If you haven't noticed already, instead of AQ, the major bowl games are now simply signing deals with the major conferences as guaranteed tie ins. This is essentially the same thing as Automatic Qualifying for the major bowls at the end of the season.

The problem is, the Big East is not tied into any of the major bowls at this point. That makes the BE non-AQ for all intents and purposes.

So there will still be AQ conferences and Non-AQ conferences, the title will just be different now.

Frustrating :grumpy:

Seems to be accurate.

For those who have been watching College Football for 20+ years, note that this BCS 2.0 thing basically is a move backwards to the structure of the old Pre-BCS "Bowl Alliance," with the 3 added games (2 semis, 1 NCG.)

So, really, it's a combination of BOTH the BCS and the Bowl Alliance, with more restrictive access, basically.

[/b]

(07-03-2012 12:15 PM)JDCougar Wrote:  If you haven't noticed already, instead of AQ, the major bowl games are now simply signing deals with the major conferences as guaranteed tie ins. This is essentially the same thing as Automatic Qualifying for the major bowls at the end of the season.

The problem is, the Big East is not tied into any of the major bowls at this point. That makes the BE non-AQ for all intents and purposes.

So there will still be AQ conferences and Non-AQ conferences, the title will just be different now.

Frustrating :grumpy:

Only less inclusive. Sports analysts consistently said that besides the obvious money factor, four team playoff was motivated by three factors:

1. Public dissatisfaction with current (old AQ) system and clamor for a playoff.

2. Desire for more inclusive system.

3. Fear of litigation or legislative engagement.

Seems to me they ended up less inclusive and almost as vulnerable to litigation, Public satisfaction will plunge first time the new system puts a "Power Conference" or ACC team ahead of a more deserving team from conference not named Big12, Big10, Pac12,SEC, or ACC.

That could happen as early as the first year, but we have been dealt a screwing that may require 12 years to undo.

(07-03-2012 12:36 PM)CougarTruth Wrote:  [/b]

(07-03-2012 12:15 PM)JDCougar Wrote:  If you haven't noticed already, instead of AQ, the major bowl games are now simply signing deals with the major conferences as guaranteed tie ins. This is essentially the same thing as Automatic Qualifying for the major bowls at the end of the season.

The problem is, the Big East is not tied into any of the major bowls at this point. That makes the BE non-AQ for all intents and purposes.

So there will still be AQ conferences and Non-AQ conferences, the title will just be different now.

Frustrating :grumpy:

Only less inclusive. Sports analysts consistently said that besides the obvious money factor, four team playoff was motivated by three factors:

1. Public dissatisfaction with current (old AQ) system and clamor for a playoff.

2. Desire for more inclusive system.

3. Fear of litigation or legislative engagement.

Seems to me they ended up less inclusive and almost as vulnerable to litigation, Public satisfaction will plunge first time the new system puts a "Power Conference" or ACC team ahead of a more deserving team from conference not named Big12, Big10, Pac12,SEC, or ACC.

That could happen as early as the first year, but we have been dealt a screwing that may require 12 years to undo.

I look at this very differently. The power conferences played this perfectly. The new system actually increases the perception of access (4-team playoff) while decreasing the risk of litigation. Note that antitrust arguments against the BCS system were rooted in accusations of collusion between the power conferences to lock out the non-AQ leagues. By changing the system to one where there are direct one-to-one contract bowls that "loan" their games to the semifinals (which all FBS conferences plus Notre Dame agreed to) and all having separate TV contracts (as opposed to an overarching BCS contract that covers the "contract" bowls), they've eliminated the collusion argument. Now, the bowls are perfectly legal and even encouraged one-to-one free market transactions.

Public dissatisfaction might still be an issue, although I'd argue that such dissatisfaction would be more about the size of the playoff itself.

(07-03-2012 12:31 PM)BadWillHunting Wrote:  For those who have been watching College Football for 20+ years, note that this BCS 2.0 thing basically is a move backwards to the structure of the old Pre-BCS "Bowl Alliance," with the 3 added games (2 semis, 1 NCG.)

So, really, it's a combination of BOTH the BCS and the Bowl Alliance, with more restrictive access, basically.

This is true. However, it is, potentially, a necessary step. If this gets us to a full playoff, we'll have to deal with the backward step.

College football took a step backward and a step forward at the same time. Kinda odd.

According to Chuck Neinas, they are at least going to have inclusiveness when it comes to composition of the committee which decides who goes. Also, I've heard several pundits opine that the fact the contract is for 12 years doesn't mean it will remain a 4-team playoff that long. So once it's expanded to eight, that might help a bit.

That said, maybe as an Aztec, I'm just used to my conference having no realistic chance of getting a full share of the big bucks. Maybe if my school had been in the BE longer, I'd been getting really PO'd right about now.

(07-03-2012 12:55 PM)Dimwhit Wrote:  

(07-03-2012 12:31 PM)BadWillHunting Wrote:  For those who have been watching College Football for 20+ years, note that this BCS 2.0 thing basically is a move backwards to the structure of the old Pre-BCS "Bowl Alliance," with the 3 added games (2 semis, 1 NCG.)

So, really, it's a combination of BOTH the BCS and the Bowl Alliance, with more restrictive access, basically.

This is true. However, it is, potentially, a necessary step. If this gets us to a full playoff, we'll have to deal with the backward step.

College football took a step backward and a step forward at the same time. Kinda odd.

Agree, we still do not know what role Notre Dame, The Big East, and the former non-aq play in the system. I think most UC fans would trade away the Orange Bowl in 2008 for a chance at the national title in 2009. Altough UC being ranked 12th might have made it anyway.

(07-03-2012 12:46 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(07-03-2012 12:36 PM)CougarTruth Wrote:  [/b]

(07-03-2012 12:15 PM)JDCougar Wrote:  If you haven't noticed already, instead of AQ, the major bowl games are now simply signing deals with the major conferences as guaranteed tie ins. This is essentially the same thing as Automatic Qualifying for the major bowls at the end of the season.

The problem is, the Big East is not tied into any of the major bowls at this point. That makes the BE non-AQ for all intents and purposes.

So there will still be AQ conferences and Non-AQ conferences, the title will just be different now.

Frustrating :grumpy:

Only less inclusive. Sports analysts consistently said that besides the obvious money factor, four team playoff was motivated by three factors:

1. Public dissatisfaction with current (old AQ) system and clamor for a playoff.

2. Desire for more inclusive system.

3. Fear of litigation or legislative engagement.

Seems to me they ended up less inclusive and almost as vulnerable to litigation, Public satisfaction will plunge first time the new system puts a "Power Conference" or ACC team ahead of a more deserving team from conference not named Big12, Big10, Pac12,SEC, or ACC.

That could happen as early as the first year, but we have been dealt a screwing that may require 12 years to undo.

I look at this very differently. The power conferences played this perfectly. The new system actually increases the perception of access (4-team playoff) while decreasing the risk of litigation. Note that antitrust arguments against the BCS system were rooted in accusations of collusion between the power conferences to lock out the non-AQ leagues. By changing the system to one where there are direct one-to-one contract bowls that "loan" their games to the semifinals (which all FBS conferences plus Notre Dame agreed to) and all having separate TV contracts (as opposed to an overarching BCS contract that covers the "contract" bowls), they've eliminated the collusion argument. Now, the bowls are perfectly legal and even encouraged one-to-one free market transactions.

Public dissatisfaction might still be an issue, although I'd argue that such dissatisfaction would be more about the size of the playoff itself.

Frank, does anyone really believe that there is no collusion between the conferences? Come on now......and all those cigarette company presidents a really believe that smoking doesnt cause cancer. I suspect they are just as vulnerable as they were in the existing system. Given that access is reduced (as you have said repeatedly), I suspect the case would not be any harder to make than it was before.

As this has evolved over the past week, it is becoming clear that the Selection Committee has nothing to do with the other 6 bowls at this point.

The bowls are making their selections RIGHT NOW and also selecting those prime dates of Dec 31st and January 1st.


This is a bad time not to have a conference commissioner.

(07-03-2012 01:24 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  Frank, does anyone really believe that there is no collusion between the conferences? Come on now......they are just as vulnerable and given that as you have said many times, access is reduced, I suspect the case would not be any harder to make than it was before.

Oh, I certainly believe there's collusion at some level. However, for all of the talk about vulnerability, there wasn't a single lawsuit filed against the BCS system in its 14-year history despite plenty of politically motivated AGs and legislators (e.g. everyone from Utah) searching for *any* legal basis to file it.

You don't think Jim Delany and Mike Slive (both being sharp legal minds themselves) haven't had the very best antitrust lawyers in Washington (including people that had worked for the DOJ and FTC previously) run over every single possible scenario to assess any legal risk? These guys aren't stupid and they have the money to pay for the best legal representation out there (many of whom attended their conferences' own schools). When they screw someone, it's done in a way so that they can't get screwed back.

Who needs lawyers. Congress has shown it will pass laws based on the mythical theory of fairness.

It's congress that they have to worry about.

(07-04-2012 07:20 AM)Cooglius Caeser Wrote:  Who needs lawyers. Congress has shown it will pass laws based on the mythical theory of fairness.

It's congress that they have to worry about.

Its tme to have a new BE leader.

Its time to have a tv contract with NBC and fight with the BE real enemy espin.

Well it looks more and more like the Rose,Champions and Orange will create their own tv contracts and stay out of most if not all the playoffs. Meaning that the Fiesta,Sugar,unname bowls will rotate the semis and allow their tv contracts to be bundled as playoff money.

I think that's what more likely to happen right now but we will see. So basically if you are not in playoffs your choices might be the Orange vs ACC or the at large bowl out of Sugar,Festa or third bowl.

(07-03-2012 12:15 PM)JDCougar Wrote:  If you haven't noticed already, instead of AQ, the major bowl games are now simply signing deals with the major conferences as guaranteed tie ins. This is essentially the same thing as Automatic Qualifying for the major bowls at the end of the season.

The problem is, the Big East is not tied into any of the major bowls at this point. That makes the BE non-AQ for all intents and purposes.

So there will still be AQ conferences and Non-AQ conferences, the title will just be different now.

Frustrating :grumpy:

spot on