Pac-10 investigating title game. / What if VT stayed in the Big East?

As part of his conference's ongoing expansion study, Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott has explored the possibility of staging a conference football championship game with the current membership of 10.

Scott told that he has spoken to the commissioners of the Big Ten and Big East about the feasibility of a Pac-10 championship game with less than the NCAA-mandated 12 members. The Big Ten has 11 members. The Big East has eight.


NCAA bylaw (c) states that a conference must have at least 12 members to stage a championship game. NCAA legislation would be needed to change that bylaw. Supposedly, such a change would be non-controversial.

Which is interesting enough, but leads us to this hypothetical question...

If Virginia Tech, Miami and Boston College never bolted from the Big East to form the ACC "super conference", and the Big East hadn't expanded, but rather pursued and was granted a championship game would that conference be in better shape than the 9 team ACC (in a football sense only)?

I think so...

Virginia Tech is among the elite programs over the last six years. Boston College, Pittsburgh, West Virginia and Miami are a lean meat. Rutgers and Connecticut have held their own and are continuing to grow. And Syracuse, a former respectable program, is the lone bottom-feeder.

DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.


You think that UConn and even Rutgers would have experienced the success they have, if VT/Miami/BC had stayed in the Big East?

I tend to think they benefited from the realignment somewhat. Also, was UConn a football expansion, or were they going to the Big East for football anyway? I can't remember, and I'm too lazy to wiki.

Uconn \ Rutgers

UConn wasn't an expansion team. They were a founding member of the conference without a I-A football team. The only change VT, BC and Miami leaving had on UConn was they played a full Big East schedule a year sooner. Having a weaker conference definitely helped them pick up a couple more "marquee" wins.

I agree, I don't think Rutgers would have had a 11 win season but 7-6, 8-5 bowl seasons aren't bad for the second worst team in the conference.

Yeah. I knew there was something like that for UConn, but was to lazy to check up.

Frankly, looking at the strong teams in the conference now (WVU, South Florida, Cinci, Rutgers), I would have been completely wrong in my guesses in 2004. I would have expected Pitt to do something, as well as Louisville and Syracuse. I guess those teams no showing for a few years there (and continuing to do so, for the last two) really helped out the UConns, Rutgers, and South Floridas.

It's kind of similar to Wake/GT back in 06, when Miami and FSU weren't playing at the levels everyone expected. But that may be a bit of a stretch.

At this point, I have no idea what my point was. It's more of an observation.