Where does each of the conferences stand on the biggest issues?
Here's an educated guess on what each of the five major FBS leagues wants:

Where does the Big East fit into the playoff model?
BCS conference commissioners agreed in April to eliminate "AQ" and "non-AQ" status, meaning any team from any FBS league would be eligible to participate in the playoff, as long as it meets the chosen criteria or is selected by a committee.

But sources close to the BCS conversations say it's clear that the big five leagues -- ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC -- no longer consider the Big East part of their group. The Big East lost West Virginia and TCU to the Big 12 this year, and Pittsburgh and Syracuse are scheduled to leave for the ACC in 2014. (Pitt has sued to leave in 2013.)

BCS commissioners haven't started discussing how to divide the money from a TV contract that could be worth as much as $400 million to $500 million, according to industry sources. When they do, the Big East won't get nearly as much as it once did.


http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...ngs-primer

(06-12-2012 02:29 PM)bearcatfan Wrote:  
But sources close to the BCS conversations say it's clear that the big five leagues ....

Gee...those "sources" ESPN Writer Mark Schlabach wrote about sure sound like they are coming straight from his own employer.

Funny stuff.

Strange how most other reporters covering these topics has NAMED sources but ESPN and CBS Sports writers do not.

Wonder why?

To be fair to ESPN (and I know many people believe that's impossible), that isn't an ESPN statement. Chuck Neinas *said* that all 5 of those conferences meet separately and the Big East isn't included. Jim Delany was also quoted that he didn't believe the Big East would be get the same revenue share as the other 5 AQ conferences, either. That's straight from two power conference commissioners on the record. Now, I wouldn't the posters here to expect to like it, but there's little use in denying how the other power conferences are defining themselves right now. It isn't about ESPN.

(06-12-2012 02:57 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  To be fair to ESPN (and I know many people believe that's impossible), that isn't an ESPN statement. Chuck Neinas *said* that all 5 of those conferences meet separately and the Big East isn't included. Jim Delany was also quoted that he didn't believe the Big East would be get the same revenue share as the other 5 AQ conferences, either. That's straight from two power conference commissioners on the record. Now, I wouldn't the posters here to expect to like it, but there's little use in denying how the other power conferences are defining themselves right now. It isn't about ESPN.

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.

(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.

True, but they have a bowl tie-in and the Big East does not. They have a better TV deal than the BE. They have more highly-ranked teams over the last few seasons than the BE.

I think fighting the "we're better than the ACC" battle is a lost cause, or at least one that's not likely to produce a positive outcome for the BE. The BE is not going to win that perception battle. It would be smarter, build more consensus, and be more honest to say there are 6 power conferences and the BE is one of them. The BE is clearly ahead of the non-AQs and should have a spot at the table.

(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.

(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.

Because everyone needs to ignore the ACC's BCS bowl record and computer rankings. THEY DO NOT MATTER. For the purposes of who has actual power, on-the-field records are irrelevant. What matters is that the ACC is 100% made up of schools that *created* the BCS cartel, whereas the Big East only has 2 original BCS members left (one of which, Temple, was kicked out and only now being invited back). The ACC members founded the club, so they're staying in the club, whether they deserve it or not. I'm not saying it's fair or that people need to like it, but I just don't understand how this isn't 100% clear to everyone and why anyone think that's going to change.

Because they are" AHoles"!

(06-12-2012 03:15 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(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.

True, but they have a bowl tie-in and the Big East does not. They have a better TV deal than the BE. They have more highly-ranked teams over the last few seasons than the BE.

I think fighting the "we're better than the ACC" battle is a lost cause, or at least one that's not likely to produce a positive outcome for the BE. The BE is not going to win that perception battle. It would be smarter, build more consensus, and be more honest to say there are 6 power conferences and the BE is one of them. The BE is clearly ahead of the non-AQs and should have a spot at the table.

Disagree on that one...as even ACC fans I speak to have NO CLUE that their conf BCS record is 2-13.

ZERO CLUE.

I'm sure the casual fan (which you are trying to influence) has no clue either...hence why BIG EAST needs a bully pulpit COMMISSIONER NOW.

ACC Commish John Swafford is spending a majority of his days speaking to any and all media members, slamming the Big East Conf, plus trying to crash the Big 4's post-season party.

Big East needs a bully like that.

(06-12-2012 03:15 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  I think fighting the "we're better than the ACC" battle is a lost cause, or at least one that's not likely to produce a positive outcome for the BE. The BE is not going to win that perception battle. It would be smarter, build more consensus, and be more honest to say there are 6 power conferences and the BE is one of them. The BE is clearly ahead of the non-AQs and should have a spot at the table.

Yes, this is a stronger argument and would at least gain more traction (even if that argument may not end up being successful). Trying to say that you're #5 instead of #6 is ultimately going to be a losing battle, just as the old MWC tried to argue that it was #6 instead of #7 in constant comparisons to the old Big East and wasn't successful at that, either. The powers that be are going to be more exclusive as opposed to inclusive - they'd rather make the cutoff at the top 4 conferences (just as they made the cutoff at the top 6 conferences previously) than add someone that they don't want.

(06-12-2012 03:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(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.

Because everyone needs to ignore the ACC's BCS bowl record and computer rankings. THEY DO NOT MATTER. For the purposes of who has actual power, on-the-field records are irrelevant. What matters is that the ACC is 100% made up of schools that *created* the BCS cartel, whereas the Big East only has 2 original BCS members left (one of which, Temple, was kicked out and only now being invited back). The ACC members founded the club, so they're staying in the club, whether they deserve it or not. I'm not saying it's fair or that people need to like it, but I just don't understand how this isn't 100% clear to everyone and why anyone think that's going to change.

Its probably easier if you think of it from the prospective of the Big-10 getting kicked out of the club. To Big-10 fans it would make little sense and would seem ureasonable. To rest of us, it wouldnt really matter. Sure, we know intellectually that the Big-12, Big-10, and SEC are superior conferences at this point. But these things tend to change over time.

(06-12-2012 03:20 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(06-12-2012 03:15 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(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.

True, but they have a bowl tie-in and the Big East does not. They have a better TV deal than the BE. They have more highly-ranked teams over the last few seasons than the BE.

I think fighting the "we're better than the ACC" battle is a lost cause, or at least one that's not likely to produce a positive outcome for the BE. The BE is not going to win that perception battle. It would be smarter, build more consensus, and be more honest to say there are 6 power conferences and the BE is one of them. The BE is clearly ahead of the non-AQs and should have a spot at the table.

Disagree on that one...as even ACC fans I speak to have NO CLUE that their conf BCS record is 2-13.

ZERO CLUE.

I'm sure the casual fan (which you are trying to influence) has no clue either...hence why BIG EAST needs a bully pulpit COMMISSIONER NOW.

ACC Commish John Swafford is spending a majority of his days speaking to any and all media members, slamming the Big East Conf, plus trying to crash the Big 4's post-season party.

Big East needs a bully like that.

Aren't you proving the point? If casual fans have no clue about the ACC's BCS bowl record, then that's proof positive that the perception battle has been completely won by the ACC. Plus, even if the Big East tries to argue about the ACC's BCS bowl record, people are going to discount all of the West Virginia wins, so that's not a good argument for the league at all.

The fact of the matter is that a league with Miami, Virginia Tech, Florida State, Clemson and Georgia Tech looks like a major football league. Maybe they haven't been playing that well lately, but no one looks at those schools as non-AQ-type schools. Expecting people to change their minds about that isn't going to realistically fly and even then, it doesn't matter because the other power conferences have their minds made up about who to include. Judging by the comments here, the Big East has no friends in the media, either, so where is this groundswell of support to keep the Big East in the power group going to come from? The Big East commissioner can use all of the talking points that you've mentioned just like the MWC commissioner used all of the talking points that you've mentioned previously, but they won't matter if the powers that be don't take them seriously.

(06-12-2012 03:24 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  

(06-12-2012 03:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(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.

Because everyone needs to ignore the ACC's BCS bowl record and computer rankings. THEY DO NOT MATTER. For the purposes of who has actual power, on-the-field records are irrelevant. What matters is that the ACC is 100% made up of schools that *created* the BCS cartel, whereas the Big East only has 2 original BCS members left (one of which, Temple, was kicked out and only now being invited back). The ACC members founded the club, so they're staying in the club, whether they deserve it or not. I'm not saying it's fair or that people need to like it, but I just don't understand how this isn't 100% clear to everyone and why anyone think that's going to change.

Its probably easier if you think of it form the prospective of the Big-10 getting kicked out of the club. To Big-10 fans it would make little sense and would seem ureasonable. To rest of us, it wouldnt really matter.

That's the point. From the perspective of the power conferences, the Big East isn't getting "kicked out" because the Big East is no longer the conference that created the club. Their perspective is that Rutgers is getting kicked out of the club, but that's counterbalanced by Utah and TCU getting invited into the club. They never looked at the other members of the Big East as ever having been part of the club.

(06-12-2012 03:35 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-12-2012 03:24 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  

(06-12-2012 03:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(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.

Because everyone needs to ignore the ACC's BCS bowl record and computer rankings. THEY DO NOT MATTER. For the purposes of who has actual power, on-the-field records are irrelevant. What matters is that the ACC is 100% made up of schools that *created* the BCS cartel, whereas the Big East only has 2 original BCS members left (one of which, Temple, was kicked out and only now being invited back). The ACC members founded the club, so they're staying in the club, whether they deserve it or not. I'm not saying it's fair or that people need to like it, but I just don't understand how this isn't 100% clear to everyone and why anyone think that's going to change.

Its probably easier if you think of it form the prospective of the Big-10 getting kicked out of the club. To Big-10 fans it would make little sense and would seem ureasonable. To rest of us, it wouldnt really matter.

That's the point. From the perspective of the power conferences, the Big East isn't getting "kicked out" because the Big East is no longer the conference that created the club. Their perspective is that Rutgers is getting kicked out of the club, but that's counterbalanced by Utah and TCU getting invited into the club. They never looked at the other members of the Big East as ever having been part of the club.

So what's that mean? We haven't shot at the playoff because they say so? We get MAC money because they are greedy?

(06-12-2012 03:38 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  So what's that mean? We haven't shot at the playoff because they say so? We get MAC money because they are greedy?

I think that pretty much covers it.

(06-12-2012 03:45 PM)bearcatfan Wrote:  

(06-12-2012 03:38 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  So what's that mean? We haven't shot at the playoff because they say so? We get MAC money because they are greedy?

I think that pretty much covers it.

The schools that are in the Big East and are moving into the Big East have a performed quite well on the field, so it's dissappointing that the whole point of this exercise appears to be more and more about exclusivity and greed when its supposed to be about finding a true national champion. Add to that the Big East has no real commissioner, so we are basically without a voice--it's very demoralizing.

It is what it is. In the end, the Big 4 should just go on and create thier own league. Theres not much point in continuing the current FBS charade. Let them go thier own way. When 40% the audience slowly dissappears maybe then the network wonks will realize that everyone wasnt a rabid Michigan or Texas fan. You'd think the massive run away success of the Longhorn Network would have been a hint.

The left behinds just need to walk away from the BCS. Let them keep it all. The paltry few dollars arent worth it. Lets just create out own 8 team playoff and sell it for what we can get. At least then we have something to play for and we delegitimize the fraud that the BCS is becoming.

Ok...back to work.....I will be back to rant some more later....If you cant tell Im finding this all very depressing.

We need a GREAT commissioner and NBC, that's what we need to give us a voice! And let's murder the ACC & PAC teams on the field in 2013. Go get 'em NBE.

Well as a UC fan I used to know how being excluded felt , then we briefly enjoyed the good life, now it looks like we are heading back to where we were, so I know how to deal with it.

It does make you see the point of schools in CUSA, for example.

And really, it is more about money than anything. And I agree with attackfrog - "Let just create out own 8 team playoff and sell it for what we can get." And to add to that - don't ever play any of the exclusive club schools in any sport again.

(06-12-2012 03:17 PM)bearcatfan Wrote:  

(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.

Real powerhouses with rich history, all right. Memphis, which is generally considered to be the football weakling of the Big East has played those schools a total of 36 times since 1959, winning 42% of the time.