Big 10 Expansion Thread -Big Ten ready for a playoff .. finally?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by britrock88

Am I the only person that envies the XII's true round robin in football and double round robin in basketball?

THERE IS NOTHING AT ALL TO ENVY

Haven't you read a single thing that MBBF has posted?

[MrBug708]

The PAC had it until expansion. It was pretty nice

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by britrock88

Am I the only person that envies the XII's true round robin in football and double round robin in basketball?

I like it. Unfortunately, it just doesn't seem to be the way of things now. It's more about a looser confederation of teams with a wider reach. Being the Big XII is precarious.

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

The PAC had it until expansion. It was pretty nice

Yeah, it's more of a throwback. It's obviously not going to last much longer given the move to mega-conferences, but it does remind people of what it used to be like.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

ACC wants Notre Dame, not UT.

Everyone want UT and Notre Dame. Maybe the SEC wouldn't go for them (although that'd be real interesting discussion if ND swallowed its pride and tried to join) and there would be some resistance to ND from some PAC-12 schools (although I think they'd still go for it), but the B1G, ACC, and Big 12 would all take both in a heartbeat, and both the PAC and SEC would take Texas pretty much immediately.

Mizzou fans should be thanking their lucky stars they were the geographic fulcrum between the Big-10, SEC and Big-12 country, and are the 2nd biggest state with only 1 D1 football team (behind New Jersey, and Maryland's 3rd - not a coincidence all 3 of those schools upgraded conferences), and thus had multiple good options. You can also revel in your current on-field success vs. Texas if you can't let past slights go, but trying to argue that Texas messed things up for themselves or doesn't have good options left is idiotic. They have a huge enrollment, a bigger endowment, and a monster TV market, which means they're one of 2 schools that can dictate terms to conferences (the other being ND), and they'll always have a landing spot.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Why the fuck do you care about a team that you don't root for and is no longer in your conference?? Focus on other things.

Ask Texas's douchy AD. MBBF and I are fans that guy is supposed to be the professional.

[britrock88]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Everyone want UT and Notre Dame. Maybe the SEC wouldn't go for them (although that'd be real interesting discussion if ND swallowed its pride and tried to join) and there would be some resistance to ND from some PAC-12 schools (although I think they'd still go for it), but the B1G, ACC, and Big 12 would all take both in a heartbeat, and both the PAC and SEC would take Texas pretty much immediately.

Mizzou fans should be thanking their lucky stars they were the geographic fulcrum between the Big-10, SEC and Big-12 country, and are the 2nd biggest state with only 1 D1 football team (behind New Jersey, and Maryland's 3rd - not a coincidence all 3 of those schools upgraded conferences), and thus had multiple good options. You can also revel in your current on-field success vs. Texas if you can't let past slights go, but trying to argue that Texas messed things up for themselves or doesn't have good options left is idiotic. They have a huge enrollment, a bigger endowment, and a monster TV market, which means they're one of 2 schools that can dictate terms to conferences (the other being ND), and they'll always have a landing spot.

/thread

[tarcone]

Missouri would jump to the B1G in a heartbeat, if offered.
I would be happy if the B1G offered Mizzou and Kansas to fill out our conference. Of, course I would be happy if it was UNC and Virginia too.

[Wolfpack]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Everyone want UT and Notre Dame. Maybe the SEC wouldn't go for them (although that'd be real interesting discussion if ND swallowed its pride and tried to join) and there would be some resistance to ND from some PAC-12 schools (although I think they'd still go for it), but the B1G, ACC, and Big 12 would all take both in a heartbeat, and both the PAC and SEC would take Texas pretty much immediately.

I think this would just cause massive exploding head syndrome among Aggie followers if that came to pass. A&M is just loving life right now and would almost be dying to figure out how to block it from ever becoming a reality after everything that's happened.

As it is, I think Texas is fine where it is and can't imagine them bailing on the Big 12 quite so quickly when they spent a lot of capital to get it just how they want it. ESPN would also have some major beef if they opted for the Pac-12 and had to give up BevoNet in the process since I doubt the Pac-12 and Fox Sports will let them keep it.

Inasmuch as there's a ton of money to be made, I'm doubtful the ACC would want to stretch themselves so much to land Texas (protestations from the major football members not withstanding). The ACC's 15th football member will be Notre Dame or nobody (and nobody's a very distinct possibility since ND has their new NBC deal). It doesn't hurt that ND's membership in all other sports includes the stipulation that if the football team wants to join a conference, the ACC automatically is at the front of the line and there's zero chance the ACC would turn them down.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

I think this would just cause massive exploding head syndrome among Aggie followers if that came to pass. A&M is just loving life right now and would almost be dying to figure out how to block it from ever becoming a reality after everything that's happened.

As it is, I think Texas is fine where it is and can't imagine them bailing on the Big 12 quite so quickly when they spent a lot of capital to get it just how they want it. ESPN would also have some major beef if they opted for the Pac-12 and had to give up BevoNet in the process since I doubt the Pac-12 and Fox Sports will let them keep it.

Inasmuch as there's a ton of money to be made, I'm doubtful the ACC would want to stretch themselves so much to land Texas (protestations from the major football members not withstanding). The ACC's 15th football member will be Notre Dame or nobody (and nobody's a very distinct possibility since ND has their new NBC deal). It doesn't hurt that ND's membership in all other sports includes the stipulation that if the football team wants to join a conference, the ACC automatically is at the front of the line and there's zero chance the ACC would turn them down.

Bingo.
Come 2016 iff the current structure is in place ND will be in the ACC, if the proposed "shift" happens it wont matter the ACC wont be relevant in football as ND, FSU, VT, Miami, Clemson, UNC and likely NCSU and GT are in and all others are out.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

I think this would just cause massive exploding head syndrome among Aggie followers if that came to pass. A&M is just loving life right now and would almost be dying to figure out how to block it from ever becoming a reality after everything that's happened.

Agreed. There's 0% chance that Texas joins the SEC. Nobody in the conference wants that kind of drama and there's no way A&M would let it happen.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Agreed. There's 0% chance that Texas joins the SEC. Nobody in the conference wants that kind of drama and there's no way A&M would let it happen.

The SEC doesn't give a crap about drama. It's about money. And how does A&M have the clout to keep them out?

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

The SEC doesn't give a crap about drama. It's about money. And how does A&M have the clout to keep them out?

SI

Same way that all the other SEC teams kept out other teams in their state. There's plenty of good options available for the SEC. None of the teams have any interest in crossing one of their league members in regards to the agreement that they won't add a second school in any state. If they do, the same schools could do something similar to the school that crossed them.

There's a reason there's no exit fee in the SEC. There's a mutual respect for the other schools and their needs and it holds up surprisingly well. They really do look out for each other's best interests.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

Inasmuch as there's a ton of money to be made, I'm doubtful the ACC would want to stretch themselves so much to land Texas (protestations from the major football members not withstanding). The ACC's 15th football member will be Notre Dame or nobody (and nobody's a very distinct possibility since ND has their new NBC deal).

There's so much noise about there being 4 16-team conferences breaking away at some point I think it will come to pass. If it does, 3 of those 4 conferences will be the Pac-12 (4 spots left), B1G (2 spots left) and SEC (2 spots left), and the 4th will be either based on the framework of the Big-12 or ACC because it doesn't make monetary sense for the big schools in each conference to break away and pay buyouts. If Texas offered to come over tomorrow with, idk, Oklahoma (although honestly Texas could offer to come with Baylor and it would still make sense to take them) and cement the ACC as that 4th major conference, the ACC would jump on board. Otherwise there's a chance FSU/Clemson lead a switch to the Big-12 at the same time the B1G offers UNC/UVa, the SEC finally picks between Louisville/VT/NC State/maybe Oklahoma? or Miami/Clemson? and teams like Wake Forest, Duke, BC, Pitt, Syracuse maybe NC State and GT are left holding their dicks and competing in the new 1-AA with the AAC, the MAC, the Mountain West and all the schools that've upgraded in the last 5 years like UMass and Old Dominion. As the Maryland defection and addition of teams like Pitt and BC that nobody in ACC-land cares about proved, it's eat or be eaten at this point.

It doesn't hurt that ND's membership in all other sports includes the stipulation that if the football team wants to join a conference, the ACC automatically is at the front of the line and there's zero chance the ACC would turn them down.

All language like that means is it'll cost $X million more to do whatever ND wants. That said, I don't think ND actually wants to join the B1G. The trustees don't care about traditional rivalries, they care about using the football team's profile to increase the university's profile and applications from the parts of the country that are growing. They feel that they're already 100% known in the Great Lakes and Northeast, which are both demographically stagnant, and partnering with the ACC will increase the % of applications from the Southeast and mid-Atlantic. It's also why they schedule 1 away game every year in Texas/Arizona and in California.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Same way that all the other SEC teams kept out other teams in their state. There's plenty of good options available for the SEC. None of the teams have any interest in crossing one of their league members in regards to the agreement that they won't add a second school in any state. If they do, the same schools could do something similar to the school that crossed them.

There's a reason there's no exit fee in the SEC. There's a mutual respect for the other schools and their needs and it holds up surprisingly well. They really do look out for each other's best interests.

Hahaha. It made sense for Kentucky to help South Carolina with keeping Clemson out when there were 12 members and Carolina could turn around and support Louisville for the next round of expansion, but this merry go round is stopping at 16. If Texas and Oklahoma/Virginia Tech are up on the board as potential members #15/16, who's going along with Texas A&M and voting to keep the Longhorns out?

(PS having a 2nd in-state team in the SEC has really hurt Alabama and Auburn recently, hasn't it?)

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Same way that all the other SEC teams kept out other teams in their state. There's plenty of good options available for the SEC. None of the teams have any interest in crossing one of their league members in regards to the agreement that they won't add a second school in any state. If they do, the same schools could do something similar to the school that crossed them.

There's a reason there's no exit fee in the SEC. There's a mutual respect for the other schools and their needs and it holds up surprisingly well. They really do look out for each other's best interests.

Albert Means says hello.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Everyone want UT and Notre Dame. Maybe the SEC wouldn't go for them (although that'd be real interesting discussion if ND swallowed its pride and tried to join) and there would be some resistance to ND from some PAC-12 schools (although I think they'd still go for it), but the B1G, ACC, and Big 12 would all take both in a heartbeat, and both the PAC and SEC would take Texas pretty much immediately.

Mizzou fans should be thanking their lucky stars they were the geographic fulcrum between the Big-10, SEC and Big-12 country, and are the 2nd biggest state with only 1 D1 football team (behind New Jersey, and Maryland's 3rd - not a coincidence all 3 of those schools upgraded conferences), and thus had multiple good options. You can also revel in your current on-field success vs. Texas if you can't let past slights go, but trying to argue that Texas messed things up for themselves or doesn't have good options left is idiotic. They have a huge enrollment, a bigger endowment, and a monster TV market, which means they're one of 2 schools that can dictate terms to conferences (the other being ND), and they'll always have a landing spot.

This, exactly. And as someone else pointed out (forgot who, sorry) Texas is the #1 revenue generator in all of college sports.

Now this whole mega-conference thing, I'm not sure it will happen. Possibly, and I think the O'Bannon case if successful (which I'm betting it will be), that could play a role in all of this, too - Probably accelerating the mega-conference/Division 4 idea.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

There's so much noise about there being 4 16-team conferences breaking away at some point I think it will come to pass. If it does, 3 of those 4 conferences will be the Pac-12 (4 spots left), B1G (2 spots left) and SEC (2 spots left), and the 4th will be either based on the framework of the Big-12 or ACC because it doesn't make monetary sense for the big schools in each conference to break away and pay buyouts. If Texas offered to come over tomorrow with, idk, Oklahoma (although honestly Texas could offer to come with Baylor and it would still make sense to take them) and cement the ACC as that 4th major conference, the ACC would jump on board. Otherwise there's a chance FSU/Clemson lead a switch to the Big-12 at the same time the B1G offers UNC/UVa, the SEC finally picks between Louisville/VT/NC State/maybe Oklahoma? or Miami/Clemson? and teams like Wake Forest, Duke, BC, Pitt, Syracuse maybe NC State and GT are left holding their dicks and competing in the new 1-AA with the AAC, the MAC, the Mountain West and all the schools that've upgraded in the last 5 years like UMass and Old Dominion. As the Maryland defection and addition of teams like Pitt and BC that nobody in ACC-land cares about proved, it's eat or be eaten at this point.All language like that means is it'll cost $X million more to do whatever ND wants. That said, I don't think ND actually wants to join the B1G. The trustees don't care about traditional rivalries, they care about using the football team's profile to increase the university's profile and applications from the parts of the country that are growing. They feel that they're already 100% known in the Great Lakes and Northeast, which are both demographically stagnant, and partnering with the ACC will increase the % of applications from the Southeast and mid-Atlantic. It's also why they schedule 1 away game every year in Texas/Arizona and in California.

The only one thing I think shoots holes in some of that theory is that, so far, the conferences have acted as very independent actors. What makes sense for the whole has not come to pass as the Big 10, Pac-10, SEC, Big XII, and ACC have done what is best for themselves to the detriment of other conferences. There is no grand consortium of these groups working together.

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Hahaha. It made sense for Kentucky to help South Carolina with keeping Clemson out when there were 12 members and Carolina could turn around and support Louisville for the next round of expansion, but this merry go round is stopping at 16. If Texas and Oklahoma/Virginia Tech are up on the board as potential members #15/16, who's going along with Texas A&M and voting to keep the Longhorns out?

(PS having a 2nd in-state team in the SEC has really hurt Alabama and Auburn recently, hasn't it?)

I was pretty jaded to the whole concept at first, but the more I see in regards to conference moves, the more sure I am that a second team in any state won't happen in the existing footprint. The only way I see it happening in the SEC is if both new members come from the same state (OU/OSU join together).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

The only one thing I think shoots holes in some of that theory is that, so far, the conferences have acted as very independent actors. What makes sense for the whole has not come to pass as the Big 10, Pac-10, SEC, Big XII, and ACC have done what is best for themselves to the detriment of other conferences. There is no grand consortium of these groups working together.

SI

Texas is that lynchpin right now. If they move, the B12 is dead and we know who the four mega-conferences are. They're the only form of stability in that conference, and that's a scary statement in itself.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I was pretty jaded to the whole concept at first, but the more I see in regards to conference moves, the more sure I am that a second team in any state won't happen in the existing footprint. The only way I see it happening in the SEC is if both new members come from the same state (OU/OSU join together).

While I've figured that the "shared interests" of UGA/UT/FLA/SC/KY in preventing some of the more frequently speculated targets from being added, I honestly don't believe those longer term members would exhibit the same solidarity on behalf of A&M.

Thing is, I'm not sure how many of the traditional members of the conference really want to deal with a 16 team conference (and what that does to scheduling). That might be the biggest block on Texas or anybody else IMO.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Thing is, I'm not sure how many of the traditional members of the conference really want to deal with a 16 team conference (and what that does to scheduling). That might be the biggest block on Texas or anybody else IMO.

Really don't think scheduling is an issue. Slive and others have been on record that the 14 team schedule is just about as painful as you can get. They'd prefer 16 from a scheduling perspective.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I was pretty jaded to the whole concept at first, but the more I see in regards to conference moves, the more sure I am that a second team in any state won't happen in the existing footprint. The only way I see it happening in the SEC is if both new members come from the same state (OU/OSU join together).

If we're talking from a TV market's perspective, then Louisville, Clemson, Georgia Tech all have a big problem, because everyone in their area already watches the SEC. The two teams that are in the same state as an existing member but bring in a whole new metro area are Texas (Dallas/San Antonio) and Miami/USF (Miami/Tampa) - I could see them being added over the objections of A&M/UF.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

If we're talking from a TV market's perspective, then Louisville, Clemson, Georgia Tech all have a big problem, because everyone in their area already watches the SEC. The two teams that are in the same state as an existing member but bring in a whole new metro area are Texas (Dallas/San Antonio) and Miami/USF (Miami/Tampa) - I could see them being added over the objections of A&M/UF.

I won't take as much of a homer stance on Mizzou's importance as compared to other colleges but I will go on record as saying there is a 0% chance USF is added to the SEC.

[Breeze]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

If we're talking from a TV market's perspective, then Louisville, Clemson, Georgia Tech all have a big problem, because everyone in their area already watches the SEC. The two teams that are in the same state as an existing member but bring in a whole new metro area are Texas (Dallas/San Antonio) and Miami/USF (Miami/Tampa) - I could see them being added over the objections of A&M/UF.

Miami may have a big market, but it is a small private school, with very little support for the program, which is only magnified by the fact that they no longer play in the Orange Bowl and getting to games is a hassle.

[CU Tiger]

Market size zounds great until you look at numbers.
Go look at Clemson LSU ratings or Clemson uga ratings. Eyes on set is undeniable.

Also as long as there is an ACC the current members are locked in thanks to the grant of rights.

As dumb as this sounds, I've been told that both Clemson and FSU told the SEC no thanks to joining ATM as #14... like I said sounds stupid but given where it came from I can't dismiss it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Really don't think scheduling is an issue. Slive and others have been on record that the 14 team schedule is just about as painful as you can get. They'd prefer 16 from a scheduling perspective.

Not unless you're moving Alabama to the East (to preserve Bama-UT).
Not unless you're moving Auburn to the East (to preserve UGA-Auburn).
Not unless you move Bama east but preserve Bama-LSU (playing for the 50th season this year if my math is right)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Market size zounds great until you look at numbers.

This, this, a thousand times this.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

As dumb as this sounds, I've been told that both Clemson and FSU told the SEC no thanks to joining ATM as #14... like I said sounds stupid but given where it came from I can't dismiss it.

Agreed. That sounds dumb.

[Toddzilla]

Given that any of these conferences would steal a top team from another conference tells you everything about if they are "working together"

[JonInMiddleGA]

Sources: Condoleezza Rice among members of first College Football Playoff selection committee - ESPN

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Sources: Condoleezza Rice among members of first College Football Playoff selection committee - ESPN

[Young Drachma]

That's not too unusual since she wanted to be NFL Commish there for a bit in dreamland. Plus she checks two boxes on that's always good. Same reason they added her to Augusta.

[Buccaneer]

So let me get this straight. Last weekend, we had a playoff game between Auburn-Alabama with the winner advancing to the next round to play Missouri. If a post-season playoffs were in place, Alabama would get to have a do-over as if last weekend's game was just an exhibition. Yeah, that makes sense.

[cartman]

Except we didn't have a playoff game between Auburn and Alabama last weekend. There are still scenarios in place where Alabama could sneak in to the championship game.

If Auburn had beaten Alabama in Week 5, would that still have been a playoff game?

[Logan]

Thread bump fail.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

So let me get this straight. Last weekend, we had a playoff game between Auburn-Alabama with the winner advancing to the next round to play Missouri. If a post-season playoffs were in place, Alabama would get to have a do-over as if last weekend's game was just an exhibition. Yeah, that makes sense.

I really think they need to set the playoff up with only conference champions being eligible. You have no business playing for the national championship if you can't win your conference.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

So let me get this straight. Last weekend, we had a playoff game between Auburn-Alabama with the winner advancing to the next round to play Missouri. If a post-season playoffs were in place, Alabama would get to have a do-over as if last weekend's game was just an exhibition. Yeah, that makes sense.

I hear sometimes in sports that have playoffs, teams play key games in the regular season that help decide how they are seeded in the postseason, and play again in the postseason. Do-overs everywhere!!

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

So let me get this straight. Last weekend, we had a playoff game between Auburn-Alabama with the winner advancing to the next round to play Missouri. If a post-season playoffs were in place, Alabama would get to have a do-over as if last weekend's game was just an exhibition. Yeah, that makes sense.

Except if both Florida State and Ohio State lose this weekend and Auburn beats Mizzou, there's a chance it was a really pointless game as we could see Alabama and Auburn play again for the national title.

You know, just like in 2011 when LSU and Alabama had a rematch in the national title game, rendering their #1 vs #2 "biggest game of the century" from November completely meaningless.

SI

[Buccaneer]

Except a seeding in a college football playoffs would, I believe, be near meaningless since the games would be played at a neutral site. There is no advantage playing a 4 seed or 1 seed.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Except a seeding in a college football playoffs would, I believe, be near meaningless since the games would be played at a neutral site. There is no advantage playing a 4 seed or 1 seed.

You serious, Clark?

[cartman]

I seem to remember in the NFL a couple of years ago where the Cowboys beat the Eagles on the last game of the season, then turned around and played them again the next week in the first round of the playoffs.

[Buccaneer]

Logan, the top 4 seeds are FSU OSU AUB ALA. Some argue MO too. Are you saying that there is a big enough difference among those teams playing at a neutral site that makes seeding relevant?

[Passacaglia]

Do we have 128 Division I-A teams yet? Maybe we can just ditch the regular season and set up a 7-round tournament.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Logan, the top 4 seeds are FSU OSU AUB ALA. Some argue MO too. Are you saying that there is a big enough difference among those teams playing at a neutral site that makes seeding relevant?

This year, probably not. Your argument is being aided incredibly by the #4 team being considered the far and away #1 team up until three days ago. But it's an enormous overstatement to definitively say there is "no advantage" to playing a lower seed.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

So let me get this straight. Last weekend, we had a playoff game between Auburn-Alabama with the winner advancing to the next round to play Missouri. If a post-season playoffs were in place, Alabama would get to have a do-over as if last weekend's game was just an exhibition. Yeah, that makes sense.

Take it to the 'BCS Sucks!' thread. This is the thread for teams that abandon their former conferences.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by cartman

I seem to remember in the NFL a couple of years ago where the Cowboys beat the Eagles on the last game of the season, then turned around and played them again the next week in the first round of the playoffs.

How many division champs are left out of the NFL playoffs? You want to go with an 8 team playoff, this argument has water: 5 big conference champs + 3 wildcards, or 5 big conference champs + best from remainder + 2 wildcards. Then I can see the Auburn/Mizzou loser and/or Alabama making it in.

But with only 4 spots, I think you have to choose 4 of the 5 conference champs, period. You can't leave out the ACC/Big-10(12)/Big-12(8)/PAC-whatever champion to let an SEC almost-was in. And if things collapse so that one of the ACC/Big-12(8) disappear, then the 4 conference champs get in, and we can do away with the committee.

If the SEC wants a team THAT COULD NOT EVEN WIN ITS OWN DIVISION in (AGAIN), then push for an 8 team playoff.

With a 2-team playoff (what we have now), it's worse, and letting Nebraska and Alabama play in the title game were both travesties.

[cartman]

I've long been a proponent of a 16 team playoff: The conference champions of the FBS conferences plus at-large teams. I talked Arlie into adding that to BBCF

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by cartman

I've long been a proponent of a 16 team playoff: The conference champions of the FBS conferences plus at-large teams. I talked Arlie into adding that to BBCF

I think this is the best system, too

SI

[molson]

A 16-team tournament really doesn't need Louisiana-Lafayette in it.

Why should winning the SEC and the Sun Belt earn you the same thing? I never understood that. Basketball has automatic bids for conference winners, but they only really matter for the bottom conferences, because anybody with a pulse is getting in anyway. Louisiana-Lafayette would get in over Top-10 teams in that scenario. Why should they? Why is it so important to reward that conference (and Conference USA, and 1 or 2 others depending on the year) above all others relative to how good they actually are?