I make no claims to "seeing the future." My only intent was to give an objective opinion on what many articles have speculated with regards to the BCS. I only linked one.
I wholeheartedly disagree with your take that SU's fate with respect to the impending changes in the BCS will not be impacted by its affiliation with the ACC over the BE. Let's just agree to disagree on that one.
I have to wonder what will happen to the BE when the major conferences decide to expand again? Do you predict that Louisville, Rutgers, UCONN will remain loyal to the hope and vision that, eventually, the BE will be viable?
Although I understand your position that the BE's survival is ultimately good for SU, that has little to do with whether or not it will actually survive...
It's a tough position to be in when you are at the bottom of the food chain and your ass is covered in butter.
I simply responded to the article you posted.
It does not say that there will be a "profound negative effect" on the BE.
What it says is that the BCS will select for one game and the bowls will do what they traditionally did - bid for teams based upon dollars to be made with attendance and TV.
It that is to become the model, conference affiliation will mean less than it does today - at least in terms of post season play.
If, on the other hand, conference play inspires attendance and travel capability, affiliation could become a factor.
But right now at least, if the future model is what the article suggests it might be at some point, Syracuse in the BE versus Syracuse in the ACC will not look all that much different when the post-season comes around.
And, if the AQ is gone, I can see the BE staying together in order to take advantage of its new national foot print. The BE has done already what the Big Ten and Pac-12 are now trying to do with their affiliation.
So, again, I don't see things the way you do.
