Yeah, the only problem is that unless Father Jenkins at Notre Dame cold calls Jim Delany and asks if there is room for his little institution, I don’t see the B1G taking any new applicants in the current environment.
Truth is, Missouri can either make the most of the Big IX or become the 14th SEC team. Seems like a no-brainer to leave the mess that Beebe created behind.
All this super conference stuff is silly. Over 12 in a conference just seems to be unwieldy. I’d like to hear the rationale for expanding over 12. 12 gets you a championship game in football, what does 13 or 14 do besides dilute the schedules and diminish tradition?
16 x 4 = 64.
64 teams = tournament.
Tournament = more money.
That’s what the end result of all this is. That’s why I want the Big Ten to be more proactive with regards to getting the 16 they want first. Otherwise, they’re left with the scraps.
I don’t follow. Suppose you had four 16-team conferences. You’re not going to have a 64 team football tournament. Minnesota and Vanderbilt are not going to be in any meaningful postseason play. And there are what, 120 or so FBS teams? None of the 56-odd orphans not in a SuperDuperConference are going to be good enough to qualify? And who’s to say the four champs of the four super conferences are the best four teams in CFB?
Everyone knows that the best 4 CFB teams play South of the Ohio River and east of the Mississippi River (or at least in a state w/ Mississippi as the eastern border)
Well, I started this thread…then it went dormant after the initial excitement cooled. Then Hippy Hollow started the “Official Big 12 Implosion/Expansion Thread (and it’s goodbye to a&m?)” thread…which was where all the realignment discussion action was between posts 71 & 72. I was kinda surprised to see my Boogaloo thread in bold again. 
OK, I found and read this thread: Official Big 12 Implosion/Expansion Thread (and it’s goodbye to a&m?) which goes from the 7th to the 27th. Should we ask to have these threads merged, or just keep the discussion going over here? Or what?
OK, that was my mistake, I had forgotten that there was two threads. I knew we have been discussing this topic all along and I saw that this thread sat dormant for three weeks. No big deal.
Yep. None of them are good enough. As I posted in another football thread:
That’s a circular argument. None of them won a national championship because none got to play for one. I tend to be a believer in the SEC uber alles concept, but I’m certain at least one of the Boise State/TCU/assorted BCS buster teams of the last 10 years was good enough to beat the national champions.
The point is that the 4 conference championship games with 16-team superconferences look an awful lot like a quarterfinal round. In a 4+1 BCS model, the two bowls that host the 4 conference champs look an awful lot like a semi-final, and the +1 part is the title game. The other two BCS bowls host 4 at-large bids. It will never happen.
So let’s say we do go to four 16 team conferences, with the intention being we have the 64 best college football teams, and screw historical alliances. What current BCS teams get thrown out in favor of BYU, BSU, TCU, SMU, Fresno State, etc.
Minnesota? Northwestern? Washington State? Vanderbilt? Iowa State? All of the Big East?
Well, we’ll obviously never know.
For what it’s worth, I personally have no objection to including TCU for sure (and maybe Boise) in a 64-team “championship eligible pool”. Boise can take Northwestern’s place and TCU can replace Vandy (or Duke). 