BCS 2.0 will be 6 bowls, with guaranteed spot for highest Big East/non-AQ

[BG79]

The Big East AQ was gone whether today's events occurred or didn't occur.

This seems to b the best of crappy circumstances (consistent raiding during realignment, crappy football, or crappy vision in Providence).

Not really any reason for anyone to be excited about this though. The reports that the Big East won on this are ridiculous, we got shafted good and hard. What happened to a 7th game option? I'd much rather have that with an AQ than this pile of garbage we were sold regardless if it is a marginally better bowl. People want to look back on Boise States past accomplishments and assume that it will equal a Big East team being the winner at large. Things are different now, they don't have the same team/qb/oc that they had then and now they're going to have a more difficult schedule. All our teams have a more difficult path to a great record than the other teams in the 4 other scrub conferences. Since this is all about national ranking the conference standings are essentially meaningless now. There is no benefit to winning the conference when you already have 2 or more losses.

Think of it like this, now what incentive at all is there to schedule any sort of remotely tough out of conference opponent? Yeah the money is good from getting a Michigan or a Notre Dame to come to town but with this format we're shooting ourselves in the foot by giving up what very well might be a loss.

 

[RMoore1999]

This seems like great news to me. I don't understand the subdued reaction in the Boneyard, this is even better then creating a 7th bowl because it is less watered down. The Big East will own this bid 9 out of 10 years.

The last 14 months have really turned into a positive for Big East football:

1) We now have a playoff which gives an undefeated Big East champion a chance to compete for a championship. Before the playoff there was almost no chance.

2) The football conference is now better then ever and will be on par with the ACC if BYU joins. The 8 team Big East with its 7 conference games was a disaster. We lost WVU but picked up Boise and Syracuse and Pitt are no more exciting than Temple in Football so good riddance to them.

3) While no longer having an auto-bid to the BCS, when you look at the competition it becomes obvious that the Big East will almost always be represented in one of the big 6 bowls.

4) Most importantly we now have a real commissioner and the Catholic schools no longer have a choke hold on the conference.

"It was a possibility up until the end," said Big East commissioner Mike Aresco of the seventh bowl. "But this was a better plan for us. It gives us the same guaranteed access for our conference champion. We'll work out the revenue. We'll be fine."

It wouldn't be "guaranteed" this year with LA Tech competing with Louisville or RU for the spot. Aresco's goal was for a BE v. B12/pac12 bowl. His comments are the best spin he can put on a sad situation that officially relegates the BE to 2nd class status.

 

[noeynox]

Still just can't see how this is a positive. This is a fantastic deal for the MWC, CUSA, MAC, Sunbelt, they go from no real opportunity to legitimate BCS opportunity a huge gain for them. For us, we go from AQ status to relegated to this mess. Teams get one shot at a BCS bowl and they need to not only ensure they win the Big East but also make sure they rank higher than any team from the other 4 conferences I listed above. It's a tall order, not an impossible one but certainly there are going to be many years where the Big East champion will not be in a BCS bowl. I don't know how this will help with recruiting, it is a tall order attracting recruits as it was now that there is no surefire AQ and it's basically institutionalized that the Big East is a marginal conference it'll only get more difficult.

This exactly how I'm seeing it as well. Even if we get more money as a conference from this latest incarnation of the BCS, if the gap in revenue between us and the acc continues to grow were in serious trouble.

 

[Jimdish255]

For Aresco to use the word "guaranteed" to describe this tells me 2 things. First is that this deal is so bad he had to misrepresent it in his spin to try to sell anyone who is paying attention. Secondly he thinks we're too stupid to know the meaning of the word guaranteed. The ACC knows the meaning of the word guaranteed, we know the meaning of the word failure.

 

[Sean]

The way I see it - the insistence on moving to a four team playoff meant that virtually no one will care about the bowls anyway.

So one year the BE champ might go to the Belk Bowl instead of the Cotton Bowl. Does it really matter that much? Either way, the bowls are even more clearly exhibitions than they used to be.

 

[Jimdish255]

The way I see it - the insistence on moving to a four team playoff meant that virtually no one will care about the bowls anyway.

So one year the BE champ might go to the Belk Bowl instead of the Cotton Bowl. Does it really matter that much? Either way, the bowls are even more clearly exhibitions than they used to be.

Well it's actually about the money because that has a huge impact on the long-term competitive prospects of a team or conference. And a 4 team playoff is way too small to avoid big controversy. The committee will take care of that.

 

[Point6]

I'm sure all the news is still a bit garbled but I saw or read that combined the little 5 will get one share of the ESPN $475M that will be less than one of the 5 equal shares that will be received by the "big 5" conferences (i.e., ACC and SEC will get the same share payout). The little 5 will have to figure out how to split their smaller share payout. If this is the case, the NNBE will have a hard time keeping up in a long run competition w/the ACC.

Another fear I have is the access we have under the little 5 arrangement will not translate to 2 teams in the premium bowls if our champ goes to the playoffs. As I understand the arrangement now, if the big 5 get a team in the playoff, their second best team goes to their respective "champion"contract bowl regardless of quality/merit. I suspect the little 5 access is just one of the 12 spots and it stops there even if that spot is a playoff spot.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

So the Big East didn't keep its AQ. Losing WVU and sending teams like UConn to the Fiesta Bowl took care of that. This is the best, by far, we could have hoped for.

By most accounts, the Big East will end up ahead financially with BCS revenue compared to where it was under the old system. The problem is, the Big 5 will end up way, way, way ahead. It is what it is.

The most important thing the Big East can do is get a good TV deal with NBC. Exposure will be the best recruiting tool the Big East has. Play at Maryland or Virginia and get buried on ESPN3, or play at UConn and get regular noon kickoffs on NBC. The money should be OK. The Boise AD quoted $8MM a year for Boise a week ago, which would indicate a $12 or $13MM deal for UConn. Huge improvement over where we are and keeps us in the game for the next round of realignment.

The risk is that a La Tech or Northern Illinois runs the table in a weak CUSA or MAC. That is a real risk, but even with 1 loss, those schools would not be viable because their computer rankings would suck. I think the MWC is still too tough with Nevada, Air Force, Fresno, Utah State, and Hawaii for schools to have a realistic shot of running the table.

I think it is also expected that schools across college football will upgrade their schedules because of the playoff. That will shuffle the rankings quite a bit.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Well it's actually about the money because that has a huge impact on the long-term competitive prospects of a team or conference. And a 4 team playoff is way too small to avoid big controversy. The committee will take care of that.

I am very angry we are not in the Big 10. Very angry.

 

[zls44]

 

[zls44]

The fact that you wish the Rent were never built says more about you then it does about the Big East. BTW Miami, VT, Boston College and Syracuse all stink in case you haven't noticed.

The state needed a modern, outdoor stadium. I say that as a selfish USMNT fan who likes seeing big-time international soccer in-state.

 

[Point6]

We are in the "club" - even if we can't use the golf course.​

 

[nelsonmuntz]

BYU will be writing its football program off if it stays independent.

 

[junglehusky]

I am very angry we are not in the Big 10. Very angry.

But would you rather stay in the NNBE than the ACC? Let me guess, your answer is yes because FSU and Clemson batted their eyes with someone else, something something instability? And never mind about the $$$.

 

[junglehusky]

We are in the "club" - even if we can't use the golf course.​

We are in the same "club" as Bowling Green and Troy State. A slightly better table away from the kitchen doors, but not in the VIP.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

But would you rather stay in the NNBE than the ACC? Let me guess, your answer is yes because FSU and Clemson batted their eyes with someone else, something something instability? And never mind about the $$$.

Your obvious straw man is obvious.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

The way I see it - the insistence on moving to a four team playoff meant that virtually no one will care about the bowls anyway.

So one year the BE champ might go to the Belk Bowl instead of the Cotton Bowl. Does it really matter that much? Either way, the bowls are even more clearly exhibitions than they used to be.

The bowls will be dead within 5 years. They are having trouble selling tickets to Michigan and VTech in the Sugar, imagine what it will be like when there is a playoff that becomes the entire focus of college football. Will anyone give a crap about the Fiesta Bowl?

 

[BG79]

Theres so much this football team needs to do. We need to fire our coach yesterday, and we need to get the hell out of the Big East. I don't see this program moving forward till both of those are done.

 

[Marty Jackson]

The 5 non-contract conferences need to think outside the box...
Maybe create their own playoff within this structure.

Dedicate the final week of the season for a semi-final and then have a championship game featuring the top 4 ranked teams... Winner would at the very least represent the 'Group of 5' in the national host bowl, maybe a spot in the national playoff.

Not sure how the logistics could work from a scheduling standpoint, but Im sure someone could figure it out if there were money to be made...

The games would create discussion and generate exposure for these leagues. Would also help to 'inflate' the ranking for the winning team. And then there is the added revenue for the top programs hosting the games, along with the potential to sell the rights to this game.

 

[Husky25]

NYC, I think a big key for the BE will be whether the playoff remains at 4 teams (there were some quotes a while ago that expansion past 4 is not in the cards for the forseeable future). It won't be easy for NNBE teams to get access to the top 4, I know some will argue that Cinci would have been in the mix but this will be decided by a selection committee and the big traditional schools will have political influence in the process. Granted, there will be public support for expansion for sure, and maybe Boise or Louisville will improve to where they can argue they deserve a top 4 playoff bid. (For any NNBE team, they will have to have multiple years of dominance so they can start the season ranked high). But over the long haul, I just think it'll be tough for the BE to get in the 4 team playoff and that could dampen the ceiling for recruiting at a school like Boise.

This is completely dependent on the definition of "foreseeable future." The BCS may talk big about equality of the new system, but make no mistake that it's all about the Benjamins. Outside the Tournement, the bowls are still merely exhibition games, where interest barely extends passed the host community and the two fan bases. The more games that count = more viewers = higher ratings = more advertising $$ = more overall $$.

I'm on record in that I think the Tourney would have ultimately expanded to 10 teams (10-7, 8-9 play-in, then 8 team bracket from there on out) by 2024. However this proposal makes it easier to go to 16 teams awfully quickly. By that time, hopefully UConn will have righted the ship and contend for one of those spots...

 

[lsuconnman]

The bowls will be dead within 5 years. They are having trouble selling tickets to Michigan and VTech in the Sugar, imagine what it will be like when there is a playoff that becomes the entire focus of college football. Will anyone give a crap about the Fiesta Bowl?

Bowl's located outside of college football hotbeds without traditional schools have trouble selling tickets. Many lowly bowls virtually sell out every year, and well traveled programs result in profits regardless of the invitation. All programs struggle to sell $200 tickets at face value to the public...it's all a matter of successfully absorbing the tickets at the institutional level and then dispensing them for a fraction of the cost.

The stratification effect of the new formula has been obvious for years. The only thing I find surprising is the biggest advocates of the new system are the ones least likely to benefit. The money funnel will prove to be even more predictable. The additional top tier games are simply intended to placate the poor with illusions of opportunity.

From this point forward the challenge for the lower class teams will be balance of scheduling. You'll begin seeing SEC/PAC12/B12 offering $2m+ for home games. Will schools risk guaranteed money for the chance to sandbag the rankings? Only if Title IX can be separated from football...highly unlikely. Troy spent the better part of a decade playing 3-4 away games against SEC schools each season. In exchange for funding 1/5 of the entire $20mil athletic budget, they were rewarded with 8-4 and 7-5 seasons and a $300k bid to the N.O. Bowl. The majority of schools will be happy to sacrifice football glory to pay the bills of their non-revenue sports.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Bowl's located outside of college football hotbeds without traditional schools have trouble selling tickets. Many lowly bowls virtually sell out every year, and well traveled programs result in profits regardless of the invitation. All programs struggle to sell $200 tickets at face value to the public...it's all a matter of successfully absorbing the tickets at the institutional level and then dispensing them for a fraction of the cost.

The stratification effect of the new formula has been obvious for years. The only thing I find surprising is the biggest advocates of the new system are the ones least likely to benefit. The money funnel will prove to be even more predictable. The additional top tier games are simply intended to placate the poor with illusions of opportunity.

From this point forward the challenge for the lower class teams will be balance of scheduling. You'll begin seeing SEC/PAC12/B12 offering $2m+ for home games. Will schools risk guaranteed money for the chance to sandbag the rankings? Only if Title IX can be separated from football...highly unlikely. Troy spent the better part of a decade playing 3-4 away games against SEC schools each season. In exchange for funding 1/5 of the entire $20mil athletic budget, they were rewarded with 8-4 and 7-5 seasons and a $300k bid to the N.O. Bowl. The majority of schools will be happy to sacrifice football glory to pay the bills of their non-revenue sports.

I also think you are seeing curious outcomes in these guarantee games. The Louisiana-Lafayette/Florida ending was ridiculous. I don't think I have ever heard of a game ending that way in my life. Did ULL realize that the right thing to do was to pack it in if they ever wanted to be invited back? You tell me.

How many guarantee games have ended with the underdog who has played toe to toe all game long suddenly fold up shop in the last 2-3 minutes? Utah State has had like 4 of those games in the last 2 years. The ULM/Auburn game was suspicious too. These small schools know they get to have a few upsets, but if those outcomes become too frequent, they will stop getting the paychecks.

 

[JayRU09]

I've been going back and forth on this, and while it sucks to be seen as a 'lower conference', the fact is we may come out pretty well financially.

It seems as though the 'Power Five' will top out at 16% of the total revenue each (proposed 80% divided by 5).

However, the 20% the other conferences get has yet to be decided. And since the formula used to determine who was the 'power 5' puts the Big East at being better than the other four combined, we should fight and claw for 8-10%. Plus with extra revenue for sending a rep to a BCS bowl and extra revenue for academics (apparently), if we could get double digits we could end up fine.

Everything goes back to the TV deal. BYU is now the number one priority.

 

[junglehusky]

I also think you are seeing curious outcomes in these guarantee games. The Louisiana-Lafayette/Florida ending was ridiculous. I don't think I have ever heard of a game ending that way in my life. Did ULL realize that the right thing to do was to pack it in if they ever wanted to be invited back? You tell me.

How many guarantee games have ended with the underdog who has played toe to toe all game long suddenly fold up shop in the last 2-3 minutes? Utah State has had like 4 of those games in the last 2 years. The ULM/Auburn game was suspicious too. These small schools know they get to have a few upsets, but if those outcomes become too frequent, they will stop getting the paychecks.

Now that post is a saucer of milk for Conspiracy Kitty if I ever seen one.

 

[huskymedic]

I'm sure all the news is still a bit garbled but I saw or read that combined the little 5 will get one share of the ESPN $475M that will be less than one of the 5 equal shares that will be received by the "big 5" conferences (i.e., ACC and SEC will get the same share payout). The little 5 will have to figure out how to split their smaller share payout. If this is the case, the NNBE will have a hard time keeping up in a long run competition w/the ACC.

Another fear I have is the access we have under the little 5 arrangement will not translate to 2 teams in the premium bowls if our champ goes to the playoffs. As I understand the arrangement now, if the big 5 get a team in the playoff, their second best team goes to their respective "champion"contract bowl regardless of quality/merit. I suspect the little 5 access is just one of the 12 spots and it stops there even if that spot is a playoff spot.

This was what USA Today had:

"The question of how the revenue will be distributed has apparently been settled, at least in broad terms. Though presidents and commissioners at the Hyatt Regency would not discuss the terms because they hadn't been finalized, CBSSports.com reported Sunday the "Group of Five" would split at least 20 percent of the overall bowl revenue.

"There will be plenty of money for everybody," BCS executive director Bill Hancock said. "The bottom line is 'more.' "

Northern Illinois president John Peters, who represented the Mid-American Conference, said the vote on revenue distribution was unanimous.

"We think it's fair," Peters said. "It does recognize that some conferences contribute more in a revenue way. … From my point of view for my conference, what it means is more."

Said the Big East's Aresco: "The fairness aspect is definitely there."

Somebody else can do the math...

 

[JayRU09]

The pie is at base $470+ million. I believe I have read that 10% will used for an academic achievement payout (basically the Big Ten's backup plan for sucking), which could mean $47 million off that $470 number, so $423 million.

80% goes to the power five, which is $338.4 million. Each 'power conference' will get $68 million. These are rough numbers as the actual calculation regarding bowls will be much more complicated. $84.6 at the very least will be left for us and the other conferences, and it's to be determined how to split that.

Judging off the criteria of how the 'Power 5' were determined, us being better than the other four COMBINED should get us $40 million if all things were fair.

But they're not.

 

[BlueMAB]

The reason I'm saying that it's not misleading is that the author is including Boise on the Big East side of the ledger. So it was clear what his/her intent was.

If you think there is a better way to represent what "would have been" with this system in place, then go for it. Look them up and see if the author has over-stated, under-stated, or appropriately stated what would have been the Big East representation throughout the last decade. Or don't. I'm not sure I care, but if you care, and if I were you, that's how I would handle it...

There is no way to know whether it's over or understated, that's what you're not understanding.

Think about it. We have no idea what Boise would have achieved playing in the big east all those years. It's impossible to ever know. But the author assumes all results would have been the same if the teams were in different conferences.

 

[UConnDan97]

There is no way to know whether it's over or understated, that's what you're not understanding.

Think about it. We have no idea what Boise would have achieved playing in the big east all those years. It's impossible to ever know. But the author assumes all results would have been the same if the teams were in different conferences.

What YOU'RE not understanding is the part where I typed, "I'm not sure I care," which was code for, "I don't care"...

 

[BlueMAB]

What YOU'RE not understanding is the part where I typed, "I'm not sure I care," which was code for, "I don't care"...

And yet you continue to respond to things you don't care about. Strange behavior. What you were suggesting I do is moronic, that's what I was trying to point out to you.

If you don't care about the discussion, you can save us both time by not contributing to it.

 

[UConnDan97]

And yet you continue to respond to things you don't care about. Strange behavior.

No. I responded to you. I still care about you, WingU. I still care about you...