Big East expansion news and views

[Kingspoint]

Ooops. Was a little quick on my earlier post. Meant to include the following.

Haven't seen much on the expansion of the BE lately, so thought I'd put this out there in case anyone's interested.

Big East clout comes in Washington and in the court room
"There is no conference in the BCS group that has a stronger Congressional lobby than the Big East. You can bet that there would a series of Congressional hearing and the possible breaking up of the entire BCS process. So the Big East’s powerful Washington connection is without question one their strongest cards to play. May guess would be they keep their BCS status because of the possible legal ramifications to the other conferences along with their massive political clout."
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/watch/2011/11/big-east-clout-comes-washington-and-court-room

BCS officials want to lend stability to new system, not contribute to conference realignment


“The BCS is so misunderstood,” he said. “It was created to match up No. 1 vs. No. 2. And because of the way the critics have reacted to it, it has become more than that. It was never intended to be anything more than that. And in our minds, it’s not anything more than that. And it has been so successful in doing what it’s supposed to do it’s worth preserving and worth fighting for.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...e-chair-soon/2011/11/14/gIQAzXNDMN_story.html

BYU football: Cougars invited to join Big East, but have not accepted invitation — yet
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...t-but-have-not-accepted-invitation-2-yet.html

 

[John Greene]

This probably belongs on the conference realignment board but, the last paragraph in the first link is really funny. Strong congressional lobby? Has he looked at where the current BE football schools are located? Other than RU none of the schools that are in states with large congressional delegations are of primary importance. OH delegation is going to be more concerned with OSU than Cincy, KY more concerned with UK than Louisville, FL more concerned with UF & FSU than USF or UCF. While UConn may be of primary importance to the CT delegation it is small. Before you point out Mitch Mcconnell's boost for Louisville I would bet that in a conflict between a conference that contained UK and one that contained UL, old Mitch would be smart enough to back UK.

 

[Bootsthemonkey]

I think the second link (Washington Post article) makes a pretty good point and addresses something that has sort of puzzled me for a while, and that is - why does a BCS bowl bid matter? Obviously the BCS bowls have a higher profile and a higher payout, although due to the way things are set up, as we've seen last year getting into a BCS bowl is no guarantee of any financial windfall for your beloved university.

I remember the old pre-BCS bowl system. Who you drew in a bowl mattered in that at season's end if you had a good enough record your bowl victory could help or hurt your case for #1, as it all came down to voters. Several things would happen - You'd have split polls some years. Sometimes there would be undefeated teams not playing each other and an undefeated team would be voted #2. BYU had their famous national title by going undefeated but they beat only a mediocre Michigan team in their bowl and people questioned their strength of schedule (sound familiar, Boise?) and the validity of their National Title. So a fix was needed. Enter the BCS. Who would determine the National title? Several Bowls wanted this honor so the BCS was created and the BCS bowls were simply those bowls that would enter a rotation to host the National title game. The BCS was created to pair #1 vs. #2. That's it. Other than being a bowl in the rotation there was really no other change. Those bowls didn't become any more "special" simply because of their BCS status. If it was not the Fiesta Bowl's turn at hosting the National Title, it was still simply the Fiesta Bowl. The Rose Bowl initially didn't want to be included in this group because they wanted to continue its tradition of hosting the Big 10 - Pac 10 champions. But when they saw themselves being left out of the National Title picture for real they hopped on board.

Now the words "BCS Bowl" seem to have some magical quality. Conferences are realigning and everything seems to have to do with TV revenue and AQ status. But as a fan - whether of a team or of college football overall, why does anyone care who makes a BCS Bowl? Unless it is the National Title, #1 vs. #2 match, it has no bearing on anything. At the end of the day you are either the winner or loser of that certain bowl, BCS or not. Winning the Rose Bowl still has the prestige of "winning the Rose Bowl" but if it doesn't determine #1, then who cares if it is a BCS Bowl? All this noise about Boise getting left out of the BCS last year. So? Once they lost in the regular season they had no shot at the National title. People were appalled that UConn got into the BCS with their record. So? Again, win or lose it had NO IMPACT on #1. Oklahoma was not getting a shot at #1 either regardless if they drew a different opponent.

The AQ status needs to go. The whole thing has gotten ridiculous.

 

[Nostical]

Sorry Boots, but it does matter a lot whether you get to one of the BCS Bowls. There's more money, more prestige, brighter lights, bigger stage, higher ratings, more eyeballs, greater exposure.
While there's nothing inherently wrong with getting a bid to the Car Care or Insight Bowl, or better yet, a Jan 1 Outback or Capital One Bowl, nothing compares to the BCS Bowls.
A stage drama or musical can be just as entertaining and critically acclaimed no matter where it plays, but it sure counts a lot more with the public if its playing "on" Broadway instead of "off.