or 4 super conferences. We will be along side or only slightly under a weakened ACC and we will have access to better bowls as a result. All Pac-10/Big-12 bowl match-ups will be a possibility for the MWC in this post-apocalyptic era. By 2012 the MWC-12/14 will back into an AQ spot unless we totally fall on one face as a conference.
In 2014, when the BCS is renegotiated – if it survives at all – the super conferences will have to find a way to get more of their schools in, but believe there will still be a place for an MWC champion of the future MWC includes some “Big-State Us” from the Big-12 leaft-overs. For that reason I hope Baylor does go with the Big-12 south to the PAC. Having Colorado, KU, KSU and whoever gives the MWC a little more political clout to ensure our interests are heard when the BCS, or its successor, is renegotiated.
I agree this is likely the scenario, but unfortunately, the MWC 16 won't be a BCS conference. There is little to no chance the BCS will expand from its current limit of 64 teams. Why would they do that?
Why would the BCS expand from 64 to 80 teams?
Because they already expanded past the current ~64 when they made BCS bowls accessible to Utah, Boise, TCU and Hawaii.
When the musical chairs stop and the Big-12 and Big East no longer exist, the MWC will have the opportunity to fill a vacuum immediately under these 3 or 4 super conferences. We will be along side or only slightly under a weakened ACC and we will have access to better bowls as a result. All Pac-10/Big-12 bowl match-ups will be a possibility for the MWC in this post-apocalyptic era. By 2012 the MWC-12/14 will back into an AQ spot unless we totally fall on one face as a conference.
In 2014, when the BCS is renegotiated – if it survives at all – the super conferences will have to find a way to get more of their schools in, but believe there will still be a place for an MWC champion of the future MWC includes some “Big-State Us” from the Big-12 leaft-overs. For that reason I hope Baylor does go with the Big-12 south to the PAC. Having Colorado, KU, KSU and whoever gives the MWC a little more political clout to ensure our interests are heard when the BCS, or its successor, is renegotiated.
Portland Frog
Full Member
QUOTE(Frog Brother @ Jun 6 2010, 10:32 PM) [snapback]569696[/snapback]
Because they already expanded past the current ~64 when they made BCS bowls accessible to Utah, Boise, TCU and Hawaii.
But it certainly can't be inferred just because we have access to BCS games, that we are on par with the 64 teams who have auto bids to BCS games in the 6 conferences. They also have exclusive access to the 2nd tier bowls (Cotton, Gator, Alamo, etc). We have access to neither of these on a regular basis (well, we have zero access to the 2nd tier bowl games with the tie ins), and the odds of the BCS expanding this access to beyond 64 teams seems remote.
I agree with GDU. If the scenario ends up with 4 supers @ 64 teams total (16 teams each), we will be on the outside looking in and have to hope political pressure, as we are trying to apply now, makes a difference in the long run.
Of course there is no guarantee the BCS will end up with 4 super conferences. We have to hope this doesn't happen.
Because they already expanded past the current ~64 when they made BCS bowls accessible to Utah, Boise, TCU and Hawaii.
But it certainly can't be inferred just because we have access to BCS games, that we are on par with the 64 teams who have auto bids to BCS games in the 6 conferences. They also have exclusive access to the 2nd tier bowls (Cotton, Gator, Alamo, etc). We have access to neither of these on a regular basis (well, we have zero access to the 2nd tier bowl games with the tie ins), and the odds of the BCS expanding this access to beyond 64 teams seems remote.
I agree with GDU. If the scenario ends up with 4 supers @ 64 teams total (16 teams each), we will be on the outside looking in and have to hope political pressure, as we are trying to apply now, makes a difference in the long run.
Of course there is no guarantee the BCS will end up with 4 super conferences. We have to hope this doesn't happen.
Dogfrog
Active Member
QUOTE(Portland Frog @ Jun 6 2010, 04:57 PM) [snapback]569666[/snapback]
Isn't there a sliver of hope that the SEC would want a presence in Texas?
Personally, I think there is a slim chance that if A&M and UT were gone, and SEC wanted to expand to 16 and bring their brand to Texas, TCU could be considered. Not because of what we bring to the table, just because they see a financial benefit in the Texas market and TCU is a strong athletic program..
Isn't there a sliver of hope that the SEC would want a presence in Texas?
Personally, I think there is a slim chance that if A&M and UT were gone, and SEC wanted to expand to 16 and bring their brand to Texas, TCU could be considered. Not because of what we bring to the table, just because they see a financial benefit in the Texas market and TCU is a strong athletic program..
jadailyTCU
Active Member
QUOTE(Portland Frog @ Jun 6 2010, 05:48 PM) [snapback]569706[/snapback]
Of course there is no guarantee the BCS will end up with 4 super conferences. We have to hope this doesn't happen.
Yeah, that's what I'm hoping. The ACC and Big Least already have by far the least pull out of the the Bc$ conferences, and it won't help if they're raided to the point of needing to merge just to survive. I can't imagine that even a 16-team conference with UNC, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, Maryland, Pitt, BC, Cincy, Louisville, USF, UCF, Memphis and Southern Miss would have so much clout that they'll be able to keep a 12-team conference that includes TCU, Boise, Utah, BYU, Kansas and Kansas State (maybe Colorado) out entirely. I mean, that 16-team ACC would comprise six former C-USA schools, for Pete's sake. (Yes, I realize that the 12-team MWC would have one former C-USA school, and a 16-team MWC would likely have at least two).
Of course there is no guarantee the BCS will end up with 4 super conferences. We have to hope this doesn't happen.
Yeah, that's what I'm hoping. The ACC and Big Least already have by far the least pull out of the the Bc$ conferences, and it won't help if they're raided to the point of needing to merge just to survive. I can't imagine that even a 16-team conference with UNC, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, Maryland, Pitt, BC, Cincy, Louisville, USF, UCF, Memphis and Southern Miss would have so much clout that they'll be able to keep a 12-team conference that includes TCU, Boise, Utah, BYU, Kansas and Kansas State (maybe Colorado) out entirely. I mean, that 16-team ACC would comprise six former C-USA schools, for Pete's sake. (Yes, I realize that the 12-team MWC would have one former C-USA school, and a 16-team MWC would likely have at least two).
Portland Frog
Full Member
QUOTE(Dogfrog @ Jun 6 2010, 10:51 PM) [snapback]569708[/snapback]
Personally, I think there is a slim chance that if A&M and UT were gone, and SEC wanted to expand to 16 and bring their brand to Texas, TCU could be considered. Not because of what we bring to the table, just because they see a financial benefit in the Texas market and TCU is a strong athletic program..
I agree. This assumes of course the "Big 6" of the Big 12 (for simplicity purposes for this discussion) all go to the Pac 10.
Personally, I think there is a slim chance that if A&M and UT were gone, and SEC wanted to expand to 16 and bring their brand to Texas, TCU could be considered. Not because of what we bring to the table, just because they see a financial benefit in the Texas market and TCU is a strong athletic program..
I agree. This assumes of course the "Big 6" of the Big 12 (for simplicity purposes for this discussion) all go to the Pac 10.
Frog Brother
Full Member
QUOTE(Portland Frog @ Jun 6 2010, 05:48 PM) [snapback]569706[/snapback]
But it certainly can't be inferred just because we have access to BCS games, that we are on par with the 64 teams who have auto bids to BCS games in the 6 conferences. They also have exclusive access to the 2nd tier bowls (Cotton, Gator, Alamo, etc). We have access to neither of these on a regular basis (well, we have zero access to the 2nd tier bowl games with the tie ins), and the odds of the BCS expanding this access to beyond 64 teams seems remote.
I agree we won't be on equal footing with the real power conferences, but we can separate our brand from everyone else and fill that vacuum between the PAC-16, Big-16(17), SEC and the WAC, C-USA, etc. We already have done that to some extent, and I see the MWC getting stronger and closer to the 4 mega-conferences at the end of this. We will widen the gap between us and C-USA, etc. I believe that one or two 2nd/3rd tier bowls such as the Holiday, Alamo and Sun Bowl are likely to need a MWC team simply because the Big-12 will no longer exist. Someone must step up and fill those spots.
But it certainly can't be inferred just because we have access to BCS games, that we are on par with the 64 teams who have auto bids to BCS games in the 6 conferences. They also have exclusive access to the 2nd tier bowls (Cotton, Gator, Alamo, etc). We have access to neither of these on a regular basis (well, we have zero access to the 2nd tier bowl games with the tie ins), and the odds of the BCS expanding this access to beyond 64 teams seems remote.
I agree we won't be on equal footing with the real power conferences, but we can separate our brand from everyone else and fill that vacuum between the PAC-16, Big-16(17), SEC and the WAC, C-USA, etc. We already have done that to some extent, and I see the MWC getting stronger and closer to the 4 mega-conferences at the end of this. We will widen the gap between us and C-USA, etc. I believe that one or two 2nd/3rd tier bowls such as the Holiday, Alamo and Sun Bowl are likely to need a MWC team simply because the Big-12 will no longer exist. Someone must step up and fill those spots.
BABYFACE
Full Member
QUOTE(Portland Frog @ Jun 6 2010, 05:14 PM) [snapback]569679[/snapback]
I agree this is likely the scenario, but unfortunately, the MWC 16 won't be a BCS conference. There is little to no chance the BCS will expand from its current limit of 64 teams. Why would they do that?
Why would the BCS expand from 64 to 80 teams?
If the BCS stays intact, then the MWC will probably earn a bid IMO. This realignment has nothing to do with the BCS. This is all about conference TV contracts. I think some of y'all are getting that mixed up with the BCS. Now, if the BCS goes bye bye, then it is pure speculation on how the post season will play out in FB.,
I agree this is likely the scenario, but unfortunately, the MWC 16 won't be a BCS conference. There is little to no chance the BCS will expand from its current limit of 64 teams. Why would they do that?
Why would the BCS expand from 64 to 80 teams?
If the BCS stays intact, then the MWC will probably earn a bid IMO. This realignment has nothing to do with the BCS. This is all about conference TV contracts. I think some of y'all are getting that mixed up with the BCS. Now, if the BCS goes bye bye, then it is pure speculation on how the post season will play out in FB.,
Portland Frog
Full Member
QUOTE(jadailyTCU @ Jun 6 2010, 10:54 PM) [snapback]569711[/snapback]
Yeah, that's what I'm hoping. The ACC and Big Least already have by far the least pull out of the the Bc$ conferences, and it won't help if they're raided to the point of needing to merge just to survive. I can't imagine that even a 16-team conference with UNC, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, Maryland, Pitt, BC, Cincy, Louisville, USF, UCF, Memphis and Southern Miss would have so much clout that they'll be able to keep a 12-team conference that includes TCU, Boise, Utah, BYU, Kansas and Kansas State (maybe Colorado) out entirely. I mean, that 16-team ACC would comprise six former C-USA schools, for Pete's sake. (Yes, I realize that the 12-team MWC would have one former C-USA school, and a 16-team MWC would likely have at least two).
Good point. It seems we are in a way "at the mercy" of the process that is unfolding. There may be nothing TCU can do if the BCS becomes four, 16 team super conferences. Where's the "rabbit" and who is going to pull it out of the hat? Even with all the success the frogs have had, "reacting" may be the only option. Our only option may be to try and regroup after the fact and fight for respect all over again from the outside, looking in, and try and get inclusion at a later date with whatever conference mates are left over in the MWC.
Yeah, that's what I'm hoping. The ACC and Big Least already have by far the least pull out of the the Bc$ conferences, and it won't help if they're raided to the point of needing to merge just to survive. I can't imagine that even a 16-team conference with UNC, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, Maryland, Pitt, BC, Cincy, Louisville, USF, UCF, Memphis and Southern Miss would have so much clout that they'll be able to keep a 12-team conference that includes TCU, Boise, Utah, BYU, Kansas and Kansas State (maybe Colorado) out entirely. I mean, that 16-team ACC would comprise six former C-USA schools, for Pete's sake. (Yes, I realize that the 12-team MWC would have one former C-USA school, and a 16-team MWC would likely have at least two).
Good point. It seems we are in a way "at the mercy" of the process that is unfolding. There may be nothing TCU can do if the BCS becomes four, 16 team super conferences. Where's the "rabbit" and who is going to pull it out of the hat? Even with all the success the frogs have had, "reacting" may be the only option. Our only option may be to try and regroup after the fact and fight for respect all over again from the outside, looking in, and try and get inclusion at a later date with whatever conference mates are left over in the MWC.
Delmonico
Semi-Omnipotent Being
If one or more conferences bites the dust (Big East/Big 12), I think it will result in the addition of the MWC (or some new hybrid conference in the western US) being included in the BCS. Because by including them, it will alleviate the political pressure without having to split the financial pie into additional pieces, while including the schools from the outside that are ultimately the ones causing all the problems right now (the MWC big 3 plus Boise)..
