I don't know about you, but I'm more than a little sick of the conference bingo game going on. But I did read this and I think it makes a lot of sense.

Former Big East commissioner Mike Tranghese is one of the nation's most respected voices on college sports. He's also extremely sharp and not afraid to speak his mind.

Tranghese sounded off Monday with WFAN Radio in New York. He lit into the ACC for poaching the Big East again, and he also ripped college presidents for being greedy and disloyal as realignment fever hits again.

The entire interview definitely is worth a listen, but Tranghese had some very interesting thoughts about the Big Ten and its position when the realignment dust settles.

I think you'll like what he says.

"You know who's going to be the winner in all this when it's all is said and done if you want to talk about conference? Big Ten. The Big Ten is sitting there, they took Nebraska, they're on the sidelines, they're watching all this chaos, everybody's going to be taking people. And you know you could be standing there all alone at the end? Notre Dame and Texas. And the Big Ten would not be accused of raiding because they're just going to be sitting there."

Commissioner Jim Delany's patience might pay off, according to Tranghese.

Tranghese also discussed whether the Big Ten would pursue Rutgers and Connecticut.

"I don't think so. ... Before the Big Ten took Nebraska, knowing Jim Delany as well as I do ... Jim did a lot of work. He did a lot of analysis, and I believe that Rutgers was looked at, and Pittsburgh was looked at, and Syracuse was looked at, and Connecticut was looked at. And a lot of schools were looked at. And I think the Big Ten came to the conclusion that the addition of any one of those schools wasn't going to deliver them the New York market. ... So that's why I think that ultimately led them to Nebraska. Now they sit there and they ask themselves the same question: Can they get the New York market with Rutgers or Connecticut? You can do it with Notre Dame."

Tranghese also said the Big Ten doesn't have to be reactive to other conferences.

"Why can't they stay at 12? In fact, I would argue you're better off at 12 than you are at 16. You have less mouths to feed, easier to run. You add people when you add value. You just don't add numbers."

I agree 100 percent. I wish more people in powerful positions took the same approach.

Will the Big Ten's patient approach pay off? Will the Big Ten once again be a big winner in realignment?