(06-12-2012 10:40 PM)blunderbuss Wrote: The BCS was founded by conferences 100% consisting of flagships, major land grant universities and elite private schools with high quality academics, athletic programs and deep pockets.
I call BS on this one. The SEC is a BCS conference.
(06-12-2012 10:40 PM)blunderbuss Wrote: The BCS was founded by conferences 100% consisting of flagships, major land grant universities and elite private schools with high quality academics, athletic programs and deep pockets.
I call BS on this one. The SEC is a BCS conference.
In blunder's defense, he didn't say the institutions met all of those criteria, just that those sorts of schools comprised the major conferences. In fact, I don't you can be both a land grant institution and an elite private school.
(06-12-2012 10:40 PM)blunderbuss Wrote: The BCS was founded by conferences 100% consisting of flagships, major land grant universities and elite private schools with high quality academics, athletic programs and deep pockets.
I call BS on this one. The SEC is a BCS conference.
The SEC membership are all tier 1 in academics. They're all flaghips or land grant "state U" schools except for one elite private school. All have large athletic budgets and large fanbases (except for maybe Vandy's fan base). Several of them have bigger football budgets than many other schools entire athletic budget. They fit my description perfectly so I'm not sure what your point is.
My point......we're all pretty much screwed here.
(This post was last modified: 06-12-2012 11:24 PM by blunderbuss.)
(06-12-2012 10:40 PM)blunderbuss Wrote: The BCS was founded by conferences 100% consisting of flagships, major land grant universities and elite private schools with high quality academics, athletic programs and deep pockets.
I call BS on this one. The SEC is a BCS conference.
The SEC membership are all tier 1 in academics. They're all flaghips or land grant "state U" schools except for one elite private school. All have large athletic budgets and large fanbases (except for maybe Vandy's fan base). Several of them have bigger football budgets than many other schools entire athletic budget. They fit my description perfectly so I'm not sure what your point is.
My point......we're all pretty much screwed here.
I hope you enjoy your trips to San Antonio in the fall.
(06-12-2012 10:40 PM)blunderbuss Wrote: The BCS was founded by conferences 100% consisting of flagships, major land grant universities and elite private schools with high quality academics, athletic programs and deep pockets.
I call BS on this one. The SEC is a BCS conference.
The SEC membership are all tier 1 in academics. They're all flaghips or land grant "state U" schools except for one elite private school. All have large athletic budgets and large fanbases (except for maybe Vandy's fan base). Several of them have bigger football budgets than many other schools entire athletic budget. They fit my description perfectly so I'm not sure what your point is.
My point......we're all pretty much screwed here.
After Memphis joins the Big East, they'll have a bigger athletic budget than at least three or four SEC teams. Not to mention, the Tigers will be televised in more than a dozen of the largest television markets in the United States across four time zones.
I'd say we're doing pretty damn good.
(This post was last modified: 06-13-2012 12:34 AM by TOGC.)
(06-12-2012 10:40 PM)blunderbuss Wrote: The BCS was founded by conferences 100% consisting of flagships, major land grant universities and elite private schools with high quality academics, athletic programs and deep pockets.
I call BS on this one. The SEC is a BCS conference.
The SEC membership are all tier 1 in academics. They're all flaghips or land grant "state U" schools except for one elite private school. All have large athletic budgets and large fanbases (except for maybe Vandy's fan base). Several of them have bigger football budgets than many other schools entire athletic budget. They fit my description perfectly so I'm not sure what your point is.
My point......we're all pretty much screwed here.
After Memphis joins the Big East, they'll have a bigger athletic budget than at least three or four SEC teams. Not to mention, the Tigers will be televised in more than a dozen of the largest television markets in the United States across four time zones.
I'd say we're doing pretty damn good.
Hey, he gets road trips to UT-San Antonio, Charlotte, Old Dominion, North Texas, LaTech, and FIU now. CUSA is doing just fine.
(06-12-2012 10:40 PM)blunderbuss Wrote: The BCS was founded by conferences 100% consisting of flagships, major land grant universities and elite private schools with high quality academics, athletic programs and deep pockets.
I call BS on this one. The SEC is a BCS conference.
The SEC membership are all tier 1 in academics. They're all flaghips or land grant "state U" schools except for one elite private school. All have large athletic budgets and large fanbases (except for maybe Vandy's fan base). Several of them have bigger football budgets than many other schools entire athletic budget. They fit my description perfectly so I'm not sure what your point is.
My point......we're all pretty much screwed here.
After Memphis joins the Big East, they'll have a bigger athletic budget than at least three or four SEC teams.
Possible but unlikely. In 2007-08, the most readily googleable year thanks to the Orlando Sentinel, Memphis had a budget of $33M, just a hair less than USF and Cincinatti. Vanderbilt had a budget of $45M, Missouri $49M, Arkansas $64M.
Ooops! You did out-budget Mississippi State at $30M.
The new Big East TV contract will help Memphis, but remember the SEC has had a big boost in TV revenues since 2007-08.
(06-12-2012 10:42 PM)Bearcat_Bounce Wrote: Lol new thread same sh!t, you guys really need to get over it. The Big East will likely never be considered one of the power leagues for a loooong time, whether it is fair or not.
Try again, the only thing Big East is missing is a tent pole program. NBE has potential than you think. On field results, change perception really fast, ala TCU and Boise.
(06-12-2012 10:42 PM)Bearcat_Bounce Wrote: Lol new thread same sh!t, you guys really need to get over it. The Big East will likely never be considered one of the power leagues for a loooong time, whether it is fair or not.
Try again, the only thing Big East is missing is a tent pole program. NBE has potential than you think. On field results, change perception really fast, ala TCU and Boise.
Very true...kind of a bummer that Boise State, who has finished in the Top 9 EACH of the last 3 seasons, has to wait till 2013 to join the conf.
Conf will be in a good hands in 2013...as divisional races will provide some key match-ups week in and week out but as Tom Petty use to say, "The Waiting is the Hardest Part".
(06-12-2012 10:42 PM)Bearcat_Bounce Wrote: Lol new thread same sh!t, you guys really need to get over it. The Big East will likely never be considered one of the power leagues for a loooong time, whether it is fair or not.
Try again, the only thing Big East is missing is a tent pole program. NBE has potential than you think. On field results, change perception really fast, ala TCU and Boise.
(06-12-2012 10:42 PM)Bearcat_Bounce Wrote: Lol new thread same sh!t, you guys really need to get over it. The Big East will likely never be considered one of the power leagues for a loooong time, whether it is fair or not.
Try again, the only thing Big East is missing is a tent pole program. NBE has potential than you think. On field results, change perception really fast, ala TCU and Boise.
The problem is, you have to get on the field for that to work, and the power players are at this moment rearranging the system so that midmajors like us do not get the chance to play top teams on a national stage. The old "BCS bowls" will go from at-large bids to major conference tie ins, and a selection committee will make sure that non-power conference teams get passed over for the playoff.
(06-12-2012 10:42 PM)Bearcat_Bounce Wrote: Lol new thread same sh!t, you guys really need to get over it. The Big East will likely never be considered one of the power leagues for a loooong time, whether it is fair or not.
Try again, the only thing Big East is missing is a tent pole program. NBE has potential than you think. On field results, change perception really fast, ala TCU and Boise.
The problem is, you have to get on the field for that to work, and the power players are at this moment rearranging the system so that midmajors like us do not get the chance to play top teams on a national stage. The old "BCS bowls" will go from at-large bids to major conference tie ins, and a selection committee will make sure that non-power conference teams get passed over for the playoff.
This mentality is whats wrong, we are mid-major because ACC and Big 2 little 8 say so? WRONG.
(This post was last modified: 06-13-2012 07:38 AM by AirRaid.)
(06-12-2012 10:42 PM)Bearcat_Bounce Wrote: Lol new thread same sh!t, you guys really need to get over it. The Big East will likely never be considered one of the power leagues for a loooong time, whether it is fair or not.
Try again, the only thing Big East is missing is a tent pole program. NBE has potential than you think. On field results, change perception really fast, ala TCU and Boise.
The problem is, you have to get on the field for that to work, and the power players are at this moment rearranging the system so that midmajors like us do not get the chance to play top teams on a national stage. The old "BCS bowls" will go from at-large bids to major conference tie ins, and a selection committee will make sure that non-power conference teams get passed over for the playoff.
This mentality is whats wrong, we are mid-major because ACC and Big 2 little 8 say so? WRONG.
Exactly. Keep repeating this: there are 6 power conferences and the Big East is one of them.
The more you allow the poor perception to bubble, the closer you are to becoming it. The Big East is heading up, not down.
(06-13-2012 07:37 AM)AirRaid Wrote: This mentality is whats wrong, we are mid-major because ACC and Big 2 little 8 say so? WRONG.
Exactly. Keep repeating this: there are 6 power conferences and the Big East is one of them.
The more you allow the poor perception to bubble, the closer you are to becoming it. The Big East is heading up, not down.
When you compare on the field results, on the court results, and market size, there's no doubt the Big East is one of the Power 6 conferences. It is BETTER than the ACC and on par with the PAC 12. If we add BYU, we pass the PAC 12.
(06-12-2012 10:42 PM)Bearcat_Bounce Wrote: Lol new thread same sh!t, you guys really need to get over it. The Big East will likely never be considered one of the power leagues for a loooong time, whether it is fair or not.
Try again, the only thing Big East is missing is a tent pole program. NBE has potential than you think. On field results, change perception really fast, ala TCU and Boise.
The problem is, you have to get on the field for that to work, and the power players are at this moment rearranging the system so that midmajors like us do not get the chance to play top teams on a national stage. The old "BCS bowls" will go from at-large bids to major conference tie ins, and a selection committee will make sure that non-power conference teams get passed over for the playoff.
This mentality is whats wrong, we are mid-major because ACC and Big 2 little 8 say so? WRONG.
Relax...just look who is saying that (hoop only school fan)...who enjoys to BASH the conf at every turn.
He/she does it trying to get a rise out of fans like you.
(This post was last modified: 06-13-2012 08:08 AM by KnightLight.)
(06-12-2012 03:09 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote: How does the ACC get a seat @the table with a 2-13 BCS bowl record. The computer rankings, any given year, do not favor the
ACC over the Big East.
Good question. My guess is it is based on years of history with their schools such as FSU, Miami, Va. Tech. If we look at it honestly, I guess I can see where they are coming from.
If you go by recent records though, it makes no sense. It's more convenient for them to go by history and fits their plan to exclude more schools from their club.
The smaller the club gets, the more I detest college football as a whole.
Bingo! I've predicted for years that the eventual goal is to whittle this down to an NFL-like 32 or 36 schools, then break away from the NCAA. Wouldn't ESPN love that.
But they would be killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. The appeal of college football nationally is that "my" school has a chance to make it big-time someday. If they get down to an elite "club", they'll lose millions of fans. We already have an NFL. We don't need another.
I might be off-base, but I've always held the position of, go ahead let them break away. Their greed isn't going to stop even then. Once they've removed themselves from the rest of us, they're not going to have anyone left to feed on but each other. Even among the "clique" schools there are financial divides, and those divides will start to widen when Texas and Alabama realize that Wake Forest and Washington State shouldn't be making a tenth of what they do. The smaller "clique" schools will get really tired of having everything dictated to them by the Floridas, Texas, Alabamas, and USCs. With no governing body like the NCAA to oversee things, imagine the dark depths that recruiting will sink to, as well as paying players, and all the other crap that will be fair game without NCAA rules to comply with. Some schools just won't be able to compete. You'll eventually see a group of "haves" and "have nots" just like you see now.
Then there's the issue of Title IX as well. Even if schools do leave the NCAA, they will still have to comply with it. If the remaining NCAA schools could stick to their guns and refuse to play the clique schools in ANY sport, all of those non-revenue women's sports in the clique schools will have a very hard time filling out schedules. If they're left with only each other to play, they'll get hammered on travel costs. Not to mention it would be very difficult on the "student" athletes.
I think it would hurt for a while, without a doubt. But eventually I fully believe it would blow up in their face, and you would see a good number of those schools slink their way back to the NCAA.
(06-13-2012 08:09 AM)Knightshift Wrote: I might be off-base, but I've always held the position of, go ahead let them break away. Their greed isn't going to stop even then. Once they've removed themselves from the rest of us, they're not going to have anyone left to feed on but each other. Even among the "clique" schools there are financial divides, and those divides will start to widen when Texas and Alabama realize that Wake Forest and Washington State shouldn't be making a tenth of what they do. The smaller "clique" schools will get really tired of having everything dictated to them by the Floridas, Texas, Alabamas, and USCs. With no governing body like the NCAA to oversee things, imagine the dark depths that recruiting will sink to, as well as paying players, and all the other crap that will be fair game without NCAA rules to comply with. Some schools just won't be able to compete. You'll eventually see a group of "haves" and "have nots" just like you see now.
Then there's the issue of Title IX as well. Even if schools do leave the NCAA, they will still have to comply with it. If the remaining NCAA schools could stick to their guns and refuse to play the clique schools in ANY sport, all of those non-revenue women's sports in the clique schools will have a very hard time filling out schedules. If they're left with only each other to play, they'll get hammered on travel costs. Not to mention it would be very difficult on the "student" athletes.
I think it would hurt for a while, without a doubt. But eventually I fully believe it would blow up in their face, and you would see a good number of those schools slink their way back to the NCAA.
Good post - I have been saying something like this for quite some time now. It will never happen, but I'd like it if it did.
(06-12-2012 04:11 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: People can handle the Pac-12 being won by Oregon every once in awhile because they believe USC is a legit power, so that lends the champ credibility even if it's not a huge historic power itself.
I wonder how many of them know that Memphis went out to LA and beat USC on their own field in 1991.
(06-12-2012 04:11 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: People can handle the Pac-12 being won by Oregon every once in awhile because they believe USC is a legit power, so that lends the champ credibility even if it's not a huge historic power itself.
I wonder how many of them know that Memphis went out to LA and beat USC on their own field in 1991.
Believe that '91 Larry Smith USC team was his 2nd to last season at the helm...as his team that year went just 3-8 that season, losing their last 6 games.
Of note, the first game in 1992, Southern Cal TIED SDSU...which basically sealed Larry Smith's fate and he was fired at the end of the '92 season.
(06-12-2012 04:11 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: People can handle the Pac-12 being won by Oregon every once in awhile because they believe USC is a legit power, so that lends the champ credibility even if it's not a huge historic power itself.
I wonder how many of them know that Memphis went out to LA and beat USC on their own field in 1991.
Y'know, nothing screams "Small Time" louder than bragging about a win 20 years ago over a big-time school, in a year when the big time school was terrible.
If USC were 8-3 that year, and you beat them on their field, then say something.
