Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
b10 surrenders???
Author Message
67 442 Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 85
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 5
I Root For: Missouri Tigers
Location:
Post: #1
b10 surrenders???
Yet another reason to be happy Missouri is now an SEC school!

Congrats to the Tigers for an amazing win against Cal last night!

Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany has all but waved the white flag of surrender when it comes to competing for national championships. Not that he’ll ever admit – recruiting suicide. His reported recent proposal for BCS “radical change” however is the latest, and most unmistakable, sign of concession.

The rest of the story.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/ne...ally112111
11-23-2011 09:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


ohio1317 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 5,675
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 358
I Root For: Ohio State
Location:
Post: #2
RE: b10 surrenders???
Already read this one. It's a stupid article from someone who really wants a playoff and doesn't realize the Big Ten and SEC are aligned 90% of the time.
11-23-2011 09:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ndlutz Offline
I am the liquor.
*

Posts: 2,541
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 91
I Root For: Pitt
Location: Pittsburgh
Post: #3
RE: b10 surrenders???
If a Big Ten team is good enough to win out it won't matter. On the other hand teams from the Big East and ACC are going to have more to worry about. When it comes down to it they may end up going undefeated or having one loss and still not making a major bowl without the BCS if there are enough one loss teams from the other conferences.
11-23-2011 09:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #4
RE: b10 surrenders???
B1G football is not about national championships. The B1G IS a regional conference and it's region is not the southeast or Texas or California. It is a premier academic conference and for these programs they now have a conference championship to covet. Should any one of our programs put together a team that stands out above the rest of the B1G crowd then that team will very likely get to make a run at the National Championship. Had Wisconsin not lost this year in B1G play as they were expected to do they would definitely be in the National Championship this year.

That writer is simply homering for a playoff system that he as a fan wants.

The point remains that a small playoff such as a +1 still doesn't really give us a clear cut champion just a champion with a slightly better pedigree.
11-23-2011 09:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bronconick Offline
Hockey Nut
*

Posts: 9,190
Joined: Apr 2007
Reputation: 193
I Root For: WMU/FSU
Location:
Post: #5
RE: b10 surrenders???
The Big Ten has 1.5 mythical national titles since 1968. It's never been a priority for them.
11-23-2011 09:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Captain Bearcat Offline
All-American in Everything
*

Posts: 9,478
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 766
I Root For: UC
Location: IL & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #6
RE: b10 surrenders???
Until 2005, the SEC was not a dominant conference. People seem to forget that there was a good reason that Auburn's 2003 squad went undefeated and didn't make make the title game: the SEC was the 5th or 6th best conference that year.

There's no reason to think that the SEC's current run will last. In fact, there's many reasons to think it will end soon: the SEC's decision to lock in media rights for another two decades will leave them way, way behind the other conferences. This year, they're 3rd (behind the Big 10 and Pac-10) in TV money, and every single conference will renegotiate their TV conference before the SEC gets a chance to. And now the SEC has gone ahead and diluted their product with two of the weaker Big 12 schools.

The Big 10 has made some smart long-term moves, and they'll be rewarded for it.
11-23-2011 10:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Seminole Indian Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,412
Joined: Jan 2010
Reputation: 6
I Root For: Texas
Location:
Post: #7
RE: b10 surrenders???
(11-23-2011 09:03 AM)67 442 Wrote:  Yet another reason to be happy Missouri is now an SEC school!

Congrats to the Tigers for an amazing win against Cal last night!

Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany has all but waved the white flag of surrender when it comes to competing for national championships. Not that he’ll ever admit – recruiting suicide. His reported recent proposal for BCS “radical change” however is the latest, and most unmistakable, sign of concession.

The rest of the story.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/ne...ally112111

The bottom line is Missouri will still be a relatively inconsequential program on the national scene in the SEC just they are now but will get more money for being so and everyone knows that.

Schools like Texas; Oklahoma will be significant national programs no matter what conference they are in and will compete for and win more national titles in the future in football.
(This post was last modified: 11-23-2011 10:18 AM by Seminole Indian.)
11-23-2011 10:04 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,161
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 449
I Root For: Common Sense
Location: Nunnayadamnbusiness
Post: #8
RE: b10 surrenders???
A full scale playoff - based on merit, not popularity - would legitimize college football in a way it never before has been legitimized.
11-23-2011 10:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #9
RE: b10 surrenders???
(11-23-2011 10:11 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  A full scale playoff - based on merit, not popularity - would legitimize college football in a way it never before has been legitimized.

And how many extra games would a program have to play in order to earn such a crown? Legitimization? Really? You think any programs are worrying about earning legitimization by opinion of fans? Fans will follow college football whether or not there is a playoff. That is legitimization right there.

A playoff system could force teams to play upwards of 16 games a year in order to earn that false legitimization and that will cause more injuries to players in the top programs which means the possible ending of careers before they even begin.

Not a very good bargaining tool if you are trying to pull blue chips.
11-23-2011 10:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
joep2 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 207
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 26
I Root For: Pitt
Location:
Post: #10
RE: b10 surrenders???
Quote:A playoff system could force teams to play upwards of 16 games

There already is a playoff system for college football. All that needs to happen is to incorporate it here.

Quote:in order to earn that false legitimization

False? The only thing false is the current system where not every team can legitimately compete to be in the championship, and no team earns a spot.

The top 25 is not can not ever be logical or legitimate. It's simply not possible. There is no need for it to be this way. Period.
11-23-2011 11:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HuskiemobileMan Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 15,980
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation: 128
I Root For: NIU, MAC, Cubs
Location:

Donators
Post: #11
RE: b10 surrenders???
(11-23-2011 10:16 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  
(11-23-2011 10:11 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  A full scale playoff - based on merit, not popularity - would legitimize college football in a way it never before has been legitimized.

And how many extra games would a program have to play in order to earn such a crown? Legitimization? Really? You think any programs are worrying about earning legitimization by opinion of fans? Fans will follow college football whether or not there is a playoff. That is legitimization right there.

A playoff system could force teams to play upwards of 16 games a year in order to earn that false legitimization and that will cause more injuries to players in the top programs which means the possible ending of careers before they even begin.
FCS does it. Suck it up. Only 2 teams will play 16 games. 4 will play 15. Many teams already play 14 games.
11-23-2011 11:17 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


joep2 Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 207
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 26
I Root For: Pitt
Location:
Post: #12
RE: b10 surrenders???
Quote:A playoff system could force teams to play upwards of 16 games

There already is a playoff system for college football. All that needs to happen is to incorporate it here.

Quote:in order to earn that false legitimization

False? The only thing false is the current system where not every team can legitimately compete to be in the championship, and no team earns a spot.

The top 25 is not can not ever be logical or legitimate. It's simply not possible. There is no need for it to be this way. Period.
11-23-2011 11:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bronconick Offline
Hockey Nut
*

Posts: 9,190
Joined: Apr 2007
Reputation: 193
I Root For: WMU/FSU
Location:
Post: #13
RE: b10 surrenders???
The # of games played is a red herring. The anti-playoff talk focused on not wanting one or two teams to play 14 or 15 games back when it was an 11 game schedule a decade or two ago.

Add in a 12 game season, conference championship games in 6 leagues,and a bowl game. Well, crap. We're at 14 now for a dozen or so teams and there's still no playoff.

As is, within a decade of the Big Ten going to 9 game conference schedules in 2015 or so (and if the ACC/SEC follow suit), you'll see a push for a 13th game, probably by going back into late August again, so those league can get an 8th home game yearly and 9th game occasionally.
11-23-2011 11:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OneSockUp Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 644
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 83
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #14
RE: b10 surrenders???
(11-23-2011 10:02 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Until 2005, the SEC was not a dominant conference. People seem to forget that there was a good reason that Auburn's 2003 squad went undefeated and didn't make make the title game: the SEC was the 5th or 6th best conference that year.

Between 1992 and 2005 the SEC won four national titles (by four different schools). That number isn't exceeded by any conference and is only equaled by the Big 12 (three of the B12's came from Nebraska, which of course goes to show less depth).

If you want to find other conferences with four different national title winners, for the Big Ten you have to go back to Minnesota's in 1960. The Pac-10 has only had three since 1940 (USC, UCLA, and Washington). The ACC has to stretch back to Maryland's championship in 1951. The Big 12 is the best of the non-SEC's (going back to its Big 8/SWAC roots) with Colorado in 1990.

No other conference has had five different winners, which the SEC has since 1998.
(This post was last modified: 11-23-2011 04:47 PM by OneSockUp.)
11-23-2011 04:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
shocky Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 330
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 20
I Root For: UC Bearcats
Location:
Post: #15
RE: b10 surrenders???
The Big Ten is the biggest problem with college football as we know. Unfortunately, the Big ten is sitting in a nice Population zone with a bunch of zombie fans that have bought into their drivel generation after generation.

What you have with the Big Ten is a conference that is perhaps the most over rated. The problem, their fans travel well and spend money, two things that the bowl system absolutely loves. This is a reason why the a playoff will never happen, the Bowls love the Big Ten, and the Big Ten loves the bowls. In all honesty, the members of the Big Ten would rather go to the Rose Bowl then go to the National Championship game (probably because they dont' want to get smashed by real teams.)

The SEC and the ACC wanted a playoff, the Pac and B1G were against it. If the SEC, ACC and Big 12 decide to go the playoff route, let the Pac and the B1Greed play in their silly little Rose Bowl.
11-23-2011 05:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TomThumb Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 687
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 18
I Root For: stuff
Location:
Post: #16
RE: b10 surrenders???
(11-23-2011 05:34 PM)shocky Wrote:  The Big Ten is the biggest problem with college football as we know.

A fan of a team in the Big East which is considering adding SDSU(!!!) calling the B1G(probably the most geographically and culturally cohesive conference) the biggest problem with college football as we know it.

That's pretty funny.
11-23-2011 06:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #17
RE: b10 surrenders???
(11-23-2011 05:34 PM)shocky Wrote:  The Big Ten is the biggest problem with college football as we know. Unfortunately, the Big ten is sitting in a nice Population zone with a bunch of zombie fans that have bought into their drivel generation after generation.

What you have with the Big Ten is a conference that is perhaps the most over rated. The problem, their fans travel well and spend money, two things that the bowl system absolutely loves. This is a reason why the a playoff will never happen, the Bowls love the Big Ten, and the Big Ten loves the bowls. In all honesty, the members of the Big Ten would rather go to the Rose Bowl then go to the National Championship game (probably because they dont' want to get smashed by real teams.)

The SEC and the ACC wanted a playoff, the Pac and B1G were against it. If the SEC, ACC and Big 12 decide to go the playoff route, let the Pac and the B1Greed play in their silly little Rose Bowl.

I'm sorry but the B1G does not HAVE to buy into the system that YOU want. The B1G and its member institutions will do what is in their best interests because that is what they are SUPPOSED to do.

How funny how you want to portray the B1G as being all that more greedy then any other conference. Why? Because they were simply the first with their own Network? That doesn't make them any more greedy then the other conferences, that just means they are better organized. The B1G has always been a very cohesive organization and that leads to success in regards to fund raising. That and the fact that the schools have very large and active followings. That isn't greed, that is simple success.


Just because the rest of the country thinks everyone has to come together as one with the same goal, that isn't how the B1G works. If other conferences are working towards the same goal then that's fine but the B1G is not about football first nor will it ever be. If that is not ok with someone from Cincinnati then too bad. Fans of B1G teams are indeed most interested in how our teams fare against each other first. We are not as interested in how we fare against teams from the South that work under different rules and have different circumstances in regards to recruiting and what not. That isn't to say that it is not a concern at all but the strength that the B1G has is due to that cohesiveness and resolve.

It is not surprising that some folks might hate that.
11-23-2011 09:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nert Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,700
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 41
I Root For: Utah, CMU, Cincinnati
Location:
Post: #18
RE: b10 surrenders???
(11-23-2011 11:16 AM)joep2 Wrote:  
Quote:A playoff system could force teams to play upwards of 16 games

There already is a playoff system for college football. All that needs to happen is to incorporate it here.

Quote:in order to earn that false legitimization

False? The only thing false is the current system where not every team can legitimately compete to be in the championship, and no team earns a spot.

The top 25 is not can not ever be logical or legitimate. It's simply not possible. There is no need for it to be this way. Period.

And how many illegitimate championship banners does Pitt still have hanging up? or Minnesota? or Michigan? or Alabama (with their tear-away jerseys)? Despite the fact that most of those undefeated teams of yesteryear that each of these schools claim as 'national championships' were little more than state championships (because they mostly played a schedule of small in-state colleges or even high schools in many instances), they still fly the flags as if they were real 'national' championships. But your school's 'national' football history is even more fictional than most.

If the "bowl and poll" system of illigitimacy is ok for your school's past - why do we suddenly need a playoff just because the old system doesn't favor your school any longer?

This is what'll happen if the BCS is dissolved:
There still won't be a playoff.

Each conference will have a series of bowl games lined up - just like they used to. The ones that will really pay off (the Rose, Orange, Fiesta and Sugar, etc), will match a major conference champion with the best available opponent (or another conference champion) - and will pay a lot more $$$ than other bowls.

The schools who feel locked out now (the non-BCS, the BigEast, most of the ACC, teams in the Big12 not named Texas or Oklahoma, etc) - will find no opportunity for a major payday because - even in undeafeated seasons, they simply will not garner enough media interest and advertising interest to warrant an invite to a major bowl. The SEC, Big10, Pac12 and some teams from the Big12 and ACC will get big payday invites. The rest will get minor bowls for minor money.

Under those options - a BCS that favors the 3 major conferences and a few other schools - but allows a way for an individual school to get a big payday when they have a great season, sure seems preferable to a system that locks the rest out every year and in every circumstance.

This would also be the case if the BCS just matched up 1 vs 2 and let the rest of the bowls make their own invites. Would there ever be a BoiseSt invited to the Rose Bowl? No, there wouldn't. Would Pitt ever get a Sugar Bowl invite to play the SEC champion? No, they wouldn't.

While I believe the BCS is unfair and flawed - I believe even more that what would arise if the BCS disappeared would be even more unfair and more flawed.
11-24-2011 12:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,914
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 189
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #19
RE: b10 surrenders???
(11-23-2011 10:02 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Until 2005, the SEC was not a dominant conference. People seem to forget that there was a good reason that Auburn's 2003 squad went undefeated and didn't make make the title game: the SEC was the 5th or 6th best conference that year.

There's no reason to think that the SEC's current run will last. In fact, there's many reasons to think it will end soon: the SEC's decision to lock in media rights for another two decades will leave them way, way behind the other conferences. This year, they're 3rd (behind the Big 10 and Pac-10) in TV money, and every single conference will renegotiate their TV conference before the SEC gets a chance to. And now the SEC has gone ahead and diluted their product with two of the weaker Big 12 schools.

The Big 10 has made some smart long-term moves, and they'll be rewarded for it.

Was this the year they were on probation and ineligible for a bowl? Coach Bowden coached Auburn, but I may be in the wrong year..
11-24-2011 12:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bronconick Offline
Hockey Nut
*

Posts: 9,190
Joined: Apr 2007
Reputation: 193
I Root For: WMU/FSU
Location:
Post: #20
RE: b10 surrenders???
(11-24-2011 12:11 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(11-23-2011 10:02 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Until 2005, the SEC was not a dominant conference. People seem to forget that there was a good reason that Auburn's 2003 squad went undefeated and didn't make make the title game: the SEC was the 5th or 6th best conference that year.

There's no reason to think that the SEC's current run will last. In fact, there's many reasons to think it will end soon: the SEC's decision to lock in media rights for another two decades will leave them way, way behind the other conferences. This year, they're 3rd (behind the Big 10 and Pac-10) in TV money, and every single conference will renegotiate their TV conference before the SEC gets a chance to. And now the SEC has gone ahead and diluted their product with two of the weaker Big 12 schools.

The Big 10 has made some smart long-term moves, and they'll be rewarded for it.

Was this the year they were on probation and ineligible for a bowl? Coach Bowden coached Auburn, but I may be in the wrong year..

That was 1993. 2004 Preseason #1 USC and #2 Oklahoma never lost all season long and Auburn probably compounded their own issues by having their non conference schedule be Louisiana Tech, Louisiana-Monroe and The Citadel.
11-24-2011 10:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.