(03-05-2009 11:14 AM)Chappy Wrote:  

(03-05-2009 08:14 AM)MichaelSavage Wrote:  

(03-04-2009 05:02 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  So.... Am I correct in saying they managed to figure out a formula that would conveniently include the MWC as an AQ, but not CUSA, WAC, MAC or Sun Belt (until perhaps 2014, if ever)... ??

How thoughtful of them.

C-USA, the MAC and the Sun Belt have done nothing to earn status as an AQ.

NOBODY deserves an AQ. If all the teams in your conference are bad in a given year, why should you have a team go to a big money bowl? Because historically you have done well and traveled well? Sorry, the best teams should get the biggest payouts, not the best-connected teams.

cartel - a consortium of independent organizations formed to limit competition by controlling the production and distribution of a product or service

If ECU (or Memphis or UCF) was in the BCS, you would see ECU fans instantly stop bashing the BCS. Fact. Once you get in, you stop complaining about it.

(03-05-2009 12:34 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  If ECU (or Memphis or UCF) was in the BCS, you would see ECU fans instantly stop bashing the BCS. Fact. Once you get in, you stop complaining about it.

Not necessarily. If I was a Texas Tech fan, I'd be complaining about it. The cap of 2 teams per conference is as bad as the auto bid...

Texas Tech fans would be better off complaining about how their team folded down the stretch in the tough games...

(03-04-2009 10:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, but they would argue - with lots of justification - that this is because of the nature of the system, which gives those 6 BCS conferences loads of money, much more than the other conferences get, thereby enabling them to have better facilities, etc. and thus build better programs.

I mean, if i force my kid on to a 600 calorie a day diet while i eat 3000 cals a day, it would be rather unfair of me to say "you can join us at the big eating table when you bulk up to our size, right now you're too scrawny", right?

Yes, but the majority of the Big East were heavyweights before the BCS started.

(03-05-2009 02:56 PM)esayem Wrote:  Yes, but the majority of the Big East were heavyweights before the BCS started.

False.

4 out of 8 is not a majority. Half of the current members of the Big East were not members of the Bowl Alliance, Bowl Coalition.

Louisville and Cincy were in CUSA and independents prior to that. They were never part of the Bowl Coalition, Bowl Alliance, or ever had guaranteed access to the any of the 6 major bowls at the time (Rose, Orange, Sugar, Cotton, Fiesta, Gator). Louisville made 1 appearance in 1991 as an at large selection in the Fiesta Bowl. Prior to 2005, neither were "heavyweights."

USF football did not exist prior to the BCS. They started their football in 1997 and were either an independent or member of CUSA until their inclusion in the Big East in 2004. They were never a "heavyweight."

UConn did not move up to D-1 until 2000. They were an independent until 2004 when they were included into the Big East for football. They were never a "heavyweight."

Only Pitt, West Virginia, Rutgers, and Syracuse could have been considered "heavyweights" prior to the BCS as the Big East (which they were all members of) was a member of the Bowl Coalition and Bowl Alliance. Prior to that, Pitt, West Virginia, and Syracuse all received preferential access in such bowls as the Cotton.

(03-05-2009 02:23 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Texas Tech fans would be better off complaining about how their team folded down the stretch in the tough games...

More like game since they only lost one. Certainly more impressive than having a 4 loss Virginia Tech taking up a BCS slot.

I thought this blurb from Every Day Should Be Saturday was pretty amusing (and relevant to this thread):

Quote:The Mountain West’s proposal for a playoff went smashingly. Smashingly could describe a 747 full of orphans crashing into a hospital and bursting into flame.

Matt Hayes was on the call. He records this bit of fun:

As the call wound down, one of my astute colleagues plainly asked, “Gentlemen, can you have this without the Rose Bowl, Pac-10 and Big Ten? Because historically, this has been a non-starter with all three.”

Silence.

A few seconds later, MWC commissioner Craig Thompson — a sharp guy who has done wonders for the league but has been put in this untenable situation by eager league presidents — stepped in and said what we already knew.

“No,” Thompson flatly answered.

So, it is official: your insanely improbable playoff proposal, no matter how cracked it might really be, no matter how awful, it can’t be any worse than what the Mountain West just proposed, actually presented to an audience of sorts, and then had holes shot in it. We’re all bloggers. Some people just don’t know it.

And if all else fails……you can just start tossing subpoenas around and screaming anti-trust. If it goes as well as other Mountain West-oriented lobbying efforts, it will start with the Utah attorneys urinating on the judge’s bench.

http://www.everydayshouldbesaturday.com/...ex-352009/

USFFan

PS - There's also a humorous take on Leavitt hiring Joe Tresey just below it...

(03-05-2009 02:23 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Texas Tech fans would be better off complaining about how their team folded down the stretch in the tough games...

They were ranked significantly higher than both Orange Bowl participants by the BCS's own formula.

(03-05-2009 03:57 PM)usffan Wrote:  I thought this blurb from Every Day Should Be Saturday was pretty amusing (and relevant to this thread):

Quote:The Mountain West’s proposal for a playoff went smashingly. Smashingly could describe a 747 full of orphans crashing into a hospital and bursting into flame.

Matt Hayes was on the call. He records this bit of fun:

As the call wound down, one of my astute colleagues plainly asked, “Gentlemen, can you have this without the Rose Bowl, Pac-10 and Big Ten? Because historically, this has been a non-starter with all three.”

Silence.

A few seconds later, MWC commissioner Craig Thompson — a sharp guy who has done wonders for the league but has been put in this untenable situation by eager league presidents — stepped in and said what we already knew.

“No,” Thompson flatly answered.

So, it is official: your insanely improbable playoff proposal, no matter how cracked it might really be, no matter how awful, it can’t be any worse than what the Mountain West just proposed, actually presented to an audience of sorts, and then had holes shot in it. We’re all bloggers. Some people just don’t know it.

And if all else fails……you can just start tossing subpoenas around and screaming anti-trust. If it goes as well as other Mountain West-oriented lobbying efforts, it will start with the Utah attorneys urinating on the judge’s bench.

http://www.everydayshouldbesaturday.com/...ex-352009/

USFFan

PS - There's also a humorous take on Leavitt hiring Joe Tresey just below it...

It's the truth. That's why the only type of playoff proposal that has any smidgen of a chance of ever getting passed is one that preserves the Big Ten/Pac-10/Rose Bowl relationship. (And I'll reiterate that the "let's kick 'em out" argument advanced by the haters out there is a non-starter. If ESPN or any other network is going to shell out hundreds of millions of dollars for a playoff, it wants to see Michigan, Ohio State, and USC playing in elimination games in a place like Pasadena. Those networks could care less about any team in the MWC.) I've also rehashed in other threads about why legal actions such as antitrust suits are more likely than not going to be fruitless based on Supreme Court precedent. Either find a way to work with the Big Ten/Pac-10/Rose Bowl or just be prepared to argue about the same issues about the lack of a playoff 20 or 30 years from now.

The Big Ten can blow me as far as I care. The Rose Bowl and it's pompus bullsh*t can kiss my ass too. They are two of the prime reasons why we have such a screwed up system in the first place. If the Big Ten doesn't wnat a chance to play for a national championship let them take their big slow corn fed teams to Pasadena every year. No one outside of flyover country here in the midwest would give a sh*t anyway. BTW we don't need "so called DePaul fans" coming to the Big East board regularly telling us how great the Big Ten is...

As to the poster that says once your'e in you don't have a problem with the BCS, I disagree. The BCS sucked before we joined and it still sucks today.
CJ

It seems to me that there's an awful lot of folks who want to have their cake and eat it, too. If college football really wants to have a playoff, they have to make a system such that every team has a legitimate chance to compete for it. That kind of cuts both ways, though right now too many schools are willing to give power to the Big Ten and Pac-10. Right now, they have the ability to block any chance of a playoff by refusing to allow their champions to compete, and they'll take their Rose Bowl bid with them. So how can the rest of the college football world stand up to that? REFUSE TO PLAY THEM! That's right - stop taking their money and schedule games against the rest of college football. Suddenly, when all the Big Ten and Pac-10 have is themselves and the FCS schools to schedule, they'll be willing to talk. Their fans won't stand for it, and eventually their recruiting will suffer when kids realize how limited their exposure will be. The problem is, schools won't be able to do that. When Ohio State starts flashing millions of dollars at schools for a guarantee game or is willing to play home and home with others, eventually schools will cave. It would take a united effort of all of the FBS schools to break the Big Ten and Pac-10 power block, and I don't think every school would be able to resist those games. Thus my "wanting their cake and eating it, too" explanation.

And before anybody thinks I'm casting aspersions at others, I know that USF is apparently incapable of resisting these things as well. Hell, we're taking a paycheck game at Notre Dame in 2011. If Michigan or USC came to USF and said they wanted to schedule a 2 for 1 against us, I'd bet our athletic office would sign the contract faster than TO cleaned out his Cowboys locker.

USFFan

(03-05-2009 06:50 PM)usffan Wrote:  It seems to me that there's an awful lot of folks who want to have their cake and eat it, too. If college football really wants to have a playoff, they have to make a system such that every team has a legitimate chance to compete for it. That kind of cuts both ways, though right now too many schools are willing to give power to the Big Ten and Pac-10. Right now, they have the ability to block any chance of a playoff by refusing to allow their champions to compete, and they'll take their Rose Bowl bid with them. So how can the rest of the college football world stand up to that? REFUSE TO PLAY THEM! That's right - stop taking their money and schedule games against the rest of college football. Suddenly, when all the Big Ten and Pac-10 have is themselves and the FCS schools to schedule, they'll be willing to talk. Their fans won't stand for it, and eventually their recruiting will suffer when kids realize how limited their exposure will be. The problem is, schools won't be able to do that. When Ohio State starts flashing millions of dollars at schools for a guarantee game or is willing to play home and home with others, eventually schools will cave. It would take a united effort of all of the FBS schools to break the Big Ten and Pac-10 power block, and I don't think every school would be able to resist those games. Thus my "wanting their cake and eating it, too" explanation.

And before anybody thinks I'm casting aspersions at others, I know that USF is apparently incapable of resisting these things as well. Hell, we're taking a paycheck game at Notre Dame in 2011. If Michigan or USC came to USF and said they wanted to schedule a 2 for 1 against us, I'd bet our athletic office would sign the contract faster than TO cleaned out his Cowboys locker.
USFFan

Doubt it. USF got 1-1 deals against Miami and FSU, and wouldn't have accepted 2-1s. Notre dame was the exception. USF wouldn't do a 2-1 against anyone, don't care who it is.

(03-05-2009 06:50 PM)usffan Wrote:  It seems to me that there's an awful lot of folks who want to have their cake and eat it, too. If college football really wants to have a playoff, they have to make a system such that every team has a legitimate chance to compete for it. That kind of cuts both ways, though right now too many schools are willing to give power to the Big Ten and Pac-10. Right now, they have the ability to block any chance of a playoff by refusing to allow their champions to compete, and they'll take their Rose Bowl bid with them. So how can the rest of the college football world stand up to that? REFUSE TO PLAY THEM! That's right - stop taking their money and schedule games against the rest of college football. Suddenly, when all the Big Ten and Pac-10 have is themselves and the FCS schools to schedule, they'll be willing to talk. Their fans won't stand for it, and eventually their recruiting will suffer when kids realize how limited their exposure will be. The problem is, schools won't be able to do that. When Ohio State starts flashing millions of dollars at schools for a guarantee game or is willing to play home and home with others, eventually schools will cave. It would take a united effort of all of the FBS schools to break the Big Ten and Pac-10 power block, and I don't think every school would be able to resist those games. Thus my "wanting their cake and eating it, too" explanation.

And before anybody thinks I'm casting aspersions at others, I know that USF is apparently incapable of resisting these things as well. Hell, we're taking a paycheck game at Notre Dame in 2011. If Michigan or USC came to USF and said they wanted to schedule a 2 for 1 against us, I'd bet our athletic office would sign the contract faster than TO cleaned out his Cowboys locker.
USFFan

Doubt it. USF got 1-1 deals against Miami and FSU, and wouldn't have accepted 2-1s. Notre dame was the exception. USF wouldn't do a 2-1 against anyone, don't care who it is.

(03-05-2009 06:50 PM)usffan Wrote:  It seems to me that there's an awful lot of folks who want to have their cake and eat it, too. If college football really wants to have a playoff, they have to make a system such that every team has a legitimate chance to compete for it. That kind of cuts both ways, though right now too many schools are willing to give power to the Big Ten and Pac-10. Right now, they have the ability to block any chance of a playoff by refusing to allow their champions to compete, and they'll take their Rose Bowl bid with them. So how can the rest of the college football world stand up to that? REFUSE TO PLAY THEM! That's right - stop taking their money and schedule games against the rest of college football. Suddenly, when all the Big Ten and Pac-10 have is themselves and the FCS schools to schedule, they'll be willing to talk. Their fans won't stand for it, and eventually their recruiting will suffer when kids realize how limited their exposure will be. The problem is, schools won't be able to do that. When Ohio State starts flashing millions of dollars at schools for a guarantee game or is willing to play home and home with others, eventually schools will cave. It would take a united effort of all of the FBS schools to break the Big Ten and Pac-10 power block, and I don't think every school would be able to resist those games. Thus my "wanting their cake and eating it, too" explanation.

And before anybody thinks I'm casting aspersions at others, I know that USF is apparently incapable of resisting these things as well. Hell, we're taking a paycheck game at Notre Dame in 2011. If Michigan or USC came to USF and said they wanted to schedule a 2 for 1 against us, I'd bet our athletic office would sign the contract faster than TO cleaned out his Cowboys locker.
USFFan

Doubt it. USF got 1-1 deals against Miami and FSU, and wouldn't have accepted 2-1s. Notre dame was the exception. USF wouldn't do a 2-1 against anyone, don't care who it is.

(03-05-2009 05:57 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  The Big Ten can blow me as far as I care. The Rose Bowl and it's pompus bullsh*t can kiss my ass too. They are two of the prime reasons why we have such a screwed up system in the first place. If the Big Ten doesn't wnat a chance to play for a national championship let them take their big slow corn fed teams to Pasadena every year. No one outside of flyover country here in the midwest would give a sh*t anyway. BTW we don't need "so called DePaul fans" coming to the Big East board regularly telling us how great the Big Ten is...

As to the poster that says once your'e in you don't have a problem with the BCS, I disagree. The BCS sucked before we joined and it still sucks today.
CJ

CardinalJim,

I know that you don't like the Big Ten, which is perfectly fine with me. However, I don't go around insulting anyone personally because I disagree with or don't like their opinions. I'll be the first to admit that I have lots of personal biases and can be passionate, but I try my best to present facts in at least an attempt to take off the rose-colored glasses. If you want to put forth some reasonable analysis that contradicts my opinions, I am all ears and will respect and welcome that - plenty of others on this board have engaged in long and interesting debates with me, which is why I enjoy posting here. However, I absolutely do not respect name calling and cheap shots simply because something doesn't fit into the type of Orwellian group think that you appear to believe that this message board should have. I actually like having intelligent debates on message boards and blogs that go beyond "I'm a fan of this team-or-conference, so everything that some rival team-or-conference does sucks just because I think they suck."

So, if you want to present some actual evidence as to why "no one outside of flyover country" (I don't quite understand why you continuously insult all of the places where you have chosen to live, but I digress) "would give a sh*t anyway" when national TV ratings for BCS games continue to directly contradict your claim, please set it forth here because I'd honestly love to see it. However, if you just want to hear your own opinions spouted back to you, it would be more fruitful to talk to a mirror as opposed to posting on the Internet because I will continue to call it out if it's not backed up with something tangible.

(03-05-2009 03:36 PM)Metropolis777 Wrote:  False.

4 out of 8 is not a majority. Half of the current members of the Big East were not members of the Bowl Alliance, Bowl Coalition.

Louisville and Cincy were in CUSA and independents prior to that. They were never part of the Bowl Coalition, Bowl Alliance, or ever had guaranteed access to the any of the 6 major bowls at the time (Rose, Orange, Sugar, Cotton, Fiesta, Gator). Louisville made 1 appearance in 1991 as an at large selection in the Fiesta Bowl. Prior to 2005, neither were "heavyweights."

USF football did not exist prior to the BCS. They started their football in 1997 and were either an independent or member of CUSA until their inclusion in the Big East in 2004. They were never a "heavyweight."

UConn did not move up to D-1 until 2000. They were an independent until 2004 when they were included into the Big East for football. They were never a "heavyweight."

Only Pitt, West Virginia, Rutgers, and Syracuse could have been considered "heavyweights" prior to the BCS as the Big East (which they were all members of) was a member of the Bowl Coalition and Bowl Alliance. Prior to that, Pitt, West Virginia, and Syracuse all received preferential access in such bowls as the Cotton.

Temple was part of the coalition, so what? They were voted out. Are you saying they were more of a heavyweight than Louisville?

Don't forget that Miami and BC were part of the Big East when it was included in the BCS. After those schools left, the BE added Louisville, who was on the verge of being a heavyweight anyway.

Don't get me wrong, I think a 7th BCS conference would be good. I just don't think the perfect conference is assembled yet.

SFLA should do 2-1's with those schools because they haven't even put that much time in as a program. What, you guys are the snooty upper crust now?

What needs to happen is the NCAA needs to grow a set and take back over this whole shindid, but that will never happen, because they have a ..... as big as Jenna Jameson

(03-05-2009 03:36 PM)Metropolis777 Wrote:  

(03-05-2009 02:56 PM)esayem Wrote:  Yes, but the majority of the Big East were heavyweights before the BCS started.

False.
4 out of 8 is not a majority. Half of the current members of the Big East were not members of the Bowl Alliance, Bowl Coalition.

Miami, BC, WV, Pitt, Syracuse and VA Tech were quality programs when the Bowl Coalition was formed. When they lost 3 of those programs (and Syracuse had lost some prestige), there were calls to remove their auto-bid. They meet the requirements stipulated by the BCS to remain. MWC has failed to meet similar requirements to merit consideration.

(03-04-2009 08:50 PM)Tigeer Wrote:  The system does not even really allow them to have the shot at it - that is the beef.

Exactly. MWC realizes they're not on par with the BCS (and decades away from ever being so), but they desperately want access to a championship.
Discussion about auto-bids is misplaced (especially for SBC and MAC), the first step is instituting a playoff that grants access to teams to play their way in.