Big 12 Comm: AQ status will be eliminated, obviating need for more (Boise) conference expansion | Page 2 | The Boneyard
.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
HartbeatHusky said:
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.
Expand ...
Guarantee every conference at least one representative and have a real play off system. Then the manipulation will be reduced. Otherwise this is a maze of mirrors.
 
fleudslipcon said:
Guarantee every conference at least one representative and have a real play off system. Then the manipulation will be reduced. Otherwise this is a maze of mirrors.
Expand ...

I agree that would be even fairer but I think this proposal in some ways is more fair than the current configuration. The problem with the play off is how many post-season games should the schools that advance past the first round have to play in addition to the regular season and possible conf. championship games?
 
HartbeatHusky said:
I agree that would be even fairer but I think this proposal in some ways is more fair than the current configuration. The problem with the play off is how many post-season games should the schools that advance past the first round have to play in addition to the regular season and possible conf. championship games?
Expand ...
This isn't a problem for Division II teams which have a lot less resources to handle the traveling and all the extra games. It's an excuse offered by the teams and conferences that control the monies to ensure they keep the pool of monies in house.
 
fleudslipcon said:
Guarantee every conference at least one representative and have a real play off system. Then the manipulation will be reduced. Otherwise this is a maze of mirrors.
Expand ...

I think that is where this would lead. 16 teams instead of 10, with each conference getting 1, then others going by BCS rankings or a committee as in basketball. Strict limit on new conferences and seeding by rank.

The reality is that the college landscape is better off with A&M back in the Big XII along with Mizzou. Frankly, Nebraska too. BC, Cuse and Pitt should all go back to the BE. Colorado and Utah should leave the Pac and team up with the other schools in mountain/desert states.

But they already screwed up and the BCS system is destroying college athletics. I don't think they can put the genie back in the bottle.
 
The problem with this proposed system is that teams in the top #10 are heavily influenced by human voting, which pretty much eliminates any element of fairness. We might as well have SEC and B1G playing each other for all the BCS bowls since ESPN will be pimping both conferences heavily to sway human votes their way like they are doing today.

I believe there is no way conferences like ACC and BE will go for this. Therefore, this will fall the way side like the proposal for a playoff. Frankly, if we do want to entertain this concept, we might as well go straight to playoff where conference champions are guaranteed a spot in a 16 team format. We might as well eliminate BCS bowls all together because it is based on popularity contests.
 
HartbeatHusky said:
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.
Expand ...

IF (really big if) the bowls give up conference affiliations, all that will happen is that the ACC or Big East's bid will be taken up by another B12, P12 or B12 school
 
Excalibur said:
IF (really big if) the bowls give up conference affiliations, all that will happen is that the ACC or Big East's bid will be taken up by another B12, P12 or B12 school
Expand ...

If they finish the season in the top 10.
 
HartbeatHusky said:
If they finish the season in the top 10.
Expand ...

The Top 10 based on human polls, media influence, and clearly biased partners. If this goes through, it will be the same 15 schools rotating between BCS births with a random school in there once in a while. This is very bad news for the non Texas, Florida, USC, Ohio St, etc of the world.

The problem is that there is not a large enough sample size of games in football to define post-season appearances on rankings alone. That is whey the conference champions need to get automatic bids. Otherwise, the SEC will just play 9 conference games and 3 cupcakes and still get a clear path to a Top 10 ranking. Basketball has enough games throughout the season to sort that stuff out. Football does not.
 
HartbeatHusky said:
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.
Expand ...

No they wouldn't. Where did anything say the BCS top 10 gets in. Maybe top 5 would get you in. More like top 15 or 16 is eligible but no way a BCS bowl picks Boise over an available SEC team.

The bowls and TV want to pick the invitees, on field records will have little to do with it.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk
 
SubbaBub said:
No they wouldn't. Where did anything say the BCS top 10 gets in. Maybe top 5 would get you in. More like top 15 or 16 is eligible but no way a BCS bowl picks Boise over an available SEC team.

The bowls and TV want to pick the invitees, on field records will have little to do with it.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk
Expand ...

I think he proposed pretty clearly that the top 10 would be selected, period. But you make a good point that the bowls might not go along with this. Of course, if they don't, it's likely they soon cease to exist and the NCAA runs this as a playoff.
 
HuskyHawk said:
I think he proposed pretty clearly that the top 10 would be selected, period. But you make a good point that the bowls might not go along with this. Of course, if they don't, it's likely they soon cease to exist and the NCAA runs this as a playoff.
Expand ...

The NCAA loses a power struggle over that issue, and they know it.
 
SubbaBub said:
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.
Expand ...

I commented a couple months ago that removing the 2 team limit was the shot over the bow. It was obvious the SEC and BiG and B12 were looking to squeeze out the ACC and BE and leave the PAC-12 their 1 usual bid.

Their other problem: Houston and Boise can blow through a season and get bids if undefeated under the present BCS rankings system. Next thing will be expanding the number of BCS bowls to 8. There's 3 other bowls out there that pay close to BCS at-large money anyway.

Last Years' Top 10 BCS on 11/28

(3) SEC
(3) BiG
(2) P12
(1) B12
(1) MWC



1 Auburn SEC
2 Oregon P10
3 TCU MWC
4 Stanford P10
5 Wisconsin BTen
6 Ohio State BTen
7 Arkansas SEC
8 Michigan State BTen
9 Oklahoma B12
10 LSU SEC

If they go to 16 then it's

ACC(1)
WAC(1)
MWC(1)
B12(4)
BiG(3)
SEC(4)
PAC12(2)



11 Boise State WAC
12 Missouri B12
13 Nebraska B12
14 Oklahoma State B12
15 Virginia Tech ACC
16 Alabama SEC
 
UConnSportsGuy said:
The Top 10 based on human polls, media influence, and clearly biased partners. If this goes through, it will be the same 15 schools rotating between BCS births with a random school in there once in a while. This is very bad news for the non Texas, Florida, USC, Ohio St, etc of the world.

The problem is that there is not a large enough sample size of games in football to define post-season appearances on rankings alone. That is whey the conference champions need to get automatic bids. Otherwise, the SEC will just play 9 conference games and 3 cupcakes and still get a clear path to a Top 10 ranking. Basketball has enough games throughout the season to sort that stuff out. Football does not.
Expand ...

Agreed. There are 11 division 1-A conferences right now and 120 teams in 1-A football, all but 4 are in a conference. You put together a 16 team playoff with 11 conference champions and 5 at large bids. Playoffs happen over four weeks in december, national champoinship game at new year's. Selection seeding committee to determine pairings. Games would all be played at neutral sites determined by open market bidding for the rights to host and broadcast the games. NFL venues would line up to host these games on weekends in December when their home teams are on the road.

Watch all the conferences line up into 10,12 team configurations taht make geographic sense. Watch Notre Dame start running for a conference affiliation. Watch recruiting level out across the entire country, and the focus actually go back to the STUDENT part of student athlete, where a high school kid with the physical talent and desire to compete for a national title can pick and choose among all 120 schools that play the game.

The only obstacle in all of it, is the existence of teh BCS itself and the sheer amount of money and power wielded by the select group of people that run this thing.
 
the fundamental common denominator to all that is negative about college football, is that for 120+ years there has been no systematic, definitive way of determining a yearly national champion ON THE FIELD OF PLAY. The BCS will tout that pairing up the #1 and #2 teams in the country is exactly what they do regularly, but the system is exclusive and biased. If all 120 teams in division 1-A football had the same path to a national title, all of the problems we see today stemming from BCS AQ conference status would be non-existent, and geographic conferencse, full of rivalry and tradition that consist of numbers of programs that make sense for the student athletes of ALL sports would exist.

I really hope that I see a college football playoff system in place before my time is up.
 
Excalibur said:
The NCAA loses a power struggle over that issue, and they know it.
Expand ...

There's no reason to think that an invitation bowl system, or even a contract bowl system couldn't co-exist with an NCAA sanctioned playoff system to determine a national champion. Football programs could simply choose in what system they would rather play for the post season, accept an invite to either the playoff or bowl game.

Only catch would be that if you don't go the playoffs, you forfeit any claim to a national champion title.

I'll argue that running both systems together, would eliminate 99% if the corruption around bowl games, and bowl games would actually get more interesting, the ones that survive, b/c they'd invite teams that they know would draw fans.
 
This suggestion isn't even a band-aid. It's self promotion on the part of the Big XII to remain relevant, and keep there TV contract. If the conferences went to 16 members, the same teams mentioned ad nauseum here, will prosper. The rest will do even worse, and that is because of TV rights. None of the media are going to showcase a mid major or an up and coming program. This is not basketball where Davidson has relevance. The same old boys club schools will prosper in this, and the rest will be almost irrelevant. They need to have a playoff where each conference winner has the same chance on an even playing field. When the # 13 seed upsets the # 4 there's relevance. Will it ever happen? No! Everybody on this board knows why that can never happen. It's money and the vested interest of the good old boy network of schools that control the BCS. They should eliminate the "C" in their logo because this is all BS.
 
fleudslipcon said:
This isn't a problem for Division II teams which have a lot less resources to handle the traveling and all the extra games. It's an excuse offered by the teams and conferences that control the monies to ensure they keep the pool of monies in house.
Expand ...
That is a mistake people make all the time...d-2, d-3 even 1AA don't have any intention of making money or even breaking even. The teams and the NCAA lose money on those playoffs...One of my kids played on a very good D3 team, not for football, that went to the NCAA Tourney and made a pretty deep run. They had to cut out their end of season banquet and various team awards to cover the extra costs because they went further than expected...although fortunately the school "found" some extra money in the President's discretionary fund to reinstate the dinner and the booster club paid for the awards...that is the way things work at those levels, fleudslipcon. It isn't even vaguely the same as D-1A.
 
I don't get how the leagues would like this. it could cost them serious cash. Look at this year so far
ACC 2- teams
SEC 3- Teams
Big 12 2 Teams
PAC 2 Teams
Non BCS Team

Big East Zero
Big 10 Zero

In most years it could Be ACC zero and Big East zero. I don't see how the ACC Big Ten and Big East would want this Even the Pac 10 could get left out. Especially if Houston gets to number 10. two slots for non BCS and none for Big 10? They are all better off by letting the BCS stay as it is and consolidating the Big East and Non BCS in one league which is what is going to happen. That preserves up to two bids for the other conferences.


1 LSU 9-0
2 Oklahoma State 9-0
3 Alabama 8-1
4 Stanford 9-0
5 Boise State 8-0
6 Oklahoma 8-1
7 Oregon 8-1
8 Arkansas 8-1
9 Clemson 8-1
10 Virginia Tech
8-1
 
He might be right, but I sense it's more about the WV-BE lawsuit.
 
fleudslipcon said:
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.
Expand ...
Meanwhile we are still announcing our "invitations" and courting schools from around the country that we wouldn't have looked twice at six months ago. On the plus side Providence did announce a new logo and slogan as part of a national branding project:

THE
BIG EAST
CONFERENCE
A Day Late and a Dollar Short.
 
CL82 said:
Meanwhile we are still announcing our "invitations" and courting schools from around the country that we wouldn't have looked twice at six months ago. On the plus side Providence did announce a new logo and slogan as part of a national branding project:

THE
BIG EAST
CONFERENCE
A Day Late and a Dollar Short.
Expand ...

The more I thought about this recent proposal the more I felt it was an interesting strategy made by a desperate conference. After invading several countries, the Germans made an alliance with Russia and then blundered by attacking Russia. The B12 is taking a similar course. They attacked the BE and now are offering an alliance to some members of the football world. And they are just waiting to attack again.

This would be laughable if the stakes weren't so important. They are so easy to read. Sometimes I feel like I'm watching Animal House when it comes to the B12. They are constantly playing their movements in the public forum and have made one mistake after another.

The whole Neinas WV thing was a PR nightmare. The B12 knew from Cuse and Pitt and the ACC that the BE was insisting on the 27 months. If the B12 did their due diligence they would have asked WV for a copy of the BE contract and had the legal minds discussing if the contract could be broken. Instead they throw their money at the best looking HO and hope she doesn't have venereal disease. That is either imprudence or desperation imo. Of course the HO ran to the money and didn't check to see if the mark had his own set of diseases. I still get the impression that the B12 is rapidly sinking and are taking down their supposed rescuers with them.

The BE is not in the drivers seat. They are unfortunately at the mercy of other conferences and now they are being impacted by the actions of the B12, not only by the schools being taken, but by all these public actions taken by the B12 to impact the BE. But at least they are moving in a measured approach regarding the little that is in their control.

I'm hoping the invited universities, particularly BS and BYU are more familiar with this gambit of the B12 and recognize the turmoil that must exist in the B12 for this conference to be handling matters so poorly. And I hope they conclude, unlike TCU and WV that the B12 is sick conference.
 
fleudslipcon said:
This isn't a problem for Division II teams which have a lot less resources to handle the traveling and all the extra games. It's an excuse offered by the teams and conferences that control the monies to ensure they keep the pool of monies in house.
Expand ...

The only people the current football setup favors is the bowl organizers. For TV purposes, most of the games draw dreadfully. They ruined bowl season by overexpansion, and by putting any games after New Year's Day. The Championship should all be decided based on about 6 or 8 games going on on the final day of the season. There has been no feeling quite like that for about 20 years now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
289
Guests online
3,936
Total visitors
4,225
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
164,534
Messages
4,400,531
Members
10,214
Latest member
illini2013


.
..
Top Bottom