CougarCorner
Sign in
Archived Topic

WAC-16 was MegaFail. Can 16 Work?

by Mars · 6/4/2010

Advertisement
M
Mars


http://www.thebestdamnpoll.com/ScoresandNews/tabid/177/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/496/Default.aspx





We saw how well a 16-team conference worked when the old WAC expanded from 10 to 16 schools to gobble up Rice, SMU, & Co. My feeling is, the PAC-10 or any other conference would eventually meet the same fate, being crushed under it's own bloated weight. 1-2 BCS bids a year for 16 football teams? Not enough. 7 in-conference foes, everyone else played at home only once every 5 years- at most? Recipe for disaster.





"Beebe mentioned more than once that he and SEC Commissioner Mike Slive and ACC Commissioner John Swofford have come to the conclusion that 12-member conferences are the best model for college sports and that anything bigger than 12 is not optimal. "To tinker with it would be a risk," he said. Though Beebe also said he wasn’t necessarily opposed to expanding the Big 12 beyond its current membership."

http://www.columbiatribune.com/weblogs/behind-the-stripes/2010/jun/04/big-12-meetings-thats-a-wrap/
S
SpiffCoug
The old WAC failed not because it had 16 teams. But because had too many bad teams in too many markets where those teams weren't eve relevant.



WAC: Sweet! We've got the Houston market because of Rice.

Houston: Rice is in Houston?



WAC: Sweet! We've got the Denver market because of Air Force and Colorado St.

Denver: Air Force and Colorado St are in our market?



WAC: Sweet! We've got the San Francisco/San Jose market because of San Jose State.

San Francisco/San Jose: San Jose St is in our market?



WAC: Sweet! We've got the New Mexico market because of New Mexico

New Mexico: We're a media market?!
M
Mars
kitic77 wrote:
The old WAC failed not because it had 16 teams. But because had too many bad teams in too many markets where those teams weren't eve relevant.

And yet one of our current TV markets is Laramie. I don't think this is a very big part of the large problem.
S
SpiffCoug
We brought Wyoming to the MWC because of loyalty to a long-time foe. 13 years ago, money was only really start to drive the college football bus. A PAC-16 can/will succeed because the teams involved are in large markets (LA, Dallas, Houston, Seattle, Denver, etc) and are very much relevant in those markets.
S
snoscythe
I don't think the 16 team model would work out very well in the current BCS structure. Just too many ways to split the coin, and your year-end BCS bonus is capped at two-teams.
Advertisement
G
GolfDiveNCougs
Except if more than one conference goes to 16 teams, the 2-team BCS rule goes out the window REAL fast. You put that many royalty teams together, you've got to figure out a way to get 'em all in the big bowls for the big money.



As it stands now, I'm suspicious that one of the reasons for this sudden change is that the CFB royalty schools are tired of seeing your Iowas, Cincis, Louisvilles and Kansases getting the big bowl spotlight, to say NOTHING of your Utahs, Boises, TCUs and Hawaiis. The former list is a bunch of groupies for royalty, that are paid hansomely to lie down at the royal feet, not to upstage them for the final bows, and the latter list, well, to the royalty schools, that's just a tragedy and an insult (ESPECIALLY the insult part, considering the peasants who don't even GET royalty-adoration pay are batting a mean .750 against 'em).



A system that the royalty builds (precisely what's going on here), the royalty controls and profits most from, and we're back to seeing the same 15 teams in the same big games.
M
Mars
GolfDiveNCougs wrote:
Except if more than one conference goes to 16 teams, the 2-team BCS rule goes out the window REAL fast.

The problem is, I think the BCS needs a majority to change rules. Which would take 4 16-team conferences. I can see a PAC-16, Big Ten(16), and SEC-16 voting for that. ACC, Big east, MWC, WAC, C-USA, MAC, sunbelt, not so much.
L
Lawboy
Why go to 16 when only 2 can get in the BCS? 12 makes more sense in that regard, financially. Unless the TV deal is a MASSIVE upgrade, which I just do not expect to see.
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.