AQ Status for Conferences Gone

[CTMike]

Basically, the way it stands, is the SEC is going to make a boatload of money year in and year out, since they will almost assuredly have at least one and sometimes two teams involved in the playoff. It then becomes self reinforcing. The gap will widen between the haves and have-nots. What, maybe once every 4 years a Big East team will get a sniff of the playoffs? We stand to make significantly less money going forward. And not just Marinatto, but I hope every conference commish and school president are concerned about how this money is going to be split.

 

[SubbaBub]

Playing in BCS games
= better recruiting
= winning more games
= better recruiting
= more attractive OOC games
= better recruiting
= more national TV exposure
= better recruiting
= better fan support
= better facilities
= better recruiting
= "Tradition"
= better recruiting
= invites to BCS games when you are not undefeated which means better...well, you get the idea.

Under the plus one/top four system, No one-loss NNBE team will ever play in a BCS game for the foreseeable future.

Other bowl tie-ins will also suffer as the market will value travelling fan base above all else. The BE is getting screwed again for the goal of getting a few more TV dollars than the MWC.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Carl Spackler]

Playing in BCS games
= better recruiting
= winning more games
= better recruiting
= more attractive OOC games
= better recruiting
= more national TV exposure
= better recruiting
= better fan support
= better facilities
= better recruiting
= "Tradition"
= better recruiting
= invites to BCS games when you are not undefeated which means better...well, you get the idea.

Under the plus one/top four system, No one-loss NNBE team will ever play in a BCS game for the foreseeable future.

Other bowl tie-ins will also suffer as the market will value travelling fan base above all else. The BE is getting screwed again for the goal of getting a few more TV dollars than the MWC.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

stop with the sky is falling. The bowl games are still going to select big east teams to play. The letters "BCS" is a media creation that was started in 1998 what the past 14 years have done is create a HUGE divide in money and the benefits that having a lot of money to spend on athletics gives among AQ conferences vs. non-AQ conferences.

All division 1-A teams are BCS teams. The AQ status going away - is a good thing, for all of college football, and for UConn, and the Big East.

The important issue is how the revenue streams will be dispersed in the post season - and again - how rankings are determined. The rankings are key. If college football polling continues to be the mess that it has become over the 14 year history of the BCS - then everybody but the SEC is in trouble. There are a lot of people out there that won't let that happen.

The BCS national championship game was first played in 1999, not 1899. Look up the history of the Orange, Fiesta, Cotton, Sugar, Rose.......they've been around for a lot longer than the BCS, and they'll be around when it's gone.

Here read this thing somebody wrote I just pulled off google for a quick history of the national championship game in college football. It's accurate.

http://thorfootball.wordpress.com/2008/02/05/bcs-origin-a-history-lesson-in-college-football/

 

[SubbaBub]

Basically, the way it stands, is the SEC is going to make a boatload of money year in and year out, since they will almost assuredly have at least one and sometimes two teams involved in the playoff. It then becomes self reinforcing. The gap will widen between the haves and have-nots. What, maybe once every 4 years a Big East team will get a sniff of the playoffs? We stand to make significantly less money going forward. And not just Marinatto, but I hope every conference commish and school president are concerned about how this money is going to be split.

The most important thing the BE needs to push for is the conference championship requirement. It balances power between the conferences and prevents the Sec from hoarding spots. It also forces ND into a conference, which is good for the NNBE even if we leave, since they now have enough FB teams.

Of course, JM won't do this. Slive's buying dinner.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

 

[nelsonmuntz]

They are tweaking the formula to make it more SOS driven and less a popularity contest. The Big East will always lose a popularity contest, but a more objective driven standard will help.

4 is temporary. It will be 8 or 16 teams before the end of the decade, if not sooner. The bowls are dead, and will continue to decline in relevance and viewership when they need to compete with a playoff.

 

[Carl Spackler]

They are tweaking the formula to make it more SOS driven and less a popularity contest. The Big East will always lose a popularity contest, but a more objective driven standard will help.

4 is temporary. It will be 8 or 16 teams before the end of the decade, if not sooner. The bowls are dead, and will continue to decline in relevance and viewership when they need to compete with a playoff.

I agree that with a playoff, the phenomenal number of 30-35 bowl games a year is dead. The number of bowls will begin shrinking back to the dozen or so games that are financially viable on their own through television, gate counts, etc.

I think that retaining an invitation bowl system, for the exact reason that it already exists - to reward winning programs - should be a continued part of the college football post season. Absolutly. What will have to happen, is that bowls will need to be set up regionally, yes, even in cold climates, (New York) such that local teams make the games viable without the guaranteed ticket sales model.

Right now, some 65-70 teams or something fill post season spots. I think 7-5 should be the cut off, and in addition to a 16 team playoff field for a national champion - no reason not award another 24-30 teams with 12-15 bowl games.

It makes the regular season - THAT much more relevant, when you know you aren't going to win our conference title come november, or something, but still have the opportunity to play in a bowl.

 

[HartbeatHusky]

I don't think that the playoff should be limited to conference champs. Sure it would help the Big East out but let's be honest, in any given year the SEC or Big 12 runner up could easily be more deserving than the ACC or BE champ. I don't think teams with 3 or 4 losses should be able to be the national champs regardless of whether they manage to win their conferences or not. I can't think of an ACC champ that would have deserved to be in the playoff in recent memory. The Big East has had more deserving teams recently with Cincy and WVU. Houston and Boise St. both were close to breaking into the top 4 last year playing CUSA and MWC schedules respectively.

It's not going to be easy for the Big East but I think a team actually has a better chance of playing for the title under this format than the current BCS setup. We have a better chance having a team break into the top 4 during the regular season than having a team finish in the top 2. Losing the AQ to a big name bowl will hurt and the Big East needs to figure out how they will navigate this new landscape but we aren't really losing any ground. We'll still be number 6 FWIW.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Elimination of AQ vs. non AQ status is a good thing for the Big East folks. That AQ label brought the big east nothing but grief. The important thing going forward is two fold - how the revenue streams are going to be split up around the post season in the future, and #2....how the rankings are determined.

That's all AQ meant anyway - money.....you knew which bowl you were going to if you won your conference and were AQ. The bowls are still going to select conference champions for participation.

The networks will decide how they will disperse money, and the evil empire in Bristol has the opportunity to really drive this thing toward a true playoff by beginning to close the gap in revenue rather than make it wider. We'll see what they do.

The most important thing moving forward at this point, for UConn, and the Big East , is how rankings are going to be determined in the future.

THe entire BCS system of rankings needs to be scrapped and started from scratch with a transparent, and systematic, independantly, and objectively reproducible method of generating rankings that are accurate and precise. A lot of words in there, but basically we need a ranking system based on a set number of factors (TBD) that gets plugged into a computer and spits out the rankings.

No questions, no coaches polls, no subjectivity. The ranking are the rankings.

Establishing that - is the only way that these bowl committees and conference commissioners are going to be able to save face with this so-called playoff they've created.

IF the current BCS methods of rankings are used - it's a complete joke.

REad this from Dennis Dodd - excellent thought process - and it needs to get pushed by the fans and media.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...cs-measuring-sticks-and-in-with-the-dodd-plan

There are a lot teams, over the past few years, that have clamored to get into an AQ league like the Big East. ECU's AD practically #beggedharder for an invite. Seems to me like AQ status brought a lot more to the league than just grief.

And, there is no way to rank teams without some element of subjectivity. What I would suggest, is something more in line with the basketball selection committee. A group of (supposedly) impartial observers who's SOLE JOB it is to rank teams accordingly. The problem now with the AP and Coaches Polls are that the voters are not up to snuff on every team they cast a vote for. It's mostly based on conventional wisdom.

I really can't see how you can spin this as a good development for the Big East. Whatever recruiting advantage we had over C-USA teams is essentially gonzo.

 

[AJC88]

I don't think that the playoff should be limited to conference champs. Sure it would help the Big East out but let's be honest, in any given year the SEC or Big 12 runner up could easily be more deserving than the ACC or BE champ. I don't think teams with 3 or 4 losses should be able to be the national champs regardless of whether they manage to win their conferences or not.

If it's the top four conference champs, what would make you assume that a 3 or 4 loss BE team would get in? That's the point, the most deserving conference champs would get in. Obviously the SEC is a better league than the BE, but if they sign up for the conference champions model, they are going in with the understanding that they won't have 2 teams in a 4 team playoff.
Cincy went undefeated and didn't make the championship game, what makes you think the current model is more friendly?

 

[CTMike]

The remaining bowls aren't dead, because they are cheap programming for the various ESPN properties. I could see them being tweaked, or some of the bottom feeders fading away though.

I want to see 8 teams, too. But with ZERO support for it by the folks who are making the decisions, how do we get there?

 

[CTMike]

I really can't see how you can spin this as a good development for the Big East. Whatever recruiting advantage we had over C-USA teams is essentially gonzo.

Some cold hard reality right there.

 

[Carl Spackler]

The big east was smart enough to form a football league in 1991 and get into the bowl contract arrangement that was started then with conference champions. That's what AQ means. They major bowls signed contracts with 6 conferences to accept the conference champions as participants way back in 1991. It's the money that's accrued because of that in 20 years that has led to the public perception and - yes recruiting - benefits of being an AQ conference - but it all comes from public perception and money.

I know it's hard to believe, but college football existed for a long, long time prior to the organization called the Bowl Championship Series being involved in the post season, and it worked well, in every single way - EXCEPT - determining a national champion.

A playoff is the only way to really determine a champion, and with only a four team format - having a requirement of conference champions only - will NOT be feasible. You need to have a full playoff if you're going to require conference champions. I hope to get there - soon. But the four team thing can work....for now, until we get there.

The keys again - are twofold. Completely scrapping the current ranking systems, such that the top 4 teams in the rankings, really are the top 4 teams. You need to set up a couple of criteria that everyone agrees on.

Strength of schedulee. Margin of victory (yes the point totals again - but put a cap on it for the rankings only - rankings will account for margins of victory up to say 40 points, etc., anything over that doesn't increase your ranking)......etc.

You set up the criteria, and make it very clear and PUBLIC how they're calculated, and then you set up the computer program that spits it out, and you make it reproducible so that every fan, every reporter, every coach, can produce the same results independantly - and you start running the rankings in week 1.

WIth that in place, they can easily expand to a playoff that includes conference champions, and at larges determined by rankings.

 

[HartbeatHusky]

If it's the top four conference champs, what would make you assume that a 3 or 4 loss BE team would get in? That's the point, the most deserving conference champs would get in. Obviously the SEC is a better league than the BE, but if they sign up for the conference champions model, they are going in with the understanding that they won't have 2 teams in a 4 team playoff.
Cincy went undefeated and didn't make the championship game, what makes you think the current model is more friendly?

Even if it's the top four conference champs it could still mandate inclusion of a 3 loss team from one of the Big 4 conferences. I think a 1 loss SEC team is honestly more deserving in most years than a 3 or even 2 loss team from the B!G or PAC. I think most years the playoff should pretty much only include teams with 1 loss or 2 at the most and winning your conference title should not really give you a better shot at making it.

 

[metsfan2323]

Now that "BCS Bowl" is no longer a meaningful term, I would think the Cotton Bowl now has more prestige and history behind it then the Fiesta bowl. Maybe something gets worked out with them for the top Big East team. Houston, SMU and Notre Dame all have a history with the Cotton Bowl and this is where it is good to now have Fedex in our back pocket for funding.

BTW now that strength of schedule is more important than ever BYU is going to need to join a conference. Once they realize the Big 12 isn't going to invite them they will look to the Big East.

 

[EdgewoodNHV]

Some cold hard reality right there.

Not really. You think Louisville wants back into C-USA now? Or Memphis?

 

[Carl Spackler]

The elimination of AQ status is not going to affect recruiting negatively. That's a poor understanding of the situation. Keeping AQ status for conferences, and the big east (Or any conference) losing it - while others 'have' it - would definitely be a problem.

But as I"ve said ad nauseum, no where - is it written how a conference, once they got AQ status in the BCS system, could lose it - unless the conference completely dissolves and ceases operation as a football league. The only danger the big east has ever been in, when it comes to AQ status, was failing to meet the requirements by the NCAA to be a division 1-A football conference.

THe only way - I've written for a year now - that the big east loses AQ status, is if ALL the conferences lose AQ status - and that's exactly what's happened.

THe big east simply needs to maintain a post season relationship with the bowl systems.

There is absolutely no reason to think that won't continue. The whole BCS existence - is about the national championship - not the bowls.

 

[RS9999X]

What will the subsidy be for sitting on the sidelines? $5 to $6 million per conference for the little 7 conferences to agree to be part of this playoff knowing they will never place a team?

The 6 major conferences will each have a "Champions" bowl alliance and agreement-- "a little BCS" type of agreement. In most years that means the ACC and BE will end up with the best available #3 teams from the B12 or SEC and the Big 4 will never feature their Champs--they will be in the playoffs.

That's sellable. The BE Champions bowl could go for $5 to $7 million a team for a prime Holiday week slot. I expect the Championship Bowl and Sideline subsidy will net out to about half the present BCS but be a shadow of the money the Big 4 get under the new contracts

It's going to cost BE football around $1 per team is my guess

 

[AJC88]

Even if it's the top four conference champs it could still mandate inclusion of a 3 loss team from one of the Big 4 conferences. I think a 1 loss SEC team is honestly more deserving in most years than a 3 or even 2 loss team from the B!G or PAC. I think most years the playoff should pretty much only include teams with 1 loss or 2 at the most and winning your conference title should not really give you a better shot at making it.

Ok I was going off what you said about a 3-4 loss big east team making it, which would NEVER happen.
I think the conference championship is a good thing because we already saw Bama and LSU play once, I wasn't in favor of seeing them again. Again, just my preference/opinion.

 

[RS9999X]

There's every reason to believe they will market a "Champions Bowl" Series featuring the esst available from the Big 6. That ties up 12 teams in a non-compete against the Playoffs.

 

[B1GEast]

They are now referring to them as the big 5. The BE is no longer relevant.

 

[FAIRTIDES]

Some cold hard reality right there.

Not necessarily. Pre-BCS, schools like Syr, Pitt, WVa and, even, BC were able to get players that could compete with anybody. UCONN has spent money on FB; money that provided the necessary accoutrement. A little smart promotion, aggressive scheduling, a good coach that excels at "selling the dream" along with the a fore mentioned "stuff" gives UCONN a chance that might be better than it had with the BCS.

To me, the whole concept depends of fair rankings.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Ok I was going off what you said about a 3-4 loss big east team making it, which would NEVER happen.
I think the conference championship is a good thing because we already saw Bama and LSU play once, I wasn't in favor of seeing them again. Again, just my preference/opinion.

In a four team format, requirement of conference champion participation only is not feasible. You need a full playoff bracket of at least 12 teams to mandate only conference champions.

It's determining the rankings, of the top 4 right now that are most important. The current system needs to get complete canned. Sorry Sagarin, etc.....the money streams are gone, unless you open up your calculations to the public and let everybody see just how those rankings are determined - and the ranking system needs to be subjective, and reproducible. Rankings need to be crystal clear and unambigous, and coaches polls, media polling, etc...OUT. A list of criteria for ranking needs to be determined, and then the calculations done. Clear and simple.

IF - such a ranking system......were to be in place and the 2011 season actually produced a true top 4 ranking...of.....#1. LSU, #2, Alabama, #3. Ok State #4 Stanford.

A four team playoff would have been semis....#1 LSU v. #4 Stanford & #2 Alabama vs. #3 Ok State.

IF - LSU and Alabama matched up after that.....then you don't have the problem that the BCS national championship game had last year when it comes to interest.


I've gotten over that the conference commissioners completely scrapped the 8 & 16 team models for now, but I'm still pissed off that they had the gall to suggest it was about preserving the regular season.....

but this thing can work, and eventually lead to that 16 team bracket...

as long as the ranking system isn't a perversion, and it's actually a valid ranking system, that is reproducible, makes sense, and transparent for all fans, media, football people to see.

 

[SubbaBub]

stop with the sky is falling. The bowl games are still going to select big east teams to play. The letters "BCS" is a media creation that was started in 1998 what the past 14 years have done is create a HUGE divide in money and the benefits that having a lot of money to spend on athletics gives among AQ conferences vs. non-AQ conferences.

All division 1-A teams are BCS teams. The AQ status going away - is a good thing, for all of college football, and for UConn, and the Big East.

The important issue is how the revenue streams will be dispersed in the post season - and again - how rankings are determined. The rankings are key. If college football polling continues to be the mess that it has become over the 14 year history of the BCS - then everybody but the SEC is in trouble. There are a lot of people out there that won't let that happen.

The BCS national championship game was first played in 1999, not 1899. Look up the history of the Orange, Fiesta, Cotton, Sugar, Rose.......they've been around for a lot longer than the BCS, and they'll be around when it's gone.

Here read this thing somebody wrote I just pulled off google for a quick history of the national championship game in college football. It's accurate.

http://thorfootball.wordpress.com/2008/02/05/bcs-origin-a-history-lesson-in-college-football/

BCS is shorthand for the big money warm weather bowls against top 10 teams. They are not regularly picking BE teams if at all by choice. If you really understood CFB history, you'd realize that. Certainly not if there is no pressure of the current BCS title. Where did Boise play last year?


Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Is the ACC in any better shape than the Big East because of this development?

This is a necessary transition step to a 16 team playoff. All the non-playoff bowls became a lot less relevant, and their relevance will continue to rapidly decline over the next few years. The neutral field semifinals will be temporary, because fans will not travel to back to back bowl games. The games will be held on campus within 5 years.

 

[B1GEast]

Is the ACC in any better shape than the Big East because of this development?

This is a necessary transition step to a 16 team playoff. All the non-playoff bowls became a lot less relevant, and their relevance will continue to rapidly decline over the next few years. The neutral field semifinals will be temporary, because fans will not travel to back to back bowl games. The games will be held on campus within 5 years.

YES. You have to imagine VT, Miami, FSU, Clemson and UVA will bring that conference back to form.