I do understand that conferences want to get the most bang for their buck. How much "bang" can a regionalized conference get in today's market? The one thing I was disappointed about the article is it only focused on the geographical issue when that may not be the only "problem" conferences face these days. The other problem I am referring to is the number of members in a conference. If a regional conference has 14+ members (i.e. the original Southern Conference or the ECAC from the 70s/80s), then does the conference still feel like a "conference" or does it start to feel like a "confederation?" If the conferences are going to take the time to reorganize themselves into regional based conferences, then maybe they should also re-evaluate how many members should be in a conference. I would think 8-12 would be a good number for a conference, but what do I know.