The whole "market argument" is as much about maintaining AQ status for teams that have not been relevant in football in years as it is for potential dollars in contract money for TV.

(10-04-2011 10:59 AM)The Brown Bull Wrote:  [quote='Dub591' pid='6918517' dateline='1317743193']
[quote='The Brown Bull' pid='6918489' dateline='1317742884']
Of course.....almost every conversation about the BCS should have the caveat...."unless they decide to change the rules again".

Under the "present rules" the Big East is fine. However, if the rules are changed, then all bets are off.

I tend to think however, most of the tweaks will be to benefit the bigger conferences, but without leaving cause for more lawsuits. It may include MORE teams.....but not really.

For example, just conjecture on my part, but I do think it is likely that say the Cotton Bowl will be included as another BCS game. Then the conference cap to sending teams to the BCS will be raised to 3. The MWC will be given a BCS AQ exemption to create a 7th conference and you will suddenly have this tiered system where even undefeated BE and MWC teams would need a lot of luck to get out of playing each other every year in the Cotton Bowl. Kind of like AQ-lite. They might add a rule saying for the BE or MWC to play any BCS game outside of each other....they have to be ranked in the top 8 or something like that.

CUSA would probably be picked apart by the BE and MWC and the leftovers will become a variation of the MAC, Sun Belt and WAC.

That was a GREAT post, Brown Bull and I agree with a lot of your conjecture. I agree that the Cotton Bowl will likely muscle its way into the BCS and that will probably include the addition of the MWC as the seventh AQ league.

That was my worry all along regarding Villanova and what adding them would have represented for the Big East. A lot of people - an ALARMING number of people, frankly - were missing for the forest for the trees here, IMHO.

The Big East wasn't ever in any real danger of losing its BCS status and I'm sorry if this offends people but frankly it's just just plain stupid to insist otherwise.

Never. Going. To. Happen.

I think it is pretty obvious, guys, that all of these conference realignment decisions are being made by the television networks. That's why West Virginia still hasn't found a home in a larger BCS league despite having the largest, most passionate fan base in the Big East and it's also why East Carolina remains homeless in a BCS AQ despite having the largest, most passionate fan base in C-USA.

So, now that we have established those fairly obvious truths, why on earth would any television executive in his right mind intentionally marginalize the most heavily populated and affluent region in the nation for one of the most sparsely populated parts of the country?

That's not some sort of nebulous proof of an Eastern bias, it's flat out common sense. You don't have to necessarily like the rules to accept them.

The only way the Big East loses its BCS bid is if there is no Big East left to claim that spot. Until three or four more teams leave, it's on firm footing no matter what anyone tells you.

That was a GREAT post, Brown Bull and I agree with a lot of your conjecture. I agree that the Cotton Bowl will likely muscle its way into the BCS and that will probably include the addition of the MWC as the seventh AQ league. That was my worry all along regarding Villanova and what adding them would have represented for the Big East. A lot of people - an ALARMING number of people, frankly - were missing for the forest for the trees here, IMHO.

The Big East wasn't ever in any real danger of losing its BCS status and I'm sorry if this offends people but frankly it's just just plain stupid to insist otherwise.

Never. Going. To. Happen.

However it was in SEVERE danger of being marginalized within the AQ system and I did not want any part of that for my team (Pitt). I was worried that every single year the Big East champ was going to be paired with the winner of the MWC or C-USA in some sort of off-Broadway BCS game (played on FX or ESPNU or something). Adding Villanova only heightened that fear and too many people, frankly, were completely clueless about the real dangers facing the Big East. Bizarrely, they thought that we were much safer than we actually were because they were so focused on one area that they completely ignored a much greater looming danger. I think that cluelessness also explains why USF fought so hard against UCF and why basketball considerations seemed to dominate what obviously should have always been a football driven decision.

I think it is pretty obvious, guys, that all of these conference realignment decisions are being made by the television networks. That's why West Virginia still hasn't found a home in a larger BCS league despite having the largest, most passionate fan base in the Big East and it's also why East Carolina remains homeless in a BCS AQ despite having the largest, most passionate fan base in C-USA.

So, now that we have established those fairly obvious truths, why on earth would any television executive in his right mind intentionally marginalize the most heavily populated and affluent region in the nation for one of the most sparsely populated parts of the country?

That's not some sort of nebulous proof of an Eastern bias, it's flat out common sense. You don't have to necessarily like the rules to accept them.

The only way the Big East loses its BCS bid is if there is no Big East left to claim that spot. Until three or four more teams leave, it's on firm footing no matter what anyone tells you.

Yeah but who enjoys watching games when the teams own fans can't show up? I know that markets are a big deal but at the end of the day you've got to have enough people interested enough to watch. That's part of why the SEC has such a great TV deal. It's good television watching a football environment like that.

It would be absolutely ridiculous to give the MWC an "AQ" status because of the accomplishments of teams that are no longer in the league.

Hell, if you're going to do something that absurd, then let's resurrect the Southwest Conference with some random group of members, and give it AQ status just because UT, A&M, Arkansas, TCU, OU, OSU, etc. were once in the SWC.

This whole discussion shouldn't be happening, though, because the AQ designation should not exist. Get rid of that, and then you can get rid of these silly pi$$ing matches about whether the MWC would have deserved AQ status if UU, BYU, and TCU were still in the conference, or whether the Big East deserves it depending on who is still in that league.

If we're not going to have a real playoff tournament like they do in every other NCAA team sport, then at least have a "plus one" that works something like this:

-- 5 BCS bowl games, Rose, Fiesta, Cotton, Sugar, Orange, all played within a day or two of Jan. 1. Rose gets its Pac v. B1G game (except that Pac and/or B1G champ goes to the national semifinal games if they are ranked in the top 4). The other four bowls rotate the semifinals (1 vs. 4, 2 vs. 3) and "other" BCS games. Add a sixth BCS bowl game if you really want to, depending on whether you want four or six teams outside the top 4 to get to play in a "BCS" bowl game.

-- The winners of the 1-4 and 2-3 semifinal games play a championship game seven to ten days after the BCS bowls.

-- BCS bowls, outside of the Rose and the semifinal games, pick their teams out of a pool of eligible teams. Maybe the pool includes all conference champs plus any other teams ranked in the top 10 or 12.

(10-04-2011 01:12 PM)Wedge Wrote:  It would be absolutely ridiculous to give the MWC an "AQ" status because of the accomplishments of teams that are no longer in the league.

Hell, if you're going to do something that absurd, then let's resurrect the Southwest Conference with some random group of members, and give it AQ status just because UT, A&M, Arkansas, TCU, OU, OSU, etc. were once in the SWC.

This whole discussion shouldn't be happening, though, because the AQ designation should not exist. Get rid of that, and then you can get rid of these silly pi$$ing matches about whether the MWC would have deserved AQ status if UU, BYU, and TCU were still in the conference, or whether the Big East deserves it depending on who is still in that league.

If we're not going to have a real playoff tournament like they do in every other NCAA team sport, then at least have a "plus one" that works something like this:

-- 5 BCS bowl games, Rose, Fiesta, Cotton, Sugar, Orange, all played within a day or two of Jan. 1. Rose gets its Pac v. B1G game (except that Pac and/or B1G champ goes to the national semifinal games if they are ranked in the top 4). The other four bowls rotate the semifinals (1 vs. 4, 2 vs. 3) and "other" BCS games. Add a sixth BCS bowl game if you really want to, depending on whether you want four or six teams outside the top 4 to get to play in a "BCS" bowl game.

-- The winners of the 1-4 and 2-3 semifinal games play a championship game seven to ten days after the BCS bowls.

-- BCS bowls, outside of the Rose and the semifinal games, pick their teams out of a pool of eligible teams. Maybe the pool includes all conference champs plus any other teams ranked in the top 10 or 12.

If you do not like the rules call and complain.

What our the BCS Numbers for the teams on Big East wish list?

Temple
SMU
Houston
Navy
UCF
ECU

That will tell if the Big East keeps the AQ...

Plus.. you got to have teams that get even better with the AQ tag..

(10-04-2011 01:07 PM)NoQuarter08 Wrote:  Yeah but who enjoys watching games when the teams own fans can't show up? I know that markets are a big deal but at the end of the day you've got to have enough people interested enough to watch. That's part of why the SEC has such a great TV deal. It's good television watching a football environment like that.

That's absolutely right, but only to an extent. For example UAB means nothing to the Birmingham DMA and Temple means nothing to the Philadelphia DMA. I'm sorry but that is undeniably true and has been for decades.

However history has also proven that when certain urban schools win, they can draw very well and they draw excellent television numbers. Those handful of teams are basically the BCS teams that are located in urban markets (Miami, Boston College, Pitt, etc.).

Conversely, schools like ECU, WVU, etc., have basically maximized their appeal and there is really very little growth potential there. At least that is the theory.

I know that as a fan of a team that plays in an NFL market - and indeed in an NFL stadium - it is a constant uphill battle to draw fans to games. Too many people in these types of markets look at college football as the football equivalent of minor league baseball.

I mean seriously, I live in Pittsburgh and if you are an average Pittsburgher and your choices are to spend your hard earned money and precious time on the six-time Super Bowl champion Pittsburgh Steelers - one of the most popular and successful professional athletic organizations in the world - or on a Pitt team whose schedule usually includes at least three or four games against teams of whom most casual fans have never even heard, it is not difficult to understand the dynamic or the pecking order.

I attend every Pitt home game, just about every Pitt bowl game, and at least one or two road tilts per year (depending on the schedule). I can't tell you how many times I have asked people who would describe themselves as big Pitt fans to go to bowl games only to be turned down because they are "saving up for the Super Bowl" or for a road playoff game.

The Steelers travel better than any other team in the NFL and Pitt travels about as poorly to bowl games as any team in the BCS. It doesn't take a genius to figure out how that works.

However when the teams in these markets win, the interest in them skyrockets and we all draw enormous television ratings as compared to teams in more consistent but smaller markets.

So I would say that one of the biggest myths in message boards is that fan attendance necessarily equals fan interest because that is often untrue. The people who conduct expansions for a living know as much and that is why teams that play in larger markets tend to have an advantage over teams who play in smaller markets, regardless of how well or poorly each team draws to its home games and/or bowl games. Frankly, as fan of a team whose urban location works against it nine out of ten times, I'm delighted that in this instance it has worked heavily in our favor and I feel no compulsion to apologize for it.

Yinzer....... I get what you're saying but we don't have that problem in NC. College athletics seriously in NC. Even fans of other schools watch ECU because everybody knows somebody that is a fan or an alum. In my family alone there are 4 major universities represented. College sports are ingrained in Southern culture. Pro sports are ingrained in the North.

As long as they keep WVU they keep AQ status. MWC has lost a lot of their heavy hitters with Utah, TCU, and BYU gone.

MW/CUSA alliance might not go well because it looks like the start of a playoff

(10-04-2011 02:37 PM)NoQuarter08 Wrote:  Yinzer....... I get what you're saying but we don't have that problem in NC. College athletics seriously in NC. Even fans of other schools watch ECU because everybody knows somebody that is a fan or an alum. In my family alone there are 4 major universities represented. College sports are ingrained in Southern culture. Pro sports are ingrained in the North.

But that is too easy, 08. For example the Carolina Panthers are a legitimate NFL team even though their popularity pales in comparison to the Steelers. The same is true of the inverse in the North and that is my point. The Saints, Falcons, Dolphins, Buccaneers, etc., all belong in the NFL even though their fan bases aren't quite as ardent as the Eagles, Giants, Jets, Redskins, Patriots, Steelers, etc.

There is no question that pro sports is more popular here than are college sports. However there are still plenty of us who LOVE college sports and spend a ton of money supporting it. Since there are more people who live int he Northeast US than any other region in the country, that will always make teams there more valuable then they otherwise would/should be.

I can't judge if the MWC is better than the Big East because I don't even know which schools are in the MWC. They're never on TV. I think Colorado State is one school. I can't think of any others.