http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/wr...sa.merger/

The bald kid in The Matrix may as well have been explaining the fallout of conference realignment when he explained spoon-bending to Keanu Reeves. For those not geeky enough to remember the exchange, here's the transcript:

Bald kid: Do not try to bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth.

Keanu: What truth?

Bald kid: There is no spoon.

Conference USA commissioner Britton Banowsky provided realignment's version of "There is no spoon" on Friday night as he answered a question about whether he thought C-USA's football merger with the Mountain West into a 22-team (for now, at least) mega-something would earn an automatic bid to the BCS.




Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/wr...z1aqfH1O5U

It never ceases to amaze me how often people who make their living covering college athletics fail to understand how it actually works. Honestly, it is quazi frightening. For some reason college athletics in particular seems to cloud people's judgment and impedes their common sense.

Staples speculates that in the future the BCS could freeze leagues like the ACC, BE, etc., out of BCS bowl games in favor of teams from the MWC/CUSA hyrbid or more likely in favor of teams from the B1G, SEC, etc. That's really a nice dream but does Mr. Staples not understand who actually comprises the BCS (or whatever the next iteration will be called)? And more importantly does he not understand who does NOT comprise the BCS (and who never will)?

So, I'm sorry if this offends people but it doesn't matter how the Sun Belt or the Mountain USA feels about the BCS or how they would prefer it to be structured because THEY DON'T GET A VOTE. If the powers that be in the BCS strip the BE from its BCS status it is NOT going to be to hand that money over to another weak conference. Rather, it is going to be to keep that money for themsleves. It is embarrassing that this cartel's unmitigated greed - which has been conclusively demonstrated time and again - needs to be continually explained to people.

Let me say this again to be clear: If the BE loses its BCS bid that does not necessarily mean that some new league somehow gets it as so many of you continue to assume. In fact I would put the hybrid's chances at less than five percent. The FAR greater liklihood is that the bid that was going to go to UConn will instead go to Michigan State or Georgia or Arizona State rather than Boise State or East Carolina or UTEP.

It's not even close.

Finally, can we please, for the sake of sanity, cease once and for all with this fantasy that the Northeast United States is somehow EVER going to be frozen out of anything because: It. Is. Never. Going. To. Happen.

If you think that the Northeast is largely apathetic about college football now, and it is, try systematically marginalizing them over the course of years because that would be a brilliant way to cut into your profitability - which of course is the goal of all major corporations. If you are FedEx or BP or Tostitos or - name your favorite corporation - do you honestly think that your brand is best served if the most heavily populated region of the country has been systematically discouraged from watching your game before the season even starts?

It's just moronic on every level and that's not some sort of East Coast bias or arrogance, rather it's cold, hard reality.

Is this, like the THIRD time someone's posted that article?

READ BEFORE YOU POST, PEOPLE!

(10-15-2011 09:08 AM)KnightTower Wrote:  Is this, like the THIRD time someone's posted that article?

READ BEFORE YOU POST, PEOPLE!

Yep, the funny thing is I posted this analogy yesterday well before Staples posted this article, but I equated the spoon to the AQ that the Big East will lose and the Alliance will not ever get because Slive and Delaney will take it. His analogy was a little different because he equated the spoon to the BCS. It made me wonder if these sports writers read our message boards for ideas.

(10-15-2011 08:16 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  It never ceases to amaze me how often people who make their living covering college athletics fail to understand how it actually works. Honestly, it is quazi frightening. For some reason college athletics in particular seems to cloud people's judgment and impedes their common sense.

Staples speculates that in the future the BCS could freeze leagues like the ACC, BE, etc., out of BCS bowl games in favor of teams from the MWC/CUSA hyrbid or more likely in favor of teams from the B1G, SEC, etc. That's really a nice dream but does Mr. Staples not understand who actually comprises the BCS (or whatever the next iteration will be called)? And more importantly does he not understand who does NOT comprise the BCS (and who never will)?

So, I'm sorry if this offends people but it doesn't matter how the Sun Belt or the Mountain USA feels about the BCS or how they would prefer it to be structured because THEY DON'T GET A VOTE. If the powers that be in the BCS strip the BE from its BCS status it is NOT going to be to hand that money over to another weak conference. Rather, it is going to be to keep that money for themsleves. It is embarrassing that this cartel's unmitigated greed - which has been conclusively demonstrated time and again - needs to be continually explained to people.

Let me say this again to be clear: If the BE loses its BCS bid that does not necessarily mean that some new league somehow gets it as so many of you continue to assume. In fact I would put the hybrid's chances at less than five percent. The FAR greater liklihood is that the bid that was going to go to UConn will instead go to Michigan State or Georgia or Arizona State rather than Boise State or East Carolina or UTEP.

It's not even close.

Finally, can we please, for the sake of sanity, cease once and for all with this fantasy that the Northeast United States is somehow EVER going to be frozen out of anything because: It. Is. Never. Going. To. Happen.

If you think that the Northeast is largely apathetic about college football now, and it is, try systematically marginalizing them over the course of years because that would be a brilliant way to cut into your profitability - which of course is the goal of all major corporations. If you are FedEx or BP or Tostitos or - name your favorite corporation - do you honestly think that your brand is best served if the most heavily populated region of the country has been systematically discouraged from watching your game before the season even starts?

It's just moronic on every level and that's not some sort of East Coast bias or arrogance, rather it's cold, hard reality.

I agree, especially about the sports writers. They keep on saying that if the Big East implodes that ND will have to move its FB team somewhere. Do they not realize that no matter what happens to the BE FB teams that the Catholic BBall schools will still be playing each other under the Big East banner? It's comical that these people are paid for their sports opinion when at many times they sound no better than an uninformed forum poster.

"Staples speculates that in the future the BCS could freeze leagues like the ACC, BE, etc., out of BCS bowl games in favor of teams from the MWC/CUSA hyrbid or more likely in favor of teams from the B1G, SEC, etc."

That's not exactly how I read this. And nowhere in the article do I see any assertion that the Big East's AQ bid will be handed over to the new alliance conference.

Staples is simply saying that after the current BCS contract ends, there may not be such a thing as AQ status. Instead the "powers that be" may choose to change the rules so that the top bowls are allowed to select whomever they want from among the top teams. And he's pointing out that under such a system, a weak Big East conference would be no more desirable as a home than a weak alliance conference.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Okay, let me try this another way. Let's play a game. Who exactly are the BCS "powers that be" and what would their motivation be to eliminate AQ status and the money that pours in as a result of it?

(10-15-2011 07:32 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Okay, let me try this another way. Let's play a game. Who exactly are the BCS "powers that be" and what would their motivation be to eliminate AQ status and the money that pours in as a result of it?

Nothing short of congressional action or an ant-trust suit will end the BCS. And one by one every school with a claim of being damaged has been absorbed into the system (Utah, TCU, Cincy, Louisville, USF and soon UH, UCF, SMU, Boise, AF) or turned down the opportunity (Army, Navy, BYU).

No one left has a real claim. So exactly why would the AQ schools give up their gravy train to invite the winner of a MWC/CUSA leftover league feed at the trough. Pipe dream.

I guess I'm just trying to figure out why everyone is a-okay with a non-merit based system when it benefits leagues like the B1G or SEC but then they turn around and act like it's a crime against humanity when that same exact dynamic favors the Big East. That seems pretty brazen to me but then again this is college athletics where reason often has no place.

(10-15-2011 07:32 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Okay, let me try this another way. Let's play a game. Who exactly are the BCS "powers that be" and what would their motivation be to eliminate AQ status and the money that pours in as a result of it?

Okay, I'll play. The "powers that be" are the five stable AQ conferences (I use the term "stable" loosely as it applies to the Big 12, but they seem to have steadied out). Under the current system they all get a minimum of one and a maximum of two BCS bowl bids.

Let's assume they have the option of eliminating AQ status and replacing it with a system that (1) adds one additional BCS bowl for a total of six, (2) requires the awarding of BCS bowl bids to the six schools with the highest BCS rankings, and (3) requires the BCS bowls to award the other six bids to schools they select from among the next ten highest ranked schools. Also under this system there's no limit on the number of schools that can be selected from any conference.

So the downside for the "powers that be" is that if any of them are unable to put their conference champion in the top 16, they're shut out from a BCS bowl. The risk of that is pretty low. The upside is the opportunity to put two or three or even four conference members in BCS bowls, if they earn top 16 rankings and are sufficiently attractive from TV and fan support perspectives. Eliminating the limit of two BCS bowl participants per conference is something we already know the SEC and Big 10 covet.

I think this kind of alternative to AQ status would be attractive to the current AQ conferences as well as the BCS bowl organizers. I think it would also be acceptable to the non-AQ conferences, because it removes the stigma of being second class citizens and creates a path to a BCS bowl for any school that can perform well enough on the field. And it would eliminate the absurdity of a school like Boise State considering Big East membership just to attain AQ status.

Personally I would prefer a true playoff system but something like the above would at least be an improvement from the status quo.