Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
ESPN.com...Reported BIG EAST Stance @ Meeting 2mrw..
Author Message
Maize Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 21,340
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 555
I Root For: Athletes First
Location:
Post: #1
ESPN.com...Reported BIG EAST Stance @ Meeting 2mrw..
Then when they make their stance, Neinas & Slive will burst out laughing...lol 03-lmfao 03-lmfao 03-lmfao

1. The Big East is in favor of a four-team playoff, with the current bowl structure incorporated into the semifinal round. The league is fine with a neutral-site national championship game.

2. Forget about a selection committee. The Big East is not in favor a group selecting the four teams to make the playoff, ala the NCAA basketball committee.

3. The Big East believes conference champions should be heavily considered.

No plus-one. The plus-one differs from a playoff significantly. In this model, one game would be played after all the BCS bowls to determine a national champion. This type of model may end up favoring teams from the Rose Bowl and SEC/Big 12 BCS bowl partnership. Or it could knock a top 4 Big East team from consideration if it loses its BCS game. Remember, the Big East has no BCS tie-in, so it's at the mercy of the BCS bowls.

No selection committee. You can understand why the Big East would be against this idea, where inherent biases are sure to come into play when you have a group of people selecting the teams they believe are the most worthy of being included in a playoff. Given the terrible perception the Big East has nationally, how many of you have faith that an undefeated Big East team would get the nod over a one-loss team from the SEC or Big Ten or Big 12? Former Florida State coach Bobby Bowden has already said he would be willing to serve on a such a committee. Say the final spot is up for grabs between a Big East and ACC team. What will he do?

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigeast
(This post was last modified: 06-12-2012 09:27 AM by Maize.)
06-12-2012 09:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


SleepingGiantsFan Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,073
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 53
I Root For: SDSU
Location:
Post: #2
RE: ESPN.com...Reported BIG EAST Stance @ Meeting 2mrw..
(06-12-2012 09:26 AM)Maize Wrote:  3. The Big East believes conference champions should be heavily considered.

Actually it says the BE favors "giving weight" to conference champions as one of the criteria to be used. Maybe the BE is arguing that criterion should be given more weight than others but I didn't read Adelson's column to say that.
06-12-2012 09:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bearcatlawjd Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,590
Joined: Mar 2009
Reputation: 94
I Root For: UC
Location:
Post: #3
RE: ESPN.com...Reported BIG EAST Stance @ Meeting 2mrw..
(06-12-2012 09:40 AM)SleepingGiantsFan Wrote:  
(06-12-2012 09:26 AM)Maize Wrote:  3. The Big East believes conference champions should be heavily considered.

Actually it says the BE favors "giving weight" to conference champions as one of the criteria to be used. Maybe the BE is arguing that criterion should be given more weight than others but I didn't read Adelson's column to say that.

You might make everyone happy if you go with the top four teams using a BCS formula: however, in the process bonus points are added to conference champions and or points are taken away from those that didn't win their conference.
06-12-2012 09:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
3601 Offline
HoopDreams' Daddy
*

Posts: 26,908
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 371
I Root For: Omar Sneed
Location: Mempho
Post: #4
RE: ESPN.com...Reported BIG EAST Stance @ Meeting 2mrw..
(06-12-2012 09:50 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  
(06-12-2012 09:40 AM)SleepingGiantsFan Wrote:  
(06-12-2012 09:26 AM)Maize Wrote:  3. The Big East believes conference champions should be heavily considered.

Actually it says the BE favors "giving weight" to conference champions as one of the criteria to be used. Maybe the BE is arguing that criterion should be given more weight than others but I didn't read Adelson's column to say that.

You might make everyone happy if you go with the top four teams using a BCS formula: however, in the process bonus points are added to conference champions and or points are taken away from those that didn't win their conference.

That is a reasonable solution. However, it will just lead to the next debate about exactly how much (or little) of a bonus it should be. The BCS formula sometimes comes down to percentage points between places.
06-12-2012 10:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SF Husky Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,338
Joined: Jul 2004
Reputation: 295
I Root For: UCONN
Location:
Post: #5
RE: ESPN.com...Reported BIG EAST Stance @ Meeting 2mrw..
8 team playoff for this round is the only answer. It will include 4 top conference champs plus next 4 highest ranked at-large teams.
06-12-2012 10:20 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,722
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1775
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #6
RE: ESPN.com...Reported BIG EAST Stance @ Meeting 2mrw..
(06-12-2012 10:20 AM)SF Husky Wrote:  8 team playoff for this round is the only answer. It will include 4 top conference champs plus next 4 highest ranked at-large teams.

You're not going to get that answer, though. Personally, I think an 8-team playoff would work well, too, but it's simply not in the cards right now. The Big East will hopefully not waste any time trying to argue for something that is already non-starter and focus upon what it can realistically achieve in the new 4-team playoff format. The composition of the 4-team playoff itself is actually less important to the Big East than what happens in terms of revenue distribution and slotting of the other top tier bowls.
06-12-2012 10:31 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


stever20 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 46,240
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 725
I Root For: Sports
Location:
Post: #7
RE: ESPN.com...Reported BIG EAST Stance @ Meeting 2mrw..
I could see a 0.1000 bonus given to conference champs...

2011-
1 LSU 1.1000
2 Oklahoma St 1.0333
3 Alabama 0.9419
4 Oregon 0.8901
5 Stanford 0.8476
6 Arkansas 0.7687
7 Boise St 0.7408
8 Wisconsin 0.7374
9 Kansas St 0.6827
10 South Carolina 0.6553

Clemson would move up from 15 to 11.
TCU would have moved up from 18 to 14(and in BCS)
So Miss would have moved up from 21 to 20.
WV would have moved up from 23 to 22.
06-12-2012 10:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bearcatlawjd Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,590
Joined: Mar 2009
Reputation: 94
I Root For: UC
Location:
Post: #8
RE: ESPN.com...Reported BIG EAST Stance @ Meeting 2mrw..
[quote='stever20' pid='7981812' dateline='1339516095']
I could see a 0.1000 bonus given to conference champs...

2011-
1 LSU 1.1000
2 Oklahoma St 1.0333
3 Alabama 0.9419
4 Oregon 0.8901
5 Stanford 0.8476
6 Arkansas 0.7687
7 Boise St 0.7408
8 Wisconsin 0.7374
9 Kansas St 0.6827
10 South Carolina 0.6553

Clemson would move up from 15 to 11.
TCU would have moved up from 18 to 14(and in BCS)
So Miss would have moved up from 21 to 20.
WV would have moved up from 23 to 22.
[/quote

The only problem with this is Notre Dame.
06-12-2012 10:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SF Husky Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,338
Joined: Jul 2004
Reputation: 295
I Root For: UCONN
Location:
Post: #9
RE: ESPN.com...Reported BIG EAST Stance @ Meeting 2mrw..
(06-12-2012 10:31 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(06-12-2012 10:20 AM)SF Husky Wrote:  8 team playoff for this round is the only answer. It will include 4 top conference champs plus next 4 highest ranked at-large teams.

You're not going to get that answer, though. Personally, I think an 8-team playoff would work well, too, but it's simply not in the cards right now. The Big East will hopefully not waste any time trying to argue for something that is already non-starter and focus upon what it can realistically achieve in the new 4-team playoff format. The composition of the 4-team playoff itself is actually less important to the Big East than what happens in terms of revenue distribution and slotting of the other top tier bowls.

If they try to create another apartheid type of college football next round, I hope there will be a massive lawsuit with congressional involvement. It is a freaking joke a school like Washington State, Wake Forest or IOWA State is a "power conference" school due to conference affiliation while a school like UCONN isn't.

Let's be fair about this:

1. Take human voters out of the equation and just let computers do the ranking. If computers don't work, fix the damn program. I can find people who can create a program better than some of those people who are doing it now. I can even do it myself.

2. Conferences with teams that go to the playoff should have higher payouts. Pay for performance.

3. Teams that win OOC on the road should get HUGE points for doing so. SEC and B1G teams that play 8 home games should be punished. If you want it easy and make money, then stay home during the playoff and let teams that willing to take risks go to the playoff.

4. Conference champs should definitely be favored so regular season will have some meaning. otherwise, it will be SEC lovefest 24x7 in the media when all they do is play each other. Propaganda only works if you are some traditional teams or if you are from the SEC or B1G.
(This post was last modified: 06-12-2012 10:57 AM by SF Husky.)
06-12-2012 10:52 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Offline
Five Minute Google Expert
*

Posts: 16,359
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 996
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #10
RE: ESPN.com...Reported BIG EAST Stance @ Meeting 2mrw..
(06-12-2012 10:31 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(06-12-2012 10:20 AM)SF Husky Wrote:  8 team playoff for this round is the only answer. It will include 4 top conference champs plus next 4 highest ranked at-large teams.

You're not going to get that answer, though. Personally, I think an 8-team playoff would work well, too, but it's simply not in the cards right now. The Big East will hopefully not waste any time trying to argue for something that is already non-starter and focus upon what it can realistically achieve in the new 4-team playoff format. The composition of the 4-team playoff itself is actually less important to the Big East than what happens in terms of revenue distribution and slotting of the other top tier bowls.

I don't think that revenue distribution is going to be a live-or-die issue for the Big East. Distribution by top-25-over-10 years, weighted or unweighted, is the best formula the Big East could hope for, with "6 AQs" off the table. And even if the best Big East bowls are the Pinstripe against Big Ten #5 and the Holiday against PAC #4, a few million in bowl money isn't make-or-break.

What is a life-or-death, make-or-break issue is, can Big East programs pretend to be national contenders, and recruit and raise funds and sell tickets and represent on TV accordingly. If the system is set up so that an undefeated Big East team ranked #4 will get jobbed out of a spot by a selection committee, then the Big East can't pretend to be a halfway major conference. If a Big East champion ranked #5 is still playing in the Holiday or Pinstripe Bowl, then that's the back-breaker. If the system is set up so that a 2008 Hawaii or a 2007 Boise State--or a 2011 Houson if they hadn't choked against Southern Miss--doesn't get a spot in the semifinals, that's the worst possible outcome, and revenue distribution, or an $8M Orange Bowl spot instead of a $4M Pinstripe Bowl spot isn't going to be a consolation prize. If that happens, everyone basically goes back to where they were 10 years ago in the college football heirarchy.
06-12-2012 10:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CommuterBob Offline
Head Tailgater
*

Posts: 5,840
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation: 173
I Root For: UCF, Ohio State
Location:
Post: #11
RE: ESPN.com...Reported BIG EAST Stance @ Meeting 2mrw..
(06-12-2012 10:31 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The composition of the 4-team playoff itself is actually less important to the Big East than what happens in terms of revenue distribution and slotting of the other top tier bowls.

Exactly. This point isn't made very well in the media as it seems everyone is focused on just the composition of the playoff participants, but the real deal is who the participants of all of the BCS bowls (and I expect to see at least 5), not just the 2 games that will comprise the semifinals. Since almost every conference I've seen supports a 4-team playoff with the semifinals in the bowls and a neutral site NCG, I have to believe that the first two questions coming from the April BCS meetings were answered: when and where. Now we're coming down to who and how, and that's where the money distribution comes into play. Since the preference is the bowls for the semis, I have to think that it will either be a "hosted" determination or a rotational system like we've had in the past. Either way, the 5 BCS bowls would almost certainly bind together and form a revenue distribution for the participants, with a small bump for the semifinals. The Big East needs to be sure that it can at least have access to one of those 10 spots, playoff or not.
06-12-2012 10:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


johnbragg Offline
Five Minute Google Expert
*

Posts: 16,359
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 996
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #12
RE: ESPN.com...Reported BIG EAST Stance @ Meeting 2mrw..
(06-12-2012 10:51 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  [quote='stever20' pid='7981812' dateline='1339516095']
I could see a 0.1000 bonus given to conference champs...

2011-
1 LSU 1.1000
2 Oklahoma St 1.0333
3 Alabama 0.9419
4 Oregon 0.8901
5 Stanford 0.8476
6 Arkansas 0.7687
7 Boise St 0.7408
8 Wisconsin 0.7374
9 Kansas St 0.6827
10 South Carolina 0.6553

Clemson would move up from 15 to 11.
TCU would have moved up from 18 to 14(and in BCS)
So Miss would have moved up from 21 to 20.
WV would have moved up from 23 to 22.
[/quote

The only problem with this is Notre Dame.

No problem at all--treat the Independents as a "conference", and give the same pbump to the highest ranked independent.

Ooops, is that Notre Dame 19 years out of 20? Gee, what a coincidence.
06-12-2012 10:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
KnightLight Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,664
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation: 700
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #13
RE: ESPN.com...Reported BIG EAST Stance @ Meeting 2mrw..
By giving conf champs precedence/priority in any playoff system, that helps eliminate voting BIAS (i.e. like the Coach's Poll) out of the equation...as since Pac-12, Big Ten, SEC, ACC and now Big East in 2013 will all have Conf Championship Games...having that game count in some way, without relying on computer or human polls help take the bias out of the equation.
(This post was last modified: 06-12-2012 10:57 AM by KnightLight.)
06-12-2012 10:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,722
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1775
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #14
RE: ESPN.com...Reported BIG EAST Stance @ Meeting 2mrw..
(06-12-2012 10:52 AM)SF Husky Wrote:  
(06-12-2012 10:31 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(06-12-2012 10:20 AM)SF Husky Wrote:  8 team playoff for this round is the only answer. It will include 4 top conference champs plus next 4 highest ranked at-large teams.

You're not going to get that answer, though. Personally, I think an 8-team playoff would work well, too, but it's simply not in the cards right now. The Big East will hopefully not waste any time trying to argue for something that is already non-starter and focus upon what it can realistically achieve in the new 4-team playoff format. The composition of the 4-team playoff itself is actually less important to the Big East than what happens in terms of revenue distribution and slotting of the other top tier bowls.

If they try to create another apartheid type of college football next round, I hope there will be a massive lawsuit with congressional involvement. It is a freaking joke a school like Washington State, Wake Forest or IOWA State is a "power conference" school due to conference affiliation while a school like UCONN isn't.

Let's be fair about this:

1. Take human voters out of the equation and just let computers do the ranking. If computers don't work, fix the damn program. I can find people who can create a program better than some of those people who are doing it now. I can even do it myself.

2. Conferences with teams that go to the playoff should have higher payouts. Pay for performance.

3. Teams that win OOC on the road should get HUGE points for doing so. SEC and B1G teams that play 8 home games should be punished. If you want it easy and make money, then stay home during the playoff and let teams that willing to take risks go to the playoff.

4. Conference champs should definitely be favored so regular season will have some meaning. otherwise, it will be SEC lovefest 24x7 in the media when all they do is play each other. Propaganda only works if you are some traditional teams or if you are from the SEC or B1G.

The thing is that the computers love the SEC and Big 12 more than even the human polls. There was sentiment for Boise State by human voters, for instance, whereas every "objective" metric such as strength of schedule destroyed Boise State every year. The top 15 teams in SOS last year were ALL from the SEC or Big 12. So, this is another matter of being careful for what you wish for (just like the non-AQ conferences that wanted the BCS system to go away and will now never see the light of the Rose Bowl or Fiesta Bowl ever again). It's extremely misguided to think that this is all about media propaganda - the SEC has consistently crushed everyone on computer metrics.
(This post was last modified: 06-12-2012 11:06 AM by Frank the Tank.)
06-12-2012 11:05 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SF Husky Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,338
Joined: Jul 2004
Reputation: 295
I Root For: UCONN
Location:
Post: #15
RE: ESPN.com...Reported BIG EAST Stance @ Meeting 2mrw..
(06-12-2012 11:05 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(06-12-2012 10:52 AM)SF Husky Wrote:  
(06-12-2012 10:31 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(06-12-2012 10:20 AM)SF Husky Wrote:  8 team playoff for this round is the only answer. It will include 4 top conference champs plus next 4 highest ranked at-large teams.

You're not going to get that answer, though. Personally, I think an 8-team playoff would work well, too, but it's simply not in the cards right now. The Big East will hopefully not waste any time trying to argue for something that is already non-starter and focus upon what it can realistically achieve in the new 4-team playoff format. The composition of the 4-team playoff itself is actually less important to the Big East than what happens in terms of revenue distribution and slotting of the other top tier bowls.

If they try to create another apartheid type of college football next round, I hope there will be a massive lawsuit with congressional involvement. It is a freaking joke a school like Washington State, Wake Forest or IOWA State is a "power conference" school due to conference affiliation while a school like UCONN isn't.

Let's be fair about this:

1. Take human voters out of the equation and just let computers do the ranking. If computers don't work, fix the damn program. I can find people who can create a program better than some of those people who are doing it now. I can even do it myself.

2. Conferences with teams that go to the playoff should have higher payouts. Pay for performance.

3. Teams that win OOC on the road should get HUGE points for doing so. SEC and B1G teams that play 8 home games should be punished. If you want it easy and make money, then stay home during the playoff and let teams that willing to take risks go to the playoff.

4. Conference champs should definitely be favored so regular season will have some meaning. otherwise, it will be SEC lovefest 24x7 in the media when all they do is play each other. Propaganda only works if you are some traditional teams or if you are from the SEC or B1G.

The thing is that the computers love the SEC and Big 12 more than even the human polls. There was sentiment for Boise State by human voters, for instance, whereas every "objective" metric such as strength of schedule destroyed Boise State every year. The top 15 teams in SOS last year were ALL from the SEC or Big 12. So, this is another matter of being careful for what you wish for (just like the non-AQ conferences that wanted the BCS system to go away). It's extremely misguided to think that this is all about media propaganda - the SEC has consistently crushed everyone on computer metrics.

I bet you that if they make road wins worth way more than home wins, SEC SOS would sank like there is no tomorrow. I like to see SEC teams come up north to East Hartford in the middle of December. How about SEC teams go to Michigan when it is snowing? You know that won't happen but if they make road wins worth way more, SEC teams might have to fall in line vs. living in a system where everything is catered towards them.

Couple of things I would weight much more than they normally do now:

1. Road OOC win against another conference should weigh much more than just another OOC win. It should be 3x. This will eliminate the built-in bias where a conference is considered better just based on perception.

2. OOC wins should be worth 2x than home wins.

3. Home wins against OOC opponents should be worth more. 1.5x than normal.

4. Formula should adjust throughout the season based on how teams perform.

SEC has got blown out many times even though they were heavily favored. Right off the bet: WVU vs. Georgia in 2005, UCONN vs. South Carolina in 2009, UTAH vs. Bama in 2010 Sugar Bowl.
(This post was last modified: 06-12-2012 11:15 AM by SF Husky.)
06-12-2012 11:07 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Offline
Five Minute Google Expert
*

Posts: 16,359
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 996
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #16
RE: ESPN.com...Reported BIG EAST Stance @ Meeting 2mrw..
(06-12-2012 10:55 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Either way, the 5 BCS bowls would almost certainly bind together and form a revenue distribution for the participants, with a small bump for the semifinals. The Big East needs to be sure that it can at least have access to one of those 10 spots, playoff or not.

I think the Champions Bowl agreement is evidence that you're wrong. Why create this big-money "Champions Bowl" with the Big 12 if you're just pouring the money back into a shared pot?

Remember, before the dam broke on moving to a playoff, the SEC was talking about blowing up the BCS bowl cartel and having "the BCS just handle 1 vs 2"--with the Sugar, Rose, Orange and Fiesta taking whoever they wanted, making whatever deals they wanted. Translate that to "the BCS just handle the national championship playoff" Say the Fiesta Bowl ends up Big 12 #2 vs Big 10 #2/3/4. Why should they share that money with the PAC, ACC, Big East etc?

I think the revenue distribution formula is just going to divide the NCG revenue. The semifinals will be hosted by the "anchor bowls" for No. 1 and No. 2.

The only protecting-of-the-weak that anyone is going to do is to shore up the ACC's position in the Orange Bowl--you could have a gentleman's agreement to guarantee the Orange Bowl the first pick of the non-champions of the Big 4.
06-12-2012 11:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Coog82 Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 493
Joined: Nov 2007
Reputation: 53
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #17
RE: ESPN.com...Reported BIG EAST Stance @ Meeting 2mrw..
[/quote]
The thing is that the computers love the SEC and Big 12 more than even the human polls. There was sentiment for Boise State by human voters, for instance, whereas every "objective" metric such as strength of schedule destroyed Boise State every year. The top 15 teams in SOS last year were ALL from the SEC or Big 12. So, this is another matter of being careful for what you wish for (just like the non-AQ conferences that wanted the BCS system to go away and will now never see the light of the Rose Bowl or Fiesta Bowl ever again). It's extremely misguided to think that this is all about media propaganda - the SEC has consistently crushed everyone on computer metrics.
[/quote]

Why is it that the computers love the SEC and Big 12 more? Is it because their conference games are perceived to be greater than the Big East, ACC, or Pac12 conference games? My guess is probably, but when you get right down to it, this perception that Iowa State vs. Oklahoma should count more in the computer than Houston vs. Boise is just wrong. Computers are programmed to evaluate data. The data is obviously skewed toward the SEC and Big 12... which raises the question of how or even if this data can be changed or evened out.

I am not sure how you balance things, or even if you can unless you just consider the top 6 conferences to be close to equal. The computer is probably always going to be set up to give more credit/points to a Alabama vs. Tennessee game or a Vandy vs. Ole Miss game than a Rutgers vs. Conn. or a USF vs. UCF game.
(This post was last modified: 06-12-2012 12:11 PM by Coog82.)
06-12-2012 11:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dwalker85 Offline
Go Tigers Go!
*

Posts: 1,143
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation: 41
I Root For: Memphis
Location:
Post: #18
RE: ESPN.com...Reported BIG EAST Stance @ Meeting 2mrw..
(06-12-2012 10:56 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(06-12-2012 10:51 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  
(06-12-2012 10:48 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I could see a 0.1000 bonus given to conference champs...

2011-
1 LSU 1.1000
2 Oklahoma St 1.0333
3 Alabama 0.9419
4 Oregon 0.8901
5 Stanford 0.8476
6 Arkansas 0.7687
7 Boise St 0.7408
8 Wisconsin 0.7374
9 Kansas St 0.6827
10 South Carolina 0.6553

Clemson would move up from 15 to 11.
TCU would have moved up from 18 to 14(and in BCS)
So Miss would have moved up from 21 to 20.
WV would have moved up from 23 to 22.

The only problem with this is Notre Dame.

No problem at all--treat the Independents as a "conference", and give the same pbump to the highest ranked independent.

Ooops, is that Notre Dame 19 years out of 20? Gee, what a coincidence.

Or the problem is Notre Dame's and BYU's. Allow them to weigh the significance of being in a conference vs their independence. Maybe then, ND will actually have a reason to join a conference.
06-12-2012 12:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CommuterBob Offline
Head Tailgater
*

Posts: 5,840
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation: 173
I Root For: UCF, Ohio State
Location:
Post: #19
RE: ESPN.com...Reported BIG EAST Stance @ Meeting 2mrw..
(06-12-2012 11:12 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(06-12-2012 10:55 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Either way, the 5 BCS bowls would almost certainly bind together and form a revenue distribution for the participants, with a small bump for the semifinals. The Big East needs to be sure that it can at least have access to one of those 10 spots, playoff or not.

I think the Champions Bowl agreement is evidence that you're wrong. Why create this big-money "Champions Bowl" with the Big 12 if you're just pouring the money back into a shared pot?

Remember, before the dam broke on moving to a playoff, the SEC was talking about blowing up the BCS bowl cartel and having "the BCS just handle 1 vs 2"--with the Sugar, Rose, Orange and Fiesta taking whoever they wanted, making whatever deals they wanted. Translate that to "the BCS just handle the national championship playoff" Say the Fiesta Bowl ends up Big 12 #2 vs Big 10 #2/3/4. Why should they share that money with the PAC, ACC, Big East etc?

I think the revenue distribution formula is just going to divide the NCG revenue. The semifinals will be hosted by the "anchor bowls" for No. 1 and No. 2.

The only protecting-of-the-weak that anyone is going to do is to shore up the ACC's position in the Orange Bowl--you could have a gentleman's agreement to guarantee the Orange Bowl the first pick of the non-champions of the Big 4.

The "Champions Bowl" was a way to bid up the system and to have an agreement for the SEC and XII exactly like the PAC/B1G have with the Rose Bowl. If it's in the BCS system, then it stands almost assured of hosting a semifinal game (if they go the #1 and #2 hosting semifinal game via bowl tie-in route, and I think they will). If a semifinal game gets more $$ (which I think it will) then the big 4 have solidified their position. Even if the SEC/XII don't have a #1/#2, they're each guaranteed at least one BCS bowl share each. It also wouldn't surprise me if the SEC/XII agreement turns into having tie-ins with both the Sugar and Cotton, so as to have a fallback venue within the BCS in case both #1 and #2 are within those two conferences.

If the game is outside the system, then it just becomes another Capital One bowl - a good game with a good payout, but nothing like a BCS payout.

Basically, I think the BCS games will look like this:

Rose - PAC/B1G Champions
Fiesta - at-large/at-large (PAC/B1G fallback if #1 & #2 exist within both conferences)
Sugar - XII/SEC Champions
Cotton - at-large/at-large (XII/SEC fallback if #1 & #2 exist within both conferences)
Orange - ACC/at-large

Where each at-large spot is free to pick anyone from any conference (maybe a caveat that they have to be ranked in the top 25).
06-12-2012 12:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stever20 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 46,240
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 725
I Root For: Sports
Location:
Post: #20
RE: ESPN.com...Reported BIG EAST Stance @ Meeting 2mrw..
I really do not see the Orange continuing their association with the ACC at all. It's done nothing but destroy the Orange Bowl..
06-12-2012 12:20 PM
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.