(06-26-2012 08:27 PM)maccoog Wrote:  

(06-26-2012 05:50 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  Watching ESPNU--

The round table discussion of the hosts discussed the non-Big5 conference chances of being in the playoff. They said an undefeated Houston or Boise would have no chance with a selection committee system in place. The days of the "cinderella team" are over per the round table discussion.

Given the buzz Boise St. and Houston have received in recent years, I don't see how if Boise and Houston play each other toward the end of the year and they are both undefeated, the winner would not be one of the top 4 teams and make the playoffs.

I don't think anyone knows enough about the final composition of the committee and the protocol they will follow( will they give preference to Conference Champions as some are saying) to make any predictions at this point.

I can see the Big East having a shot at it if some of the new additions, like Memphis and SMU can get their programs in high gear.

(06-26-2012 08:42 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  

(06-26-2012 08:27 PM)maccoog Wrote:  

(06-26-2012 05:50 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  Watching ESPNU--

The round table discussion of the hosts discussed the non-Big5 conference chances of being in the playoff. They said an undefeated Houston or Boise would have no chance with a selection committee system in place. The days of the "cinderella team" are over per the round table discussion.

Given the buzz Boise St. and Houston have received in recent years, I don't see how if Boise and Houston play each other toward the end of the year and they are both undefeated, the winner would not be one of the top 4 teams and make the playoffs.

Thats just what their round table said. I think the old Boise system of one major OOC opponent and run the table model of BCS inclusion is dead. I figure a minimum of 2 tough OOC games will probably be ncessary from the Big East. Then you'd have to run the table to boot. That wont happen often, but it will occur more with 14 teams that it did with 8.

Two decent games or one top 15 level team will work. I keep going back to 2009 when the Bearcats were 3rd, TCU 4th, and Boise State 5th. Cincinnati played Oregon State, Fresno State, and bad Illinois team that year.

(06-26-2012 07:32 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  The questions I have left are:

When the Rose is a semifinal host (assuming once every 3 years), do the B1G and PAC still get a game or automatic spots in the BCS bowls? (Same ?? for Champions Bowl)

Can the Big East get a tie-in with one of the open BCS bowl slots?

and of course the biggest question (and one that likely won't be answered for a while): How does the $$ get divided?

Regarding what happens when the Rose is a semifinal, yes, the Big Ten and Pac-12 champs would get spots in one of the other bowls. It's really a return to the system that existed prior to the BCS double hosting. For instance, in 2005, the Rose Bowl hosted the USC vs. Texas national championship game where Big Ten champ Penn State *had* to be taken by one of the other bowls. There is no question about this - the conferences with contractual tie-ins will ALWAYS have at least 1 spot in the system.

What I expect is there to be backup tie-ins. The Fiesta, for instance, would be Big Ten #1 vs. Pac-12 #1 in the years that the Rose is a semifinal.

This whole "Big 4" thing is a complete joke as well.

Might as well just let 10 teams compete.

Texas
Oklahoma
Oregon
USC
Alabama
LSU
Florida
Nebraska
Michigan
Ohio St.

No one really cares about anyone else. There is no "Big 4".

There are 4 conferences that are overrated because 2-3 teams from said conference are good or have a big name.

You mean to tell me The SEC minus Alabama, LSU, and Florida is head and shoulders over anyone?
The Big 10 Minus Michigan, Ohio St, and Nebraska?
The Pac 10 minus USC and Oregon?
The Big 12 minus Texas and Oklahoma?

This has all gotten completely out of control. The new Big East is loaded with not only great teams but tons of potential. Anyone who truly knows anything, knows that the losses of Pitt/Syracuse were not losses at all.

Houston, Boise St., SMU, UCF, Navy, are all better programs this decade.

The only thing the Big East lost with those 2 is their name which within 3 years wont even matter anymore.

ACC is no better then the Big East and Might actually be worse in the long run.

(06-26-2012 06:44 PM)Bleedin Blue Wrote:  It's all going to be determined by 15 people. If these 15 think even a three-loss SEC team is better than an undefeated Big East team, than it appears that there's NOTHING to stop them from voting in the three-loss SEC team.

Nothing but a lynch mob.

(06-27-2012 08:02 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(06-26-2012 06:44 PM)Bleedin Blue Wrote:  It's all going to be determined by 15 people. If these 15 think even a three-loss SEC team is better than an undefeated Big East team, than it appears that there's NOTHING to stop them from voting in the three-loss SEC team.

Nothing but a lynch mob.

I'm with you Brother. Pass the pitchfork.

(06-26-2012 07:01 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  BE SOS actually improved with the new conference.

True, and it is CRITICAL for the Big East conference office to crank up the PR machine and get that fact out there asap, while the details of the new BCS setup are still being formulated. Hesitation will be costly.

The selection committee doesn't really worry me. An undefeated Big East team will make the playoff every season. Will a Big East team go undefeated is another question because the conference will probably have a lot very good teams each year that lose one or two games each year.

Right now Cincinnati in 2014 will play: Stony Brook, Toledo, Miami (Oh), and at Ohio State. In 2015 the Bearcats play Air Force, at Miami Oh, and at Miami Fl. Both those schedules would be strong enough to get the job done. Can UC or any other Big East team win at Ohio State or at another highly ranked name brand school is another question as well.

What happens to the champion of the conference when they are 12-1 or 11-2 is my biggest concern is this system. It sound like the conference will need to make its own bowl deal.

(06-26-2012 08:51 PM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  I can see the Big East having a shot at it if some of the new additions, like Memphis and SMU can get their programs in high gear.

That WILL happen. SMU, which defeated TCU on TV and dominated Pitt in a bowl game is already well underway and the Tigers will regain respectability in a few years.

(06-27-2012 09:22 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(06-26-2012 08:51 PM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  I can see the Big East having a shot at it if some of the new additions, like Memphis and SMU can get their programs in high gear.

That WILL happen. SMU, which defeated TCU on TV and dominated Pitt in a bowl game is already well underway and the Tigers will regain respectability in a few years.

Memphis has a lot of potential, if the city will get behind them.

Right now, at least in football, the Media in Memphis seems to prefer to cover the SEC teams. Maybe the move to the Big East will change that.

A 13-0 Big East champ will make the 4 team playoffs most years. I have no doubt about that.

Notice, I didn't write every year, but most years.

(06-27-2012 09:35 AM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  Right now, at least in football, the Media in Memphis seems to prefer to cover the SEC teams. Maybe the move to the Big East will change that.

Memphis basketball gets tremendous coverage. When the football team is winning it is treated equally with the SEC. Due to Big East affiliation, the SEC will never again totally own the Memphis market the way it did for the last 80 years.

(06-27-2012 02:52 PM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(06-27-2012 09:35 AM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  Right now, at least in football, the Media in Memphis seems to prefer to cover the SEC teams. Maybe the move to the Big East will change that.

Memphis basketball gets tremendous coverage. When the football team is winning it is treated equally with the SEC. Due to Big East affiliation, the SEC will never again totally own the Memphis market the way it did for the last 80 years.

Totally own the Memphis market? When did you become an SEC bootlicker?

SEC don't own ****

(06-26-2012 07:01 PM)Bleedin Blue Wrote:  Maybe I'm missing something... Is there anything keeping this committee from ptting a 8-4 texas team in one of these bowls over a 10-2 team like SDSU? It seems no doubt to me that Texas is the much better draw. A team that all the bowls/networks would be salivating over.

Theoretically, the selection committee shouldn't have any ties to the bowls or TV networks so they shouldn't care how much more money Texas will make than say, Cincinatti.

However, since this is a billion dollar industry and it's climax is being entrusted to only 15 people, you can bet there will be some dirty dealings behind closed doors. How long will it be before we find out a selection committee member was paid off to vote for or against a specific school?

Who cares this is a total "RIP OFF!!!!" anyway.

If it smells like a rat, walks like a rat and bites. It's a Rat!

I hope I am seriously wrong here but, this looks to be nothing more then a way to keep AQ for the old time schools and nothing more. No one else will have access period. Oh and that selection committee is a joke. Any time you have a group that is unnamed and whom works under a cloak of shadows/secrecy, you have the capacity for rampant corruption.

(06-27-2012 03:48 PM)Mestophalies Wrote:  Who cares this is a total "RIP OFF!!!!" anyway.

If it smells like a rat, walks like a rat and bites. It's a Rat!

I hope I am seriously wrong here but, this looks to be nothing more then a way to keep AQ for the old time schools and nothing more. No one else will have access period. Oh and that selection committee is a joke. Any time you have a group that is unnamed and whom works under a cloak of shadows/secrecy, you have the capacity for rampant corruption.

hard to argue with this