(09-03-2014 09:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 09:13 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  The real tragedy was that the five NonBCS conferences were not able to present a united and coordinated front to possibly gain a more equitable position in the 4 team national playoff and BCS bowls. AAC's USA Today advertisement is disappointing, as it again reflects AAC's attitude that somehow that the AAC is going to gain BCS status by being a "power" conference.

Not so fast my friend: In fact the G5 did get a completely equitable position in the CFP, as the selection process for the 4 CFP positions is not formally biased against or in favor of either G5 or P5 schools.

As for the BCS Bowls, I think it is fair to say that the G5 got a better outcome than they should have. The original premise of the Access Bowl concept was that the BCS bowls would be free to sign contracts with any conference they wanted to. Had that happened, the G5 would have been totally locked out of "access" to the Access Bowls, as those bowls had absolutely zero interest in hosting G5 schools.

Instead, the P5 used a little arm-twisting to get the Access Bowls to agree to take the highest-rated G5 team. This actually provides better access to a major bowl than the old BCS system did.

Truth is, when it comes to having a chance to play for the national title or in a major bowl, and in getting paid money for doing so, the G5 have never had it so good.

One doesn't have to be fast to see what BCS did to avoid the monopoly charge. Let the BCS bowls discriminate rather than the BCS conferences themselves. And then BCS looks so "generous" by "forcing" the BCS bowls to take one NonBCS school. Clever, indeed!

(09-03-2014 12:40 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 12:09 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Given the P5/G5 setup, 8-10 games per season in a G5 conference really is obscurity.

Exactly. What made Boise special was they were winning 11-12 games a year. If instead of going 50-3 in a 4 year period they go 40-13- it's just not the same at all.

I agree. But I think when the G5 crowd see that going to one of the NYE/D bowls with 2 losses, then I think there still could be more excitement. I wonder if Boise people realize that BSU doesn't have to be perfect to get to a big bowl. Those BCS days are over.

(09-03-2014 12:56 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 12:40 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 12:09 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Given the P5/G5 setup, 8-10 games per season in a G5 conference really is obscurity.

Exactly. What made Boise special was they were winning 11-12 games a year. If instead of going 50-3 in a 4 year period they go 40-13- it's just not the same at all.

I agree. But I think when the G5 crowd see that going to one of the NYE/D bowls with 2 losses, then I think there still could be more excitement. I wonder if people realize that BSU doesn't have to be perfect to get to a big bowl. Those BCS days are over.

I don't know about that- I think 1 loss is going to be required to be honest. I think it's very realistic that one of the AAC, CUSA, or MAC will have a 1 loss champion every year.

The thing with Boise State is that perception wise I think they were the only current group of 5 team (BYU is not Group of 5) who completely cracked the barrier and became thought of as a power school in a non-power conference the same way many basketball leagues had one major power among many smaller programs. That's a very different perception than it's a weaker school that had an excellent year or two. There were a few others who are/were close, but I don't think they've reached that perception yet and that point is big for the Mountain West.

Once perceptions are changed, they change only slowly back. The value of being seen as a power school (for lack of a better word) is that you can more easily withstand down times. Boise State can take a couple bad years and if they start to get good again, attention will follow quickly back. They aren't a superpower who can take a decade (or more) down, but they have another year or two I think to rise back up before totally loosing their spot.

(09-03-2014 12:52 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 09:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 09:13 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  The real tragedy was that the five NonBCS conferences were not able to present a united and coordinated front to possibly gain a more equitable position in the 4 team national playoff and BCS bowls. AAC's USA Today advertisement is disappointing, as it again reflects AAC's attitude that somehow that the AAC is going to gain BCS status by being a "power" conference.

Not so fast my friend: In fact the G5 did get a completely equitable position in the CFP, as the selection process for the 4 CFP positions is not formally biased against or in favor of either G5 or P5 schools.

As for the BCS Bowls, I think it is fair to say that the G5 got a better outcome than they should have. The original premise of the Access Bowl concept was that the BCS bowls would be free to sign contracts with any conference they wanted to. Had that happened, the G5 would have been totally locked out of "access" to the Access Bowls, as those bowls had absolutely zero interest in hosting G5 schools.

Instead, the P5 used a little arm-twisting to get the Access Bowls to agree to take the highest-rated G5 team. This actually provides better access to a major bowl than the old BCS system did.

Truth is, when it comes to having a chance to play for the national title or in a major bowl, and in getting paid money for doing so, the G5 have never had it so good.

One doesn't have to be fast to see what BCS did to avoid the monopoly charge. Let the BCS bowls discriminate rather than the BCS conferences themselves. And then BCS looks so "generous" by "forcing" the BCS bowls to take one NonBCS school. Clever, indeed!

That's the cost of having a single division (well subdivision) of so many schools of very different support and resources. The day the power conferences are forced to ignore that for post-season purposes is the day that they will leave the current NCAA set-up (possibly with some Group of 5 conference teams, possibly without some current Power Conference teams).

(09-03-2014 01:08 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The thing with Boise State is that perception wise I think they were the only current group of 5 team (BYU is not Group of 5) who completely cracked the barrier and became thought of as a power school in a non-power conference the same way many basketball leagues had one major power among many smaller programs. That's a very different perception than it's a weaker school that had an excellent year or two. There were a few others who are/were close, but I don't think they've reached that perception yet and that point is big for the Mountain West.

Once perceptions are changed, they change only slowly back. The value of being seen as a power school (for lack of a better word) is that you can more easily withstand down times. Boise State can take a couple bad years and if they start to get good again, attention will follow quickly back. They aren't a superpower who can take a decade (or more) down, but they have another year or two I think to rise back up before totally loosing their spot.

While I think conceptually you may be right- the fact is- this is now the 3rd year after they were elite. They've gotten schooled in their last 3 P5 games- by what an average of 23 points? I think they could have 1-2 bad years- but when it gets to year 3- or 4- that is a different animal. Folks have a pretty short attention span.

(09-03-2014 01:08 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The thing with Boise State is that perception wise I think they were the only current group of 5 team (BYU is not Group of 5) who completely cracked the barrier and became thought of as a power school in a non-power conference the same way many basketball leagues had one major power among many smaller programs. That's a very different perception than it's a weaker school that had an excellent year or two. There were a few others who are/were close, but I don't think they've reached that perception yet and that point is big for the Mountain West.

Once perceptions are changed, they change only slowly back. The value of being seen as a power school (for lack of a better word) is that you can more easily withstand down times. Boise State can take a couple bad years and if they start to get good again, attention will follow quickly back. They aren't a superpower who can take a decade (or more) down, but they have another year or two I think to rise back up before totally loosing their spot.

Boise never reached that level. TCU garnered that respect and did it to such a level that it went from de facto to de jure. They are now in the club.

(09-03-2014 01:39 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 01:08 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The thing with Boise State is that perception wise I think they were the only current group of 5 team (BYU is not Group of 5) who completely cracked the barrier and became thought of as a power school in a non-power conference the same way many basketball leagues had one major power among many smaller programs. That's a very different perception than it's a weaker school that had an excellent year or two. There were a few others who are/were close, but I don't think they've reached that perception yet and that point is big for the Mountain West.

Once perceptions are changed, they change only slowly back. The value of being seen as a power school (for lack of a better word) is that you can more easily withstand down times. Boise State can take a couple bad years and if they start to get good again, attention will follow quickly back. They aren't a superpower who can take a decade (or more) down, but they have another year or two I think to rise back up before totally loosing their spot.

Boise never reached that level. TCU garnered that respect and did it to such a level that it went from de facto to de jure. They are now in the club.

I disagree, Boise got to that level, and proved it by winning a BCS game and also beat P5 teams earlier in the year when they were on the schedule. They were at the same level that TCU got to. It was due to factors off the football field that got TCU into the club while Boise is not in the club. The question will be, will Boise drop off to mediocrity or will they still win 10-11 games? Even good P5 teams fall off at times, then recover. When NIU played Alabama in 2003 we beat them (non-Saban team obviously).

Sadly the Mountain West commissioner made a stupid deal with Boise to prevent them from going to the AAC. Now the rest of the members of the MW will suffer on this now unlevel playing field. Boise has always been in a poor media market and time zone and now no longer winning games. The AAC is fortunate not to take Boise as a member.

(09-03-2014 03:21 PM)Savacool Wrote:  Sadly the Mountain West commissioner made a stupid deal with Boise to prevent them from going to the AAC. Now the rest of the members of the MW will suffer on this now unlevel playing field. Boise has always been in a poor media market and time zone and now no longer winning games. The AAC is fortunate not to take Boise as a member.

Not when it got ESPN to be part of the MW TV package.

(09-03-2014 02:26 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 01:39 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 01:08 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The thing with Boise State is that perception wise I think they were the only current group of 5 team (BYU is not Group of 5) who completely cracked the barrier and became thought of as a power school in a non-power conference the same way many basketball leagues had one major power among many smaller programs. That's a very different perception than it's a weaker school that had an excellent year or two. There were a few others who are/were close, but I don't think they've reached that perception yet and that point is big for the Mountain West.

Once perceptions are changed, they change only slowly back. The value of being seen as a power school (for lack of a better word) is that you can more easily withstand down times. Boise State can take a couple bad years and if they start to get good again, attention will follow quickly back. They aren't a superpower who can take a decade (or more) down, but they have another year or two I think to rise back up before totally loosing their spot.

Boise never reached that level. TCU garnered that respect and did it to such a level that it went from de facto to de jure. They are now in the club.

I disagree, Boise got to that level, and proved it by winning a BCS game and also beat P5 teams earlier in the year when they were on the schedule. They were at the same level that TCU got to. It was due to factors off the football field that got TCU into the club while Boise is not in the club. The question will be, will Boise drop off to mediocrity or will they still win 10-11 games? Even good P5 teams fall off at times, then recover. When NIU played Alabama in 2003 we beat them (non-Saban team obviously).

Being ranked after losing to every good team they played last year proves they reached that level. That is perception wise they beat Oklahoma in an exciting way. The other BCS game was against a non BCS team ( I that was crapy).
The WAC is dead and they have never won an outright MWC title. They do have one FCS title (so does Idaho St.) And a junior college title.

NDSU is the school who has won at every level eleven titles and counting.

(09-03-2014 12:09 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Given the P5/G5 setup, 8-10 games per season in a G5 conference really is obscurity.

Honesty NDSU has gotten about as much media coverage as any G5.

Boise
UCF
NIU
Fresno State
NDSU has received a ton of exposure for an FCS team.

(09-03-2014 05:31 PM)MJG Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 12:09 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Given the P5/G5 setup, 8-10 games per season in a G5 conference really is obscurity.

Honesty NDSU has gotten about as much media coverage as any G5.

Boise
UCF
NIU
Fresno State
NDSU has received a ton of exposure for an FCS team.

Yes, they have. But apparently not enough. An FBS school still would somehow get more credit from the media for beating Purdue than they would for beating NDSU, even though I'm sure NDSU is better.

(09-03-2014 04:59 PM)MJG Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 02:26 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 01:39 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 01:08 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The thing with Boise State is that perception wise I think they were the only current group of 5 team (BYU is not Group of 5) who completely cracked the barrier and became thought of as a power school in a non-power conference the same way many basketball leagues had one major power among many smaller programs. That's a very different perception than it's a weaker school that had an excellent year or two. There were a few others who are/were close, but I don't think they've reached that perception yet and that point is big for the Mountain West.

Once perceptions are changed, they change only slowly back. The value of being seen as a power school (for lack of a better word) is that you can more easily withstand down times. Boise State can take a couple bad years and if they start to get good again, attention will follow quickly back. They aren't a superpower who can take a decade (or more) down, but they have another year or two I think to rise back up before totally loosing their spot.

Boise never reached that level. TCU garnered that respect and did it to such a level that it went from de facto to de jure. They are now in the club.

I disagree, Boise got to that level, and proved it by winning a BCS game and also beat P5 teams earlier in the year when they were on the schedule. They were at the same level that TCU got to. It was due to factors off the football field that got TCU into the club while Boise is not in the club. The question will be, will Boise drop off to mediocrity or will they still win 10-11 games? Even good P5 teams fall off at times, then recover. When NIU played Alabama in 2003 we beat them (non-Saban team obviously).

Being ranked after losing to every good team they played last year proves they reached that level. That is perception wise they beat Oklahoma in an exciting way. The other BCS game was against a non BCS team ( I that was crapy).
The WAC is dead and they have never won an outright MWC title. They do have one FCS title (so does Idaho St.) And a junior college title.

NDSU is the school who has won at every level eleven titles and counting.

They haven't won at the FBS level.

NDSU is a monster waiting to be unleashed on FBS. They can draw fans and garner media attention in at least three states (ND, SD and Minnesota) plus perhaps Alberta/Manitoba to some degree (some Canadians watch and play US college football).

(09-03-2014 12:52 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 09:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 09:13 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  The real tragedy was that the five NonBCS conferences were not able to present a united and coordinated front to possibly gain a more equitable position in the 4 team national playoff and BCS bowls. AAC's USA Today advertisement is disappointing, as it again reflects AAC's attitude that somehow that the AAC is going to gain BCS status by being a "power" conference.

Not so fast my friend: In fact the G5 did get a completely equitable position in the CFP, as the selection process for the 4 CFP positions is not formally biased against or in favor of either G5 or P5 schools.

As for the BCS Bowls, I think it is fair to say that the G5 got a better outcome than they should have. The original premise of the Access Bowl concept was that the BCS bowls would be free to sign contracts with any conference they wanted to. Had that happened, the G5 would have been totally locked out of "access" to the Access Bowls, as those bowls had absolutely zero interest in hosting G5 schools.

Instead, the P5 used a little arm-twisting to get the Access Bowls to agree to take the highest-rated G5 team. This actually provides better access to a major bowl than the old BCS system did.

Truth is, when it comes to having a chance to play for the national title or in a major bowl, and in getting paid money for doing so, the G5 have never had it so good.

One doesn't have to be fast to see what BCS did to avoid the monopoly charge. Let the BCS bowls discriminate rather than the BCS conferences themselves. And then BCS looks so "generous" by "forcing" the BCS bowls to take one NonBCS school. Clever, indeed!

Your position seems to be that in a totally free market, the G5 would have an equal position with the Access Bowls as the P5. That the Rose Bowl would not want a tie-in with the B1G and PAC but would rather be open to taking a G5 team. That the Sugar Bowl would rather not be tied to the SEC but would prefer to be able to select the AAC or Sun Belt champion as well. That it is only monopolistic arm-twisting by the Power conferences that explain these tie-ins, not that the bowls themselves prefer them.

Are you serious?

(09-03-2014 07:44 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  NDSU is a monster waiting to be unleashed on FBS. They can draw fans and garner media attention in at least three states (ND, SD and Minnesota) plus perhaps Alberta/Manitoba to some degree (some Canadians watch and play US college football).

That's a lot of acreage with very few people.

(09-03-2014 09:47 AM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 08:29 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Twenty teams, regional divisions, a conference tournament and a guaranteed spot in an expanded national tournament in order to provide a competitive Cinderella team.

That AAC is a lot different than the AAC that Boise State decided against joining.

That AAC with Houston, drubbed by UTSA in their opener?

That ship could quickly sail if ECU loses to South Carolina, Cincinnati loses to Toledo or Ohio State, and Marshall keeps winning. First Access Bowl spot could be a C-USA or MAC grab (even ULL from the Sunbelt), not the mega AAC-MWC.

That loss will be forgotten. Houston still has the brand name and that matters more than that one loss to UTSA.

You know this. You put the most known brands of the Mid-Majors together and it will get represented in polls and what not. It is all opinion anyways. You can argue wins and losses but we both know that only goes so far.

(09-03-2014 01:39 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Boise never reached that level. TCU garnered that respect and did it to such a level that it went from de facto to de jure. They are now in the club.

TCU is "in the club" because they're in a top five media market, not because they somehow garnered any more respect than we did. Respect-wise, they shared their billing equally with Utah and us as the "BCS Busters."

(09-03-2014 11:52 PM)BoiseStateOfMind Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 01:39 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Boise never reached that level. TCU garnered that respect and did it to such a level that it went from de facto to de jure. They are now in the club.

TCU is "in the club" because they're in a top five media market, not because they somehow garnered any more respect than we did. Respect-wise, they shared their billing equally with Utah and us as the "BCS Busters."

Big 12 already owned that market
Having been in the SWC academics and facilities also helped TCU.
Utah was a closer fit for the PAC than any other candidates .