Big 12 Comm: AQ status will be eliminated, obviating need for more (Boise) conference expansion

[Rumrunner]

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6270202/33203093

The concept has been discussed informally among the game’s power brokers and would represent a fundamental shift in the way the sport’s postseason is administrated. Neinas supports the change because he said eliminating the so-called “AQ” status would slow or stop conference realignment.

“I think there is growing sentiment to eliminate the automatic qualification part of the BCS,” Neinas told CBSSports.com this week. “You can see what’s happening. They [conferences] are gerrymandering all over the place under the intent to maintain an automatic qualification. History has shown you don’t need that if you are qualified.”

______
This is aimed squarely at Boise and BYU. Deeper question is, how does it benefit Texas?

 

[SubbaBub]

Okaaaaaaay, This, as indicated by his quote, is clearly directed at the Big East. The next shoe to drop will be removing the limit of 2 BCS teams per conference.

It is clear that the BCS Bowl committees do not want programs from conferences other than the SEC, B1G, B12, or PAC-12, except for a few teams like Clemson in the ACC.

The monopoly is about to be completed. There will be no need for regular season as the BCS will pick from the likes of Texas, OU, Michigan, Ohio St. Penn St., USC, Alabama, Florida, LSU, Oregon, with a few other teams to round out the roster on a rotating basis.

It's time to blow it up.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

 

[HartbeatHusky]

Okaaaaaaay, This, as indicated by his quote, is clearly directed at the Big East. The next shoe to drop will be removing the limit of 2 BCS teams per conference.

It is clear that the BCS Bowl committees do not want programs from conferences other than the SEC, B1G, B12, or PAC-12, except for a few teams like Clemson in the ACC.

The monopoly is about to be completed. There will be no need for regular season as the BCS will pick from the likes of Texas, OU, Michigan, Ohio St. Penn St., USC, Alabama, Florida, LSU, Oregon, with a few other teams to round out the roster on a rotating basis.

It's time to blow it up.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

I think it will make the season more meaningful in some ways. There would be no way to get in just by winning a weak conference or a fluke championship game. I actually think this set up makes the ideal number of teams 10, which may be why the Big 12 likes it so much since a conference championship game becomes somewhat meaningless. In order to make it to the BCS teams would still need to lose no more than 1 or 2 games a season and probably have to have sustained success so that they start off high in the rankings at the beginning of the season.

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

How convenient for them to remove it now. The timing is just perfect; after the Big East is raided, but before it can recover.

UConn has been caught on the wrong side of the football power play, largely made by ESPN. How long will this continue? If this is the permanent arrangement, it's time to make a visit to the ESPN offices with all the political weight you can bear. When a business that was given birth to and nurtured in your state (in large part to have a place to broadcast local college sports*) acts with hostility towards your state university, it must be made clear that the tax payers who reside all around that business have taken notice.

*the link between the early years of ESPN and UConn should be known by all UConn fans.

 

[HartbeatHusky]

How convenient for them to remove it now. The timing is just perfect; after the Big East is raided, but before it can recover.

UConn has been caught on the wrong side of the football power play, largely made by ESPN. How long will this continue? If this is the permanent arrangement, it's time to make a visit to the ESPN offices with all the political weight you can bear. When a business that was given birth to and nurtured in your state (in large part to have a place to broadcast local college sports*) acts with hostility towards your state university, it must be made clear that the tax payers who reside all around that business have taken notice.

*the link between the early years of ESPN and UConn should be known by all UConn fans.

It still doesn't make it any more likely that the ACC gets multiple teams into the BCS or that they get any teams in. This move could diminish some of the clout of both the ACC and the BE since teams would actually have to have good records and sustained success in order to get to BCS games. The advantage to being in one of the 4 power conferences is also diminished since just winning it won't get you anywhere and having a good record will be the most important thing. WVU will propably never go to a BCS game under this scenario in the B12. Same with Pitt and Cuse in the ACC. UConn would have a better chance running the table in the watered down BE and finishing the season ranked highly than WVU, Cuse, or Pitt will have trying to have good records in the B12 and ACC. If this happens I want the BE to stop at 10, round robin, no championship game.

 

[HuskyHawk]

This is an essential and positive step. The reality is that UConn and Rutgers have no business in a league with Boise State or San Diego State. It makes no sense whatsoever. It destroys rivalries and regional cohesiveness. If the BE could stop worrying about AQ status, we might add UCF, Houston, SMU, Temple and Tulsa rather than the mountain and western teams. Then again, maybe they would stay in CUSA. You would still need a solid strength of schedule to reach top ten in the BCS.

 

[HartbeatHusky]

This is an essential and positive step. The reality is that UConn and Rutgers have no business in a league with Boise State or San Diego State. It makes no sense whatsoever. It destroys rivalries and regional cohesiveness. If the BE could stop worrying about AQ status, we might add UCF, Houston, SMU, Temple and Tulsa rather than the mountain and western teams. Then again, maybe they would stay in CUSA. You would still need a solid strength of schedule to reach top ten in the BCS.

I think that we should still add Houston, SMU, and UCF since they are coming for all sports anyway and would love to get to play BE basketball. Then we add one more. I honestly think moving Nova up will be fine in this scenario and the BE is all set.

 

[Excalibur]

But if the BCS bowls retain their conference tie-ins, there is still an "AQ", and the BCS has just become more exclusionary.

 

[HartbeatHusky]

But if the BCS bowls retain their conference tie-ins, there is still an "AQ", and the BCS has just become more exclusionary.

I think that part would have to go for this to work. There simply may not be teams available from whatever conference they have an agreement with. Sure, most of the time the SEC, Big 10, P12, and B12 will have a top ten team but neither the ACC or BE will be gauranteed that. If, by chance one of the power 4 don't have a top 10 team, aggreements wouldn't matter for them either.

 

[freescooter]

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6270202/33203093

The concept has been discussed informally among the game’s power brokers and would represent a fundamental shift in the way the sport’s postseason is administrated. Neinas supports the change because he said eliminating the so-called “AQ” status would slow or stop conference realignment.

“I think there is growing sentiment to eliminate the automatic qualification part of the BCS,” Neinas told CBSSports.com this week. “You can see what’s happening. They [conferences] are gerrymandering all over the place under the intent to maintain an automatic qualification. History has shown you don’t need that if you are qualified.”

______
This is aimed squarely at Boise and BYU. Deeper question is, how does it benefit Texas?

Yeah, like Neinas cares about conference realignment....And beyond that, the realignment is based on money, not AQ. If you just split all th emoney equally, we'd immediately go back to reaosnable, geographically based leagues. It would take a 15 minutes...These guys with their self-serving blather are just unbelievable...

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

Any year when there are 2 or more undefeated teams combined from the SEC, Big XII, B1G, or PAC-12, it will not be possible for any team in any other conference to play for a championship. Actually, that's true now, but it will be even more entrenched without AQ's. The "strength of schedule" argument will keep the have-nots poor, as it will not be possible to play a schedule difficult enough to overcome existing biases of strength.

Also, the SEC is/may go to nine conference games, giving less chance for OOC games to matter when determining strength of schedule for bowl invites.

 

[HartbeatHusky]

I don't think it's that bad of an idea. Why should Boise St. have to play for an at large bid every year when all they should have to do is finish in the top 10? This also would make conference evaluation about more than football since all of these schools play other sports as well. Some schools might be attracted to the Big East for it's basketball tradition and strong olympic sports and not have to worry about is it an AQ conference or not.

 

[Hoophound]

No way. This guy has a lot of nerve. He took WVU/TCU and wants them to play next year. He say's Missouri "gave awfully short notice". He completed his expansion and now he wants to eliminate the AQ so the BEast can't expand. If I am the prez of one of the 5 remaining BE schools, I come out swinging at this point. We need to expand and then if AQ disappears, reevalute. Court seems inevitable.

 

[HartbeatHusky]

The "strength of schedule" argument will keep the have-nots poor, as it will not be possible to play a schedule difficult enough to overcome existing biases of strength.

That's why sustained success will be important though. Look at Boise. They are top 5 playing in a weak conference due to being consistently good for years. You want BCS games, that should be how you get there. This would also make sure conferences don't go to 16. There would be no benefit and actually a large mediocre conference like the ACC suffers the most. You could have a top 10 team play a championship game against a unranked team and lose and the ACC would then have nobody going to the BCS.

 

[SubbaBub]

Wow, some of you really don't get it. This is an exclusionary move. A 11-1 Uconn team will be passed over citing strength of schedule based on the opinion of an assistant SID who doesn't watch the games.

College football's unbalanced scheduling makes subjective analysis impossible. The idea of merit in this process is a mcguffin. The AQ at least protects a team from a major FB playing conference from these shenanigans.

Boise got bounced last year for losing one game as a non-AQ. Why would it be any different for an ACC team or a BE team?

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

How many undefeated seasons in a row will UConn have to have to get to a championship game?

Is there some sort of formula, just so I can know where we stand?

 

[HartbeatHusky]

Wow, some of you really don't get it. This is an exclusionary move. A 11-1 Uconn team will be passed over citing strength of schedule based on the opinion of an assistant SID who doesn't watch the games.

College football's unbalanced scheduling makes subjective analysis impossible. The idea of merit in this process is a mcguffin. The AQ at least protects a team from a major FB playing conference from these shenanigans.

Boise got bounced last year for losing one game as a non-AQ. Why would it be any different for an ACC team or a BE team?

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

I think Boise finished at number 10 last year and were bounced from the BCS due to the AQ structure. Without the AQ they play in a BCS bowl last year, which would have seemed fair to me.

 

[arnie3]

There's one part of the story that doesn't make sense to me:

"....Syracuse and Pittsburgh would remain in the ACC, Missouri and Texas A & M would remain in the Big XII, and TCU and West Virginia would remain in the Big East."

Why if there are no changes until 2013 would Syracuse and Pitt be allowed to go to the ACC, while the other schools remain in their conferences? Is that just a mistake?

 

[ctchamps]

The salient part of this proposal by Neinas is to keep teams from shifting for two years. He knows he can't get WV so he's lobbying for a proposal that will keep A&M and Missouri for another year. And he is proposing a carrot for the non AQ conferences and the SEC to be his allies on this matter.

If the non AQ conferences take the bait on this they will be foolish. The non AQ conferences will not gain any advantage by this proposal because the four power conferences will never play games against the weaker conferences and they will start every season inflated in the rankings.

The SEC could bite and tell Missouri and A&M to wait one year, believing a B12 ally on this proposal will result in the SEC getting more teams into the BCS. This is the real maneuver behind the B12 proposal.

 

[ctchamps]

There's one part of the story that doesn't make sense to me:

"....Syracuse and Pittsburgh would remain in the ACC, Missouri and Texas A & M would remain in the Big XII, and TCU and West Virginia would remain in the Big East."

Why if there are no changes until 2013 would Syracuse and Pitt be allowed to go to the ACC, while the other schools remain in their conferences? Is that just a mistake?

Yes it was a mistake.

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

The SEC could bite and tell Missouri and A&M to wait one year, believing a B12 ally on this proposal will result in the SEC getting more teams into the BCS. This is the real maneuver behind the B12 proposal.

This sounds like a good theory. Also agree there is no upside in this proposal for most conferences.

 

[HartbeatHusky]

From the article:

Using the final 2010 standings as example going forward, the Big East (UConn, out of the BCS top 25) and ACC (Virginia Tech, No. 13) would not have had a BCS team because those conferences champions finished out of the top 10. The Big Ten would have had three teams – Wisconsin, Ohio State and Michigan State.
In that configuration schools like Missouri (2007), Texas Tech (2008), Boise State (2008, 2010), Iowa (2009), Georgia Tech (2009) and Michigan State (2010) would have made BCS bowls simply by finishing in the top 10.

I don't see what is so exclusionary about this. The biggest problem with the BE and ACC is that our top teams lose way too many games during the season to be considered truly elite. Who can really claim it's fair for a 8-4 BE team to go to the BCS while a 10-2, top 10 team from one of the other conferences doesn't? It doesn't matter what conference you are in, if you have back to back 1 or 2 loss seasons you will be in the BCS and most teams with 1 loss seasons would have a decent enough shot to make it.

 

[ctchamps]

This is a brilliant proposal by Neinas and the B12. It give the B12 the opportunity to keep their Fox contract intact. Furthermore it satisfies Texas because they will get a couple of years to get the LHN network off the ground and it solidifies their BCS future if and when they go independent. They won't have to cut deals with the BCS conferences. OU figures that if the B12 disintegrates in six years they have the option of also going independent. Conference affiliation will be less important with this proposal.

The big loser in all this is TCU. They will most likely not be in a position down the road to be BCS qualified or in a strong enough conference to keep their football program relevant. And they won't have the six years to get some monies to compensate for their fate. The other big losers will be the remaining B12 teams, most of the BE teams including those heading elsewhere and many of the ACC teams.

Outside of the SEC, B!G, PAC, and Missouri, A&M, Texas, OU and maybe ND, most of the other universities will become irrelevant.

 

[HartbeatHusky]

Outside of the SEC, B!G, PAC, and Missouri, A&M, Texas, OU and maybe ND, most of the other universities will become irrelevant.

I disagree, the only relevant schools will be those that consistenly only lose 1 or 2 games a season regardless of conference. There will not be many schools like that regardless of what happens.

 

[ctchamps]

From the article:

Using the final 2010 standings as example going forward, the Big East (UConn, out of the BCS top 25) and ACC (Virginia Tech, No. 13) would not have had a BCS team because those conferences champions finished out of the top 10. The Big Ten would have had three teams – Wisconsin, Ohio State and Michigan State.
In that configuration schools like Missouri (2007), Texas Tech (2008), Boise State (2008, 2010), Iowa (2009), Georgia Tech (2009) and Michigan State (2010) would have made BCS bowls simply by finishing in the top 10.

I don't see what is so exclusionary about this. The biggest problem with the BE and ACC is that our top teams lose way too many games during the season to be considered truly elite. Who can really claim it's fair for a 8-4 BE team to go to the BCS while a 10-2, top 10 team from one of the other conferences doesn't? It doesn't matter what conference you are in, if you have back to back 1 or 2 loss seasons you will be in the BCS and most teams with 1 loss seasons would have a decent enough shot to make it.

It would be fairer if they have a playoff system in which every conference can send a team to the playoffs similar to bb. This proposal appears much fairer than what currently exists, but the voting system is rigged for the power conferences. If the SEC gets six teams in the top twenty pre season, and they don't let those teams play meaningful games outside the conference they can manipulate the schedules to ensure their conference gets multiple teams into BCS games.