That and some damn good lawyers if the next go round does not open access to more or keeps promoting those not worth or deserving. That and the lil ole SEC who wants the Least's bid for themselves.

The BCS doesn't need anything close to 50% of teams in my opinion. If they wanted to, they could have said the BCS bowls are for the BCS conferences only from the get go and not included anyone else. If it ever turns out to be a real problem, they'll just leave the NCAA (if possible just for football and if not, for everything) and start up a new governing body they can make new rules/divisions for and then maybe invite others into the new system.

If the BCS does not make accessibility easier and for more the next go round their will most definitely be anti trust lawsuits filed. Now at that point do the super conference teams break away and form their own NFL light league, who knows, but the divide is not going to be allowed to get much greater without ramifications for legal action. Sad thing is, a playoff system would bring more money into the mix and truly establish an on the field champion, but the big bowls and their sponsors fear losing control of the game and the money.

(11-02-2011 08:00 AM)Tigeer Wrote:  The landscape was much different when Bobby Bowden did it. There were independents all over the landscape and conference affiliations did not have the same power broking feel, at least it did not seem that way to me. When they started their run they had a losing series record with Memphis, of all schools.

QFT. And this is the real tragedy of the BCS. Before the BCS, anyone could in effect "move up" just by getting better. You didn't need the permission of a conference. Now you do. Miami moved up. FSU moved up. Louisville was about to move up right when we first got cut off at the knees when the BCS was formed.

Back when the bowls could invite whoever they wanted, the conferences did not have this gate-keeping power they have now. And it isn't about BCS bowls. It's about all the rest of the good bowls that automatically go to conference members. The Gator, Peach, Sun, Champs, Outback, etc. are all locked down by BCS conferences.

Back in the day, those bowls would take a highly ranked BSU squad over an unranked Big 12 team any day, so long as they knew the fans would travel. But not now. Now it is either bust the BCS, or go to a crap bowl no matter how good you are. And THAT is the real issue here.

(11-02-2011 06:04 AM)Oh Really? Wrote:  

(11-02-2011 05:36 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  USM and ECU have never been close to BCS busters. TCU, Boise, Louisville, and Hawaii were the only ones, although Miami (2003), BYU (1996, 2001), Marshall (1999), and Tulane (1998) would have been BCS busters if current rules were in place.

ECU went 11-1 in 1991 and were kind of screwed out of 12-0 at Illinois on a celebration call. First one ever called, after an onsides kick, under what was a new rule. Pirates ended up cutting an SEC team out of the Peach Bowl that year and beat NC State in Atlanta. That is one reason why there is a BCS today. To keep upstarts out of the bigger bowls. ECU was the original giant killer.

I would say, "Mark, let it go, dude -- that was years ago.", but...

Quote:That is when these leagues formed the original "alliance" to lock down the bowls within two-months in early 1992. That alliance is what led to the BCS. ECU has played and beaten more current, past and future Big East and BCS teams than anyone out there. ECU's basketball team would compete just fine with over half the league right now. They beat Memphis last year and played them a 3 point ballgame in Memphis. Beat Houston, UAB and beat UCF three times. If the Big East fears the ACC so much that they are willing to relinquish the whole area to the ACC, that's pretty much giving up on the east coast. Temple ain't gonna change that either.

...he does have a point here.

(11-02-2011 09:30 AM)Eagleweiser Wrote:  If the BCS does not make accessibility easier and for more the next go round their will most definitely be anti trust lawsuits filed. Now at that point do the super conference teams break away and form their own NFL light league, who knows, but the divide is not going to be allowed to get much greater without ramifications for legal action. Sad thing is, a playoff system would bring more money into the mix and truly establish an on the field champion, but the big bowls and their sponsors fear losing control of the game and the money.

Sorry it doesn't work that way. They have freedom of association. Further thee is already precedent for having multiple different governing bodies like the NAIA for different types of schools and that has not been a problem. This would create more competition technically since there would now be 2 leagues instead of one which is the opposite of a trust (and this is exactly why the car manufacturers allowed Chrysler to continue existing even though they are far behind the others since it helps keep them from being considered a trust). On top of that even if found against the money awarded to you would be tiny, as in $1, just like when the UFL sued the NFL successfully. That is due to the fact that we (the non-AQ) are worth nearly nothing and so even if our ability to compete is infringed we won't be awarded much since the AQ can easily argue that we would make little money on our own. Lastly they do not necessarily have to leave the NCAA they can just create a new division (division 0 lets say) and use the FBS as we use the FCS today and they can make the requirements so we cannot get in (this also may result in them making their own NCAA basketball tournament without us too). It is the great leverage that they possess.

Unless the AQ schools are allowed to sign as many athletes as they want there will be BCS Busters because there are just too many good players out there. Plus it is easier for a team to put a string of winning seasons together in the Non-AQ Conferences than in an AQ Conference and America (and ESPN) loves winners.

What most have failed to grasp is that under the BCS system, while the money gap between the haves and have-nots has widened, the competition gap has closed. Many in the media have just realized that the newest NCAA proposals may in fact help the Non AQ schools more than the AQ schools.

(11-02-2011 04:41 PM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  Unless the AQ schools are allowed to sign as many athletes as they want there will be BCS Busters because there are just too many good players out there. Plus it is easier for a team to put a string of winning seasons together in the Non-AQ Conferences than in an AQ Conference and America (and ESPN) loves winners.

What most have failed to grasp is that under the BCS system, while the money gap between the haves and have-nots has widened, the competition gap has closed. Many in the media have just realized that the newest NCAA proposals may in fact help the Non AQ schools more than the AQ schools.

I think one thing that all schools are going to have to fight is the perception of giving athletes extra money when most schools are fighting severe budget cuts.

(11-02-2011 04:53 PM)cyc46 Wrote:  

(11-02-2011 04:41 PM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  Unless the AQ schools are allowed to sign as many athletes as they want there will be BCS Busters because there are just too many good players out there. Plus it is easier for a team to put a string of winning seasons together in the Non-AQ Conferences than in an AQ Conference and America (and ESPN) loves winners.

What most have failed to grasp is that under the BCS system, while the money gap between the haves and have-nots has widened, the competition gap has closed. Many in the media have just realized that the newest NCAA proposals may in fact help the Non AQ schools more than the AQ schools.

I think one thing that all schools are going to have to fight is the perception of giving athletes extra money when most schools are fighting severe budget cuts.

Apparently there are a number of ways to skin the $2K part of the NCAA proposals and the ADs in the Sun Belt, not a rich conference at all, are enthusiast about the all the proposed changes. They think it will help them.

I forgot Utah.

Not all the schools I mentioned in the BCS Buster category have been actual busters, but one can argue they have been "on the bubble" or "potential" busters at various points in various seasons or could reasonably become BCS busters based on their history.

The bottom line is that where there have been two slots in the recent past for the Big East and a non-AQ "Buster" now there will be ONE slot for the Big East which has now (or will shortly) absorb the vast majority of available busters, and ONE theoretical slot for a non-AQ which will rarely get filled because the busters have been absorbed into conferences that have their own slots.

End result= NEWLY AVAILABLE SLOT which will go to a school of the SEC/B12/B10.

Remaining Big East schools have to fight with newly acquired non-AQ Buster schools for the BCS berth.

That's my point. This is what ESPN wanted all along. Not to exclude the Big East, but to make Big East schools fight through 12 schools like everybody else. They have effectively achieved the alleged goal of 12 team conferences.

(11-01-2011 11:46 PM)Bearcat 1984 Wrote:  It occurred to me as I was getting ready to hit the sack that this is all working out exactly as ESPN wanted.

What did ESPN really really want in all of this?

Presumably, it wanted the Big East to go away, but more specifically it wanted the Big East's BCS slot to go to the Big Boys.

Circuitously, it has achieved that goal by effectively merging the Big East and non-AQ slots into ONE. Thus freeing up ONE EXTRA SLOT for the SEC/B12/B10 trio.

Now, technically the BCS will keep the non-AQ rule in place, thus preserving the appearance of inclusiveness, but consider the BCS Busters that have been brought in from the cold in the last 12 months:

• TCU
• Boise State
  
• Houston
• UCF
  

...and you have to conclude there won't be very much BCS busting in the years ahead.

The only one's missing off the list of usual buster suspects are BYU, ECU and this year's Southern Miss.

BYU is very possibly a non-FB Big East member, and ECU will continue to wait in the wings as 1st choice at the Replacement Depot.

Southern Miss will probably not maintain its current lofty status, but who knows? Maybe it will gain a spot.

ND is not a "buster" but will maintain their special access rule.

The point is that ESPN has finally succeeded in breaking down the Big East's reluctance to becoming the official BCS Automatic At-Large Conference, and found a way to keep the Basketball viable at the same time.

So that's my interesting conspiracy theory. It was all about the Big East.

What busting has UCF or Houston done? They sure haven't done it while in CUSA.

UCF winning the Liberty Bowl is not busting the BCS.

Houston this year has a weaker SoS than BSU ever did... no way they bust the BCS.

c'mon man...

I couldn't disagree with some of you more on the effect of the BCS. Boise State never would have become what they have become under the old poll and bowl and unlikely would have done so under a playoff either. In the old bowl system, they would have gone to the highest WAC bowl as the only reason the BCS was putting them in was to appease those conferences anyway. Boise State wouldn't have had those BCS wins to bring up their program and a decline would have been much easier.

In a playoff scenario meanwhile, they would have been unlikely to leave the same taste. In real life, they beat Oklahoma, won the Fiesta Bowl and that was the end of the season. A few years later, they beat TCU, won the Fiesta Bowl again, and the season was over. It's very doubtful they would have been able to compete for multiple games initially in a playoff though as their team just wasn't at the level that was going to be very likely, but would detract from their initial win. So either case, I think the BCS is the perfect set-up if you want a relatively unknown team to rise to great heights as it provides just enough access, but doesn't make the obstacles too daunting.

As far as anti-trust, no way. Again, these schools could do exactly the same thing the professional teams do and only allow competition between each other and give no access at all to anyone else. That might sound unfair, but how do you think MLB, the NBA, NFL, etc got to be the only professional sports leagues out there for their sport. If anyone professional team anyone started up could go to the Superbowl, their would be a lot more professional teams started by those outside the NFL. It would be really hard to go against the BCS without first going against those structures (other than baseball since it has an official exemption).

I think the general idea that "ESPN Wins" is correct, but I don't think this has anything much to do with the BCS automatic bids.

Big XII has contracts with ESPN and Fox. ESPN wants to keep its stanglehold on college athletics so they hurt the Big XII by pushing Nebraska to B1G and TAMU and Missouri to the SEC who have their primary contracts with ESPN and no Fox contracts. ACC & Big East is a similar situation. Big East refuses ESPN's contract. ESPN goes to the ACC and says they need to add Pitt and Cuse. C-USA cuts all ties with ESPN and MWC lessens it's relationship with ESPN and ESPN talks BYU into an independent contract and gets BE to pick up major TV markets from C-USA. At the end of the day, all the conference commissioners are ESPN's puppets in its war against Fox Sports.

They'll win when Big East jumps on their lowball offer out of fear of more punishment.

They'll ensure control of one of the best basketball conferences in the nation, and add football inventory and market reach of Houston, SMU, UCF, Boise, possibly the academies as well.

All of those programs are currently in conferences under contracts from other rivals.

So yes, ESPN wins. I'm sure ESPN's lowball deal will also include the Big East champion getting one of the 12 BCS slots (add Cotton Bowl).

For all the gold we expect from NBC, we won't be able to get that far because they don't OWN the BCS.

(11-02-2011 12:52 AM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  Other than Boise State and TCU there were no other BCS busters. Houston might be this year. UCF never did. Hawaii did it once. Other than those 3 there are no other BCS busters.

Utah wasn't?

(11-02-2011 04:53 PM)cyc46 Wrote:  

(11-02-2011 04:41 PM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  Unless the AQ schools are allowed to sign as many athletes as they want there will be BCS Busters because there are just too many good players out there. Plus it is easier for a team to put a string of winning seasons together in the Non-AQ Conferences than in an AQ Conference and America (and ESPN) loves winners.

What most have failed to grasp is that under the BCS system, while the money gap between the haves and have-nots has widened, the competition gap has closed. Many in the media have just realized that the newest NCAA proposals may in fact help the Non AQ schools more than the AQ schools.

I think one thing that all schools are going to have to fight is the perception of giving athletes extra money when most schools are fighting severe budget cuts.

Got this from the SBC board:
http://www.sunbeltsports.org/ViewArticle...=205326908

The really strong AQ conferences can have their cake and eat it too.

All they have to do is when the BCS contract is up after the 2013 season, do away with the AQ status. Each conference make their contracts with the BCS bowls. Right now there are 5 conferences that have such contracts. Probably will still be the same 5 starting in 2014 because those conferences contain all the big, actually huge name teams like Southern Cal, Texas, Oklahoma, Bama, LSU, Ohio St, Florida St, etc. and so on.

Then the BCS will still have the champ game getting number 1 and 2. The Bowls will be free to replace any team they lose to the champ game by selecting any school available from a list of whatever the BCS wants... such as top 20 or top 25 or top 15 or just any team at all, leaving it up to the bowls.

So no AQ for anyone. You can look over the ratings since the BCS has been in place and see at a glance that there would be years where no BE team would be in a BCS bowl. ACC would have missed one or two also except they will have a contract with the Orange Bowl and will be protected. Almost the old bowl system with a couple of tweaks that allow the SEC and others to have as many BCS bowl appearances as possible.

Unless they are truly ready to leave the NCAA altogether (I don't think they are), the BCS "schools" need to maintain a greater than 50% advantage to make sure the FBS system goes the direction they want. Therefore, I don't see the loss of a 6th AQ conference.

ESPN is funding the BCS at this point, everyone. Whoever ESPN wants to get access to BCS games will get it. This is something that is more valuable than any formula.

Big East has to know this.

(11-03-2011 10:55 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  The really strong AQ conferences can have their cake and eat it too.

All they have to do is when the BCS contract is up after the 2013 season, do away with the AQ status. Each conference make their contracts with the BCS bowls. Right now there are 5 conferences that have such contracts. Probably will still be the same 5 starting in 2014 because those conferences contain all the big, actually huge name teams like Southern Cal, Texas, Oklahoma, Bama, LSU, Ohio St, Florida St, etc. and so on.

Then the BCS will still have the champ game getting number 1 and 2. The Bowls will be free to replace any team they lose to the champ game by selecting any school available from a list of whatever the BCS wants... such as top 20 or top 25 or top 15 or just any team at all, leaving it up to the bowls.

So no AQ for anyone. You can look over the ratings since the BCS has been in place and see at a glance that there would be years where no BE team would be in a BCS bowl. ACC would have missed one or two also except they will have a contract with the Orange Bowl and will be protected. Almost the old bowl system with a couple of tweaks that allow the SEC and others to have as many BCS bowl appearances as possible.

Texas has shown where everything is going. Eventually the really big-time schools are going to demand a bigger piece of the pie because parity in their conference is not in their best interest. Fact is the fans and supporters of these big-time programs tend to harbor their greatest hate for their fellow conference mates, and will cut their throat given the chance, and they will.