(10-10-2012 01:39 PM)Lord2FLI Wrote:  I thought we cleared it up that the Academy angle was just something a reporter claims the BYU coach desires (without an actual quote, mind you) and not necessarily something coming from the school or administration. Is there a reason people continue to pound the ground with this as though it's fact and not the hearsay it really is?

The Brett McMurphy report from a couple of weeks ago (which is the last substantive report that there's been on Big East realignment) stated the Big East would go up to 16 for all of BYU, Army and Air Force specifically. That's way more to go on than a lot of the rumors that we spin off on here. Adding all 3 of those schools is what the Big East legitimately *wants* (and that's not hearsay as the Big East already asked all 3 of them to join a year ago). Now, whether it will end up happening is a different matter.

(10-10-2012 03:44 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-10-2012 01:39 PM)Lord2FLI Wrote:  I thought we cleared it up that the Academy angle was just something a reporter claims the BYU coach desires (without an actual quote, mind you) and not necessarily something coming from the school or administration. Is there a reason people continue to pound the ground with this as though it's fact and not the hearsay it really is?

The Brett McMurphy report from a couple of weeks ago (which is the last substantive report that there's been on Big East realignment) stated the Big East would go up to 16 for all of BYU, Army and Air Force specifically. That's way more to go on than a lot of the rumors that we spin off on here. Adding all 3 of those schools is what the Big East legitimately *wants* (and that's not hearsay as the Big East already asked all 3 of them to join a year ago). Now, whether it will end up happening is a different matter.

Frank I know you are tied in enough to know Brett that was speculating and had nothing to substantiate that.

We're kinda wobbling and wandering. The thread wasn't meant to be so much about expansion candidates or likelihood, but rather how would a Big East deal with scheduling and the concept that 12 or less seems to be the best number of conference teams. More than that appears to be very hard to manage. The whole pod discussion wasn't that we thought it was going to happen, or even wanted it to happen. It was simply discussing how a 16 team conference could actually be a conference... 14 for that matter as well. I personally prefer 8 as opposed to 9 conference games. I also prefer 12 teams as opposed to 14 or 16. At least that pod format would make a 16 team conference palatable. Just say'in... not speculat'in.

I think 12 is the ideal number - if you want a championship game. 14 works but anything beyond that is too much.

But there is something to be said about the complaints that championships can ruin seasons for conferences looking for lucrative bowl seeding. An undefeated team can have a bad game against a 9-3 or 8-4 "winner" of the other division and get knocked out of the running for a BCS bowl, or the upcoming playoff.

While that's fine in one regard - you don't deserve to play on if you lose to a team that's 8-4 or 9-3, the championship is an extra game that isn't required.

Conference Champions are only relevant if they were playing for a guaranteed spot in a playoff that included all division 1-A conference champions. The extra money for having a championship game wouldn't offset the potential loss should the undefeated team lose.

(10-10-2012 10:13 AM)War Torn Ruston Wrote:  

(10-10-2012 09:42 AM)SteveAztec Wrote:  I really don't know why a league has 14 or 16 or whatever. Never looked into it that much.

As a West Coast fan I just know that the BEast has to expand and add at least one team and probably 2 teams to make the expansion into the West work.

Fresno is perfect. Boise and SDSU are traditional rivals with them. Also if there is one team and fan base that is fun to hate it is them. They make it to easy.

I agree.