(06-05-2012 03:38 PM)mlb Wrote:  If you can't win your conference you shouldn't compete for a championship... that simple. I don't care about last year, or any other for that matter. Champs only. The only other thing that complicates that is Notre Dame.

I agree 110 percent. The only exception should be if an independent finishes above one of the top four conference champions based upon an acceptable poll.

(06-07-2012 12:35 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  

(06-06-2012 07:10 AM)Borncoog74 Wrote:  

(06-06-2012 01:52 AM)bsubroncochick Wrote:  

(06-05-2012 09:14 PM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(06-05-2012 03:35 PM)Borncoog74 Wrote:  The key starting point and factor for revenue distribution is going to be the number member schools a conference has had in the Top 25 over the previous 10 years was also a across the board statement. This is actually a very promising development if true.

I actually completely disagree. If we go by final rankings in the AP Poll, we'd get something like this for the Big East (adjusted for realignment):

2002: #15 Boise St
2003: #16 Boise St
2004: #6 Louisville, #12 Boise St, #24 Navy
2005: #19 Louisville
2006: #6 Louisville, #12 Rutgers,
2007: #17 Cincinnati
2008: #11 Boise St, #17 Cincinnati
2009: #4 Boise St, #8 Cincinnati
2010: #9 Boise St, #21 UCF
2011: #8 Boise St, #18 Houston, #25 Cincinnati
2012: Not Yet Played

Total Rankings: 18

That is a decent showing over the last decade and certainly separates the Big East from the MWC, C-USA, etc. The problem is when you compare the Big East to the other major conferences, things don't look nearly as good. For example, compare the Big East numbers to the ACC.

2002: #2 Miami, #13 Maryland, #18 VTech, #19 Pitt, #21 FSU, #22 Virginia
2003: #5 Miami, #11 FSU, #17 Maryland, #22 Clemson
2004: #10 VTech, #15 FSU, #21 Boston College, #23 Virginia, #25 Pitt
2005: #7 VTech, #17 Miami, #18 Boston College, #21 Clemson, #23 FSU
2006: #18 Wake Forest, #19 VTech, #20 Boston College
2007: #9 VTech, #10 Boston College, #21 Clemson
2008: #15 VTech, #21 FSU, #22 GTech
2009: #10 VTech, #13 GTech, #15 Pitt, #19 Miami, #24 Clemson
2010: #16 VTech, #17 FSU, #23 Maryland, #25 NC State
2011: #21 VTech, #22 Clemson, #23 FSU
2012: Not yet played

Total Rankings: 41

When you adjust for realignment, the ACC has 41 Top 25 finishes. That is more than double the Big East total. The Big 10, Big 12, Pac-12, and SEC all have similar numbers. If anything, using Top 25 finishes for revenue distribution could be used as a basis for giving the Big East a much smaller share of the pie than it currently gets.

You forgot a final ap ranking for Boise for 2006--#5.

Yes, you need to add one for Boise in 2006.

Also, the totals will be for 2004-2014 which narrows the gap a few.

Additionally, you might as well plan on BYU's 4 Top 25 appearances during that 10 year stretch as well.....

Add UCONN #25 in 2007. Losing WVU certainly hurt in this regard. However, this poll need to be adjusted for numbers. BE only had 8 teams vs. ACC's 12. That is not exactly a fair comparison by any means. If you take number of conference members into consideration, it is a lot closer.

http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/2007_...e_bcs.html

I think you bring up a good point. Having only 8 teams also put the Big est at a disadvatage with respect to TV viewership and total fan base.

The increase in league size will not only make a difference in the number of teams ranked in a given year, but it will increase the Big East fan base which should result in an increase in viewership numbers in both regular and post season games.

(06-07-2012 12:50 PM)TonyTiger Wrote:  

(06-05-2012 03:38 PM)mlb Wrote:  If you can't win your conference you shouldn't compete for a championship... that simple. I don't care about last year, or any other for that matter. Champs only. The only other thing that complicates that is Notre Dame.

I agree 110 percent. The only exception should be if an independent finishes above one of the top four conference champions based upon an acceptable poll.

I am for champs only that treat independents as a conference or a 3 plus 1 model. No restriction on a champ being ranked in the top six or anything crazy like that.

The method of selection is the confusing party, I wanted a committee with reps from each conference but a BCS style ranking that takes the coaches out of the system is the second best plan.

When the playoff format talk first emerged, I was for a simple Top 4 system, regardless of conference, b/c I thought it would be silly to omit Alabama last year.

But the more I hear all this stuff about strength of schedule, selection committees with former coaches volunteering, etc. the more it pushes me to a conference champs only format, with an exception for a top 4 ranked indy, like Notre Dame.

Just tweak the current BCS formula, and let it determine the top 4. Simple. If people don't like that idea, then extend the playoff to 8 teams, take the top 6 ranked conference champs, and the two highest ranked others.

That puts a priority on the regular season, but still allows the two best other teams to get in.

I also think the playoff system should move away from the bowl games, to cut out the middle man's profit take, and bid out all the games. If the B1G and the PAC weren't so wedded to the Rose Bowl, this wouldn't be an issue at all.

I also agree with changing the bowl eligible rule to 7-5 records, or higher. This will perhaps give pause to conferences piling up the best FB teams, b/c it could bury them farther down the pile, record-wise.

(06-07-2012 12:51 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  I think you bring up a good point. Having only 8 teams also put the Big est at a disadvatage with respect to TV viewership and total fan base.

The increase in league size will not only make a difference in the number of teams ranked in a given year, but it will increase the Big East fan base which should result in an increase in viewership numbers in both regular and post season games.

Big East has always suffered being the smallest BCS Conf playing the fewest conf games (just 7 conf games a piece, just 28 TOTAL for the entire conf), as there were a Saturday or two over the last year or two when the Big East, due to being a tiny conf plus one with double bye weeks because they didn't play a championship game...plus tendency to fill in midweek dates on ESPN, TV partners were left with just ONE conf game to choose from...while others like SEC offered up 5 or 6.

With 14 football teams playing 8 conf games each...Big East will offer its new TV partners DOUBLE the number of meaningful games (56 conf games compared to just 28 previously), plus teams located in all 4 main TV markets.

Big East is sitting in a good spot...hence why all the new teams that did come on board didn't need much time to think about their answers. (Navy & BYU, with their own TV deals and independent scheduling have/had different concerns about joining).