(01-24-2010 06:07 PM)emsg06 Wrote: This makes no sense. Its based on the false notion that AQ Conference teams are playing significant numbers of non conference road games to begin with and playing them close by would be a financial benefit. The fact of the matter is that nearly every team in an AQ conference is trying to play as many home games as possible even if they need to dip into FCS to fill a schedule. So there are limited opportunities to begin with, and it is not more financially lucrative for either party to play at the smaller stadium. This thread makes no sense.
Actually, signing a 1 for 1 with the MAC does make some sense for about half of the AQ schools who do not clear big gate receipts.
Scheduling 4 or 5 non-conference games is a lot. To address this, BCS conferences are interested in playing longer conference schedules. The PAC-10 moved to a 9 game round robin schedule a few year ago. The effect was PAC-10 schools needed less games to buy because essentially with the 9th home-and-home series annually vs. a confernce school.
Given the success of Big East basketball at 16 teams, I could see the MAC someday expand to 16 all-sport members to enhance basketball and to generate more NCAA tourney and bowl bids.
With 2 divisions of 8 football playing members the schedule could be 7 divisional and 2 cross divisional games.
I could see in the future.....
MAC adding ISU, UMass, UDel to 16
CUSA adding UNCC, GSU, JMU, ODU to 16
SBC adding LaTech, NMSU, Missouri St., UTSA, Texas St., Appy St. to 16
I just don't think you are going to see a CAA or MVC FBS football conference as much as you'll see the MAC, CUSA, SBC, ect...try and load up beyond 12 members if they think it can help them in either travel, TV, or postseason bids.