rferry Wrote:

bitcruncher Wrote:The BEast isn't moving slowly. We went from life support (NCAA's Big East Rule for BCS certification), transfusion (adding UC, UofL, & USF in football), off life support (Sugar and Orange Bowl victories by WVU and UofL), to contending in the national debate (WVU) in 3 years.

Name another conference that has done the same. I dare you...

No one considered WV a worthy national title contender. The talk was that they did not deserve to be in the discussion. Many teams did not deserve to be in the discussion, but static about WV and BE was particularly loud. At least in ACC and B10 land. Can't imagine the SEC press was any better.

Another example of making broad, declarative statements, speaking for the entire country.

On Nov. 18, West Virginia was the Number 3 team in the BCS polls and on Nov. 25, they moved up to the Number 2 team in the BCS. On Nov. 25th they were Number 1 in the coaches poll and they were Number 2 in the AP.

Obviously, coaches in BCS conferences and media people throughout the nation thought highly enough of West Virginia to put them in the position to claim a national championship.

By the way, the ESPN Sports Fans poll of the nation for that week had West Virginia #2 as well.

And yet, the all-knowing and the all-seeing rferry knows positively, that:

ABSOLUTELY NO ONE considered West Virginia a worthy title contender and that they did not deserve to be in the discussion.

Some day you must tell us all how you created the universe.

Cheers,
Neil

rferry Wrote:Matt, all due respect but the only reason why ABC is considering snatching 1 of the WAC's ESPN or ESPN2 games is because TX Tech. Same with the Wisconsin @ Fresno State game a week later. ABC is under no obligation to broadcast the WAC that week or any other. Nor is ESPN and ESPN2 as the contract is only for a minimum of 8 games over 15 weeks.

Again, misdirection with a half-truth. Yes, they are only obligated to pick up a minimum of 8 games over 15 weeks, but look at all of the WAC schedules, what games would common sense dictate have to be in the discussion?

Try and find 8 "WAC" games that would be better to televise than Texas Tech - Nevada. You probably won't even find 4 that are better to televise. So naturally it is going to be part of the ESPN/ESPN2 8.

As for ABC considering showing it rather than ESPN, has that been decided yet?

Let's exercise some critical thinking skills here, please.

Cheers,
Neil

omnicarrier Wrote:

rferry Wrote:

bitcruncher Wrote:The BEast isn't moving slowly. We went from life support (NCAA's Big East Rule for BCS certification), transfusion (adding UC, UofL, & USF in football), off life support (Sugar and Orange Bowl victories by WVU and UofL), to contending in the national debate (WVU) in 3 years.

Name another conference that has done the same. I dare you...

No one considered WV a worthy national title contender. The talk was that they did not deserve to be in the discussion. Many teams did not deserve to be in the discussion, but static about WV and BE was particularly loud. At least in ACC and B10 land. Can't imagine the SEC press was any better.

Another example of making broad, declarative statements, speaking for the entire country.

On Nov. 18, West Virginia was the Number 3 team in the BCS polls and on Nov. 25, they moved up to the Number 2 team in the BCS. On Nov. 25th they were Number 1 in the coaches poll and they were Number 2 in the AP.

Obviously, coaches in BCS conferences and media people throughout the nation thought highly enough of West Virginia to put them in the position to claim a national championship.

By the way, the ESPN Sports Fans poll of the nation for that week had West Virginia #2 as well.

And yet, the all-knowing and the all-seeing rferry knows positively, that:

ABSOLUTELY NO ONE considered West Virginia a worthy title contender and that they did not deserve to be in the discussion.

Some day you must tell us all how you created the universe.

Cheers,
Neil

Now that's funny. But you know, I thought Al Gore created the universe - before the internet.

Actually, it's the whole truth. And thanks for proving my point again. The Big 12 is respected. It can grant a non-BCS a chance at national TV. You missed that the TT-Nevada game was brought up because despite what the writer and some board members thought, such Big 12 games against non-BCS opponents are still attractive. Perhaps even more attractive than OK-Cincy. At least according to TV.
Has what been decided yet? Which games will be on ESPN or ABC? No, a full schedule has not been announced. Which games ABC may be on ESPN or ABC? Yes. Especially in this case since the WAC contract does not require their games be shown on ABC. http://mattsarz44017.tripod.com/2008/week2.html

There's a slight difference between being a worthy title contender and being highly ranked because someone has to be #2. At no point were they part of the national title debate unless you mean debating why they were lucky to be in that position and why they did not deserve the chance. I'll grant you many of the Big East's achievements, but I draw the line at a crazed West Virginia fan claiming something that ridiculous.

The Big 12 isn't respected. Texas and Oklahoma are respected, and Kansas and Missouri are gaining some respect lately. But the rest of the Big 12 isn't so highly regarded. Nebraska used to be, but not anymore. The Big 12 has traditionally been a 2 horse race, with an occasional odd contender. Lately there have been 2 oddballs, Kansas and Missouri. Texas A&M and Texas Tech want to be, but can't get over the hump. Colorado is a wait and see proposition, as is the rest of the conference.

WVU would probably win the Big 12 this season, and I figure UC, UConn, and USF could contend (maybe even Pitt - if Pitt improves as predicted). Why should anyone respect the Big 12 more than The BEast?

rferry Wrote:Actually, it's the whole truth. And thanks for proving my point again. The Big 12 is respected. It can grant a non-BCS a chance at national TV. You missed that the TT-Nevada game was brought up because despite what the writer and some board members thought, such Big 12 games against non-BCS opponents are still attractive. Perhaps even more attractive than OK-Cincy. At least according to TV.

Again, we don't know that just yet. But you have been presenting it as fact (until this post with your perhaps) - that the TT-Nevada game is more attractive than the Oklahoma-Cincy game.

Quote:There's a slight difference between being a worthy title contender and being highly ranked because someone has to be #2. At no point were they part of the national title debate unless you mean debating why they were lucky to be in that position and why they did not deserve the chance. I'll grant you many of the Big East's achievements, but I draw the line at a crazed West Virginia fan claiming something that ridiculous.

Nonsense.

Again, all one has to do is google West Virginia football Nov 2007 and one can find dozens of articles to prove you wrong.

Here are just a sample of a quick google of two such articles on the first page of the search.

WVU - Missouri Good for College Football

ESPN - No other team in the country better than WVU

You are like the petulant OSU and LSU fans described in one of these articles. Making assertions that so-and-so doesn't belong because they lost to so-and-so. But you are worse - because you extrapolate that elitist bulldung to assume EVERYONE must feel the same way.

Guess what. They don't. And they didn't last year. And the proof has been presented to you over and over. Give it up already.

Cheers,
Neil

bitcruncher Wrote:The Big 12 isn't respected. Texas and Oklahoma are respected, and Kansas and Missouri are gaining some respect lately. But the rest of the Big 12 isn't so highly regarded. Nebraska used to be, but not anymore. The Big 12 has traditionally been a 2 horse race, with an occasional odd contender. Lately there have been 2 oddballs, Kansas and Missouri. Texas A&M and Texas Tech want to be, but can't get over the hump. Colorado is a wait and see proposition, as is the rest of the conference.

WVU would probably win the Big 12 this season, and I figure UC, UConn, and USF could contend (maybe even Pitt - if Pitt improves as predicted). Why should anyone respect the Big 12 more than The BEast?

Because of that perception thing. Also, people don't want to respect the league.

Only a moron still has that perception of The BEast.

And yet, that perception still pervades a city like Columbus (God only knows what it's like in SEC country)

Perception changes with every win especially in the BCS games. The perception in SEC country is that the Big12 except for OU and Texas is a joke. They also have same opinion for Big10.

We've been talking about perception. Cincy is not the marquee game. It's the best of a bad slate of games in the writer's opinion. It's not yet considered better than TT-NV in ESPN's opinion. In Oklahoma's eyes, it's not a marquee program, Cincy is merely "competitive".

Seriously, a ******* news group e-zine? Are you serious?! Stop wasting my time with your crap. He even mistyped WV "Vest Virginia". You notice how Schlabach doesn't even try to argue WV's merits? His only compliment is that they got the job done against their schedule when other better teams did not. See http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3127347 for another example of the same argument. Exactly what I said. West Virginia was not considered a worthy title contender. The perception was that LSU and at least 4 others would beat WV and Missouri. WV barely registered in the top 25 in the computer polls. They were considered a necessary title contender by the pollsters as they the 1-loss BCS teams that had not lost for a long while. Any suggestion that their place in the national championship was being argued for is ridiculous. Most people were arguing against.

Well, as far as WVU, don't take our word for it. Ask Richt or Stoops how good they are. And I think THEY'D know.

rferry Wrote:We've been talking about perception. Cincy is not the marquee game. It's the best of a bad slate of games in the writer's opinion. It's not yet considered better than TT-NV in ESPN's opinion. In Oklahoma's eyes, it's not a marquee program, Cincy is merely "competitive".

Seriously, a ******* news group e-zine? Are you serious?! Stop wasting my time with your crap. He even mistyped WV "Vest Virginia". You notice how Schlabach doesn't even try to argue WV's merits? His only compliment is that they got the job done against their schedule when other better teams did not. See http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3127347 for another example of the same argument. Exactly what I said. West Virginia was not considered a worthy title contender. The perception was that LSU and at least 4 others would beat WV and Missouri. WV barely registered in the top 25 in the computer polls. They were considered a necessary title contender by the pollsters as they the 1-loss BCS teams that had not lost for a long while. Any suggestion that their place in the national championship was being argued for is ridiculous. Most people were arguing against.

The perception was that Oklahoma was also one of those teams that would beat WV. What does perception matter when you are getting blasted on the field? The perception of a program can change really quick when you can put some high profile wins on your resume the way WV has the last 3 years.

You dont know anything about college football if you are trying to compare
Oklahoma-Cinncinati
to
Texas Tech-Nevada.

You are talking about last years Big12 champ and probably top10 this year vs a team that finished in top25 last year and is a match up of TWO BCS conferences.

vs.
Texas Tech which has NEVER won the Big12, is not a top10 team playing a WAC team that is not in top25.

Cuseroc, we were arguing the perception of WV as a worthy national title contender. 3 years of BCS victories has bought them a lot of cred. And so has the Big East's performance. But it's incorrect to state they are considered worthy national title contenders. Not last summer. Not last November. Not this spring. Not quite yet.

Cubanbull, I wasn't attempting to compare the games, but rather stating that Cincy was not a marquee game in the opinion of Oklahoma, ESPN or the writer as someone claimed. I was using the TT-NV option to show ABC did not place OK-Cincy is the highest regard. If you have any doubts you can read Oklahoma's own press release. Cincinnati was not spoken of as a marquee program. If you want to compare something, compare OK's comments on Cincy to their comments on Ohio State:
Cincy: "Cincinnati's program is moving in a positive direction and we know that these will be competitive games. We're also excited that the game in Ohio affords us the opportunity to take Bob Stoops back to his home state while introducing our team to another NFL venue." http://www.soonersports.com/sports/m-foo...07aac.html
Ohio State: "This series will bring together two of the most celebrated programs in the history of college football," said OU Vice President for Sports Programs and Director of Intercollegiate Athletics Joe Castiglione. "Oklahoma has demonstrated that it is committed to scheduling games of this kind that mean so much to college football on a national scale. We hope to continue that approach well into our future." http://www.soonersports.com/sports/m-foo...08aaa.html

Seriously, what's next? Is a UConn fan going to twist around the recruiting rankings to claim they have the #1 class?

OSUofL Wrote:And yet, that perception still pervades a city like Columbus (God only knows what it's like in SEC country)

The perception in SEC country is, if it didn't happen in the SEC, it didn't happen. Fact of life, dude. It's always been that way, and will probably never change.

As for perception... most of the nation was of the perception that Oklahoma would run all over West Virginia in the Fiesta Bowl. We all saw how well that perception helped.

bitcruncher Wrote:

OSUofL Wrote:And yet, that perception still pervades a city like Columbus (God only knows what it's like in SEC country)

The perception in SEC country is, if it didn't happen in the SEC, it didn't happen. Fact of life, dude. It's always been that way, and will probably never change.

As for perception... most of the nation was of the perception that Oklahoma would run all over West Virginia in the Fiesta Bowl. We all saw how well that perception helped.

I have discussions with B10 people all the time, and due to their lack of overall football knowledge, they still cling to the perception thing. Some even thought the B10 was better than the Big East last year.

I guess that perception will linger until a team from The BEast wins a national championship, or maybe getting the additional BCS bid is the thing. How should I know? But I figure one or both of those should eliminate the negative perception forever.

No desire to see BCS format grow
By Tom Kensler | The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 05/20/2008 09:03:00 PM MDT

COLORADO SPRINGS — The Big Ten and Pac-10 have a new ally in their opposition to a "Plus One" system to determine a national champion in major-college football.

Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe said Tuesday during the league's spring meetings at The Broadmoor that the Big 12's official position is against any proposal that adds a game (or more) to the present bowl system.

Beebe said personally he is opposed to any playoff format.

"I kept that private until I was able to share that with my colleagues at the BCS meetings that we had recently; I think what we have is enough," said Beebe, who succeeded Kevin Weiberg as Big 12 commissioner in September. "I think the 'Plus One' is just a four-team playoff by another name."

Beebe conceded that the NCAA could well devise a playoff system that would work, even one involving 16 teams.

"But the question is whether it's the best thing to do," he said. "My view is, I don't think it would be a benefit. We have to distinguish ourselves from the NFL, continue to do that.

"We've got the best regular season of any sport. The bowl games have been highly beneficial."

During his years as commissioner of the Ohio Valley Conference, Beebe served on the former Division I-AA football committee which brackets an eight-team playoff. Because of the second-guessing of the seeding, "it did not avoid controversy," he said.

Five years of eligibility? A member of a national college football-and-academics working group, Beebe said he intends to strongly recommend NCAA members revisit a proposal that, for football only, student-athletes be allowed to play five seasons rather than the present system of getting five years to play four seasons. Under the five-year plan, there would be no redshirting.

"I think it makes sense," Beebe said. "You're talking about a sport that I think has more redshirts than any other sport. The practices are long and hard. You get beat up and, if you're a redshirt, there's nothing to play for."

The five-year plan has been opposed by school presidents and faculty representatives who feel it would send wrong signals about what the college experience should entail. Beebe said he is encouraged by "a new climate" among college administrators that football, in some respects, differs from other sports.

Footnotes. By a unanimous vote, Big 12 men's basketball coaches voted Tuesday against increasing the number of conference games from 16 to 18. "We discussed beating each other up for another two games," Texas Tech coach Pat Knight said. ... Tipoff for the championship game of the ESPN-televised 2009 Big 12 men's basketball tournament in Oklahoma City was set at 4 p.m. Mountain time. It will be played on Saturday for the first time, moving from its traditional slot during the afternoon of Selection Sunday.

This article appeared in the Denver Post on Tuesday, May 20, 2008.