A solid majority felt that expansion would be a bad idea and hope the two conferences will remain the same for many years to come.
Expansion has been a popular subject lately, with rumors of the creation of a 16-team “super conference” that would attract the most attractive television deal possible.
Initially, rumors centered around the Big Ten Conference, which actually has 11 members at this point. A 12th team would allow the Big 10 to split into two divisions and hold a conference championship game, much the way that the ACC, SEC and Big 12 conferences do. From there the rumors suggested that the Big 10 could actually expand to 16 teams.
Notre Dame, currently an independent, has long been a target of the Big 10. Texas, Nebraska, Missouri, Boston College and Pittsburgh were subjects of speculation.
With this rumor, other conferences became concerned that such a move by the Big 10 would not only create competition for television revenue, but would cost conferences some of their current members.
So talk of expansion spread to other conferences. One rumor had Texas and Clemson joining the SEC. Another had the ACC adding teams from the Big East, such as West Virginia, Syracuse or South Florida.
The latest rumor is that the Pacific 10 conference will court six members of the Big 12 to create a super-conference.
One reader felt things would be best left alone.
“Tradition is a big part of college football,” the reader wrote. “Seeing Nebraska competing in the Big 10 instead of against schools like Oklahoma and Texas would not seem right.”
Another reader felt too much of the expansion talk was about schools football programs.
“Most of these schools have more than 20 different sports. Changing your conference just to improve the competition level in one sport doesn’t make sense. You could be weakening the other sports.”
Of course, Clemson fans and University of South Carolina fans used the occasion to take a shot at their rivals.
“Clemson fans know they cannot compete in the SEC,” one reader wrote. “We’ve already got Vanderbilt. We don’t need another losing program.”
On the other hand, “South Carolina fans don’t want to switch conferences because it would take away their excuses for not winning,” another reader wrote.
One other reader looked at the situation between the state’s two top football programs more logically.
“When conferences look to expand, they want to ad TV markets,” the reader wrote. “Adding Clemson to the SEC would not expand the market — South Carolina is already drawing from that market. Adding Texas or a school from North Carolina would make more sense.”
One reader thought the expansion of conferences would bring more excitement to the game. “Can you imagine Texas playing Alabama every season?” the reader wrote. “Or Oklahoma facing Southern Cal? The possibilities are endless.”
One reader had a grand plan for conference espansions.
“The NCAA should assign teams to eight 16-team conferences,” the reader wrote. “That’s 122 teams, roughly the number who compete in the Bowl Championship Series level. The teams should be divided according to their location, strength of program (financially, not necessarily in wins and losses), and tradition. Teams’ 12-game schedules should be set by the NCAA also. Each year a team would play seven teams from their side of the conference, three from the other side of their conference, one traditional rival, and one team from an assigned ‘partnered’ conference. For example, if the ACC and SEC are partnered, the Clemson-South Carolina game would count as the traditional rivalry game, allowing Clemson to compete against Georgia, Tennessee or Auburn.
“The conference championship games would be the first round of playoffs for the national championship.
“The eight conference champions would play a three-week tournament, determining a true national champion.”
Interesting idea, but it seems somewhat unlikely to draw any support.
Post a Comment
