(07-30-2015 03:41 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-30-2015 03:28 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Here is the question to ask: if you are each school, how does expansion help you? How does it hurt? Forget stability for a moment, because that is the assumption that unless the Big 12 expands, someone leaves voluntarily, or if they expand someone leaves voluntarily. If no one leaves voluntarily the league is secure, for the sake of this discussion. So the question becomes, how does expansion help each existing team, and how does it hurt them? That might be how you find the answers.

There is the strategic benefit, or not, to the conference that you are in. OkU's Boren argued that there is a strategic disadvantage to being the smallest conference.

You make good points. I agree with most. But that's not the question. I am referring to the individual schools. How does an expansion with the most commonly mentioned teams, some combination of BYU, Cincinnati, UCF, USF, Memphis, and/or UConn, to name a few, help each individual school? How do they hurt them? That is what I am suggesting we ponder.

(07-30-2015 03:52 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  You make good points. I agree with most. But that's not the question. I am referring to the individual schools. How does an expansion with the most commonly mentioned teams, some combination of BYU, Cincinnati, UCF, USF, Memphis, and/or UConn, to name a few, help each individual school? How do they hurt them? That is what I am suggesting we ponder.

Yes. For the worldwide top-500 ranked schools (AWRU ranking):

UConn: hard to see any compelling benefits it provides to any member of the Big12. Its certainly not a travel partner for WVU, but instead establishes a second awkward eastern island for Olympic sports travel. And they are in the #105-125 AWRU/US tier with OkU and OkSU, so doesn't really do anything more for the Big12's academic status than other available adds. And New England is not a very promising source of Big12 out of state students, who tend to look to the eastern seaboard even if they are looking for a warmer weather location (cf. why Duke & Georgia Tech are happy that BC is in the AAC).

UCF/USF: in terms of Florida exposure, and Olympic Sports travel, they make the best sense together. WVU might prefer a closer eastern school, but assuming they would have both in their division and/or regular rival list, would value the regular trips to Florida. And their research is actually better than you might think: they are not AAU bound, but USF is in the #78-104 AWRU/US tier with Kansas and UCF the #105-125 (UCF) tier with OkU and OkSU. Central Florida is a growing market and source of out of state students.

UC: WVU's likely preference, they've played the Bearcats enough in the old Big East that they can surely sell UC tickets, it would be their only Olympic Sports bus trip. For everyone else in the Big12, it makes an Olympic Sports travel partner with WVU (fly into Pittsburgh, play in Morgantown, bus to Cincinnati, play in Cincinnati, fly out of Cincinnati, or visa versa). #78-105 AWRU/US ranking. Would function together with WVU for access to southern and central Ohio recruiting grounds (not as well for NE or NW Ohio). Downside is Cincinnati is a very slow growth area, and the neighboring higher growth area in central Ohio is dominated by OSU and the Big Ten.

Among the not-top-500 schools, the biggest profile win is clearly BYU, which has LDS related exposure throughout the west, and one of the schools where Big12's policy to let each school keep their third tier rights might be a benefit.

(07-30-2015 03:14 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-29-2015 06:46 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I read 9 to 1 in favor of expansion.

In some other random discussion forum? That is, just another version of a DavidSt making stuff up?

We have reporting indicating three Presidents in favor ... OkU, WVU, KS State (that last one surprised me a little). We have the Commissioner saying three are in favor and three or four sitting on the fence.

And we have at least speculation that Texas is against, since if Texas was in favor and OkU was in favor, everybody expects it would happen, but I don't recall whether we have reporting that that is the President of the University of Texas that has said it, or whether it is just inference.

TTech opposed and TCU opposed is just inference, but TTech opposed if UTX is opposed seems highly likely. I'd expect that TCU could be persuaded, but it would depend on divisional alignments or distribution of regular rival.

Not just Presidents are saying it. Oklahoma, Iowa State, Kansas State, West Virginia, Mike Gundy of Okie State is in favor of expansion, Art Briles of Baylor wants expansion, Kansas would be for expansion as well since they do not really want to leave Kansas State behind and it could get messy.

TCU could be against it because of MWC members being listed on the expansion list. Boise State is the one that they may be opposed to of adding. Why? Boise State have upset them in the past in bowl games.

From what I read, Texas was also on board as well. The issue is who they agree on expanding with. Not everybody was on board adding Louisville which is why they dragged their feet on that one. They are dragging their feet again. There is too many egos to even settle on who to expand with.

(07-30-2015 04:12 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-30-2015 03:52 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  You make good points. I agree with most. But that's not the question. I am referring to the individual schools. How does an expansion with the most commonly mentioned teams, some combination of BYU, Cincinnati, UCF, USF, Memphis, and/or UConn, to name a few, help each individual school? How do they hurt them? That is what I am suggesting we ponder.

Yes. For the worldwide top-500 ranked schools (AWRU ranking):

UConn: hard to see any compelling benefits it provides to any member of the Big12. Its certainly not a travel partner for WVU, but instead establishes a second awkward eastern island for Olympic sports travel. And they are in the #105-125 AWRU/US tier with OkU and OkSU, so doesn't really do anything more for the Big12's academic status than other available adds. And New England is not a very promising source of Big12 out of state students, who tend to look to the eastern seaboard even if they are looking for a warmer weather location (cf. why Duke & Georgia Tech are happy that BC is in the AAC).

UCF/USF: in terms of Florida exposure, and Olympic Sports travel, they make the best sense together. WVU might prefer a closer eastern school, but assuming they would have both in their division and/or regular rival list, would value the regular trips to Florida. And their research is actually better than you might think: they are not AAU bound, but USF is in the #78-104 AWRU/US tier with Kansas and UCF the #105-125 (UCF) tier with OkU and OkSU. Central Florida is a growing market and source of out of state students.

UC: WVU's likely preference, they've played the Bearcats enough in the old Big East that they can surely sell UC tickets, it would be their only Olympic Sports bus trip. For everyone else in the Big12, it makes an Olympic Sports travel partner with WVU (fly into Pittsburgh, play in Morgantown, bus to Cincinnati, play in Cincinnati, fly out of Cincinnati, or visa versa). #78-105 AWRU/US ranking. Would function together with WVU for access to southern and central Ohio recruiting grounds (not as well for NE or NW Ohio). Downside is Cincinnati is a very slow growth area, and the neighboring higher growth area in central Ohio is dominated by OSU and the Big Ten.

Among the not-top-500 schools, the biggest profile win is clearly BYU, which has LDS related exposure throughout the west, and one of the schools where Big12's policy to let each school keep their third tier rights might be a benefit.

UCF and USF may have a hard time getting in. Some schools really want FSU.

Some schools want Louisville, but others do not.

TCU do not want BYU or Boise State, or other MWC schools.

Some Big 12 schools bulking at the likes of Cincinnati, Memphis, East Carolina and some others.

Some schools are hoping a major raid for ACC schools could happened soon for them to pick up some ACC schools.

(07-30-2015 03:52 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-30-2015 03:41 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-30-2015 03:28 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Here is the question to ask: if you are each school, how does expansion help you? How does it hurt? Forget stability for a moment, because that is the assumption that unless the Big 12 expands, someone leaves voluntarily, or if they expand someone leaves voluntarily. If no one leaves voluntarily the league is secure, for the sake of this discussion. So the question becomes, how does expansion help each existing team, and how does it hurt them? That might be how you find the answers.

There is the strategic benefit, or not, to the conference that you are in. OkU's Boren argued that there is a strategic disadvantage to being the smallest conference.

You make good points. I agree with most. But that's not the question. I am referring to the individual schools. How does an expansion with the most commonly mentioned teams, some combination of BYU, Cincinnati, UCF, USF, Memphis, and/or UConn, to name a few, help each individual school? How do they hurt them? That is what I am suggesting we ponder.

Most schools are largely in the same position in the Big12 boat - specifically, they are not the schools in charge or rowing or steering the conference. They would be IowaSt, KState, OkState, Baylor, TexasTech, WVirginia and TCU. One could argue that their objective is the survival of the conference as a P5 in the worst-case scenario - the worst-case scenario being that the national programs (Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas) should leave them behind. These schools should be (but not all necessarily "are") in favor of some type of expansion - IF (emphasizing IF) they believe that there is a strong chance that they will be abandoned.

IF they don;t believe that there is a strong chance that texas, Oklahoma and Kansas are leaving; they may not see any advantage to expansion.

But, IF they believe that there is a strong chance that Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas leave the conference:
WVirginia, IowaSt, OKState and KState are on the same side of the boat - and should favor expansion with BYU and Cincinnati - and maybe Memphis (to bolster their remaining P5 FB status (with BYU and Cincinnati), BB prowess (with all three) and provide a non-Texas power counter-balance).

Baylor, TexasTech and TCU are on the other side of the boat - and should favor leaning to Texas schools - and in the absence of enough good candidates in Texas - at least at schools in the south to maximize the southern influence over the direction of the conference. They should favor expansion with Houston(FB), UCF(FB), Memphis(BB) and maybe USF.

But the 7 non-rowers (and any national program that wants/intends to stay in the Big12) need the conference to get to a minimum of 12 schools to maintain/maximize their influence in the P5 group now (the other 4 P5 all have a minimum of 12 programs and a CCG - and the minimum number to have the CCG is 12). They must also hope that their choices for expansion do not actually CAUSE the 3 national programs to bolt. They don't want to be without Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas - but they really don't want to be without them and also be a group of only 7 programs.

So, the first need is 2 bodies that bolster BCS status (which is what Oklahoma has said they want/need) - and that has to mean BYU is the best first invite. None of the other candidates have BYU's FB resume or fan following or (filled) stadium. If Texas is against adding BYU (or a non-Texas school in general), the rest concede by allowing them to choose Houston as a counter-balance. The 7 must keep Texas and Oklahoma happy. If either Oklahoma or Texas bolts, the other national programs fall like dominoes, because the ship will be taking on water.

What precisely do Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas actually want? - that's another post entirely.

(07-30-2015 04:53 PM)nert Wrote:  

(07-30-2015 03:52 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-30-2015 03:41 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-30-2015 03:28 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Here is the question to ask: if you are each school, how does expansion help you? How does it hurt? Forget stability for a moment, because that is the assumption that unless the Big 12 expands, someone leaves voluntarily, or if they expand someone leaves voluntarily. If no one leaves voluntarily the league is secure, for the sake of this discussion. So the question becomes, how does expansion help each existing team, and how does it hurt them? That might be how you find the answers.

There is the strategic benefit, or not, to the conference that you are in. OkU's Boren argued that there is a strategic disadvantage to being the smallest conference.

You make good points. I agree with most. But that's not the question. I am referring to the individual schools. How does an expansion with the most commonly mentioned teams, some combination of BYU, Cincinnati, UCF, USF, Memphis, and/or UConn, to name a few, help each individual school? How do they hurt them? That is what I am suggesting we ponder.

Most schools are largely in the same position in the Big12 boat - specifically, they are not the schools in charge or rowing or steering the conference. They would be IowaSt, KState, OkState, Baylor, TexasTech, WVirginia and TCU. One could argue that their objective is the survival of the conference as a P5 in the worst-case scenario - the worst-case scenario being that the national programs (Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas) should leave them behind. These schools should be (but not all necessarily "are") in favor of some type of expansion - IF (emphasizing IF) they believe that there is a strong chance that they will be abandoned.

IF they don;t believe that there is a strong chance that texas, Oklahoma and Kansas are leaving; they may not see any advantage to expansion.

But, IF they believe that there is a strong chance that Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas leave the conference:
WVirginia, IowaSt, OKState and KState are on the same side of the boat - and should favor expansion with BYU and Cincinnati - and maybe Memphis (to bolster their remaining P5 FB status (with BYU and Cincinnati), BB prowess (with all three) and provide a non-Texas power counter-balance).

Baylor, TexasTech and TCU are on the other side of the boat - and should favor leaning to Texas schools - and in the absence of enough good candidates in Texas - at least at schools in the south to maximize the southern influence over the direction of the conference. They should favor expansion with Houston(FB), UCF(FB), Memphis(BB) and maybe USF.

But the 7 non-rowers (and any national program that wants/intends to stay in the Big12) need the conference to get to a minimum of 12 schools to maintain/maximize their influence in the P5 group now (the other 4 P5 all have a minimum of 12 programs and a CCG - and the minimum number to have the CCG is 12). They must also hope that their choices for expansion do not actually CAUSE the 3 national programs to bolt. They don't want to be without Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas - but they really don't want to be without them and also be a group of only 7 programs.

So, the first need is 2 bodies that bolster BCS status (which is what Oklahoma has said they want/need) - and that has to mean BYU is the best first invite. None of the other candidates have BYU's FB resume or fan following or (filled) stadium. If Texas is against adding BYU (or a non-Texas school in general), the rest concede by allowing them to choose Houston as a counter-balance. The 7 must keep Texas and Oklahoma happy. If either Oklahoma or Texas bolts, the other national programs fall like dominoes, because the ship will be taking on water.

What precisely do Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas actually want? - that's another post entirely.

Worst case scenerio is that Kansas will not get invited at all. Kansas may need to think about KState which seems they are tied to. If Kansas State is in favor of expansion? So would Kansas as well. Kansas will move then as long as the Big 12 will stay as a P5 conference. Same with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.

Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Baylor, West Virginia and TCU are strong power football schools that could keep a P5 status. AAC could not hold that status because they lost all the schools.

If the 3 schools mentioned leaves? They need to add 7 to 9 schools and form a Big 12 Network.

9 schools to join for a strong Big 12 tv Network?

West:Boise State
BYU
Colorado State

Houston

East Carolina
Cincinnati
UCF
Memphis
Northern Illinois

All these 9 schools are like top 25 football type football schools in recent years. This could make the Big 12 a little bit more stronger than the ACC conference.

(07-30-2015 02:21 PM)nert Wrote:  

(07-29-2015 03:34 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-29-2015 03:25 PM)nert Wrote:  

(07-29-2015 02:12 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-29-2015 12:25 PM)nert Wrote:  and later


"BCS" was only a football term, not an Olympic sport term, so being FB-only in a BCS conference (like the BigEast was at the time) was as BCS as it gets.

BCS was a conference thing. One could just as easily argue that not being a full member of the conference nor doing so shortly after the start of the BCS, means that the team wasn't a BCS team.

But as I said, not really worth arguing over.

Being BCS was a football thing. The same conferences/schools were usually referred to as being in "Power Conferences" in basketball to distinguish them from "mid-majors" - so being football-only in the BigEast was as BCS as anyone else. It wasn't just a conference thing - as NotreDame was BCS, but was a true independent in FB (not so much now) but was a member of the BigEast in almost everything else (hockey was in the CCHA...).

Basketball schools that were in "BCS conferences" were commonly referred to as such.

Temple was unquestionably a football-only member of a BCS conference, for the 1998 - 2004 seasons.

Does that make it an "original BCS school"? It depends entirely how you define that.

No, it actually doesn't.

Of course it does. You fabricated a definition to support your claim.

I'm using the definition that everyone else used, in that era.

By and large BCS was not used as a basketball term. It was purely a football term. So the difference between full and partial member was mostly irrelevant, other than temple just simply sucked.

(07-30-2015 04:25 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Not just Presidents are saying it.

But its only when the President says it that we are hearing from the person who is actually going to cast the vote.

Quote: Mike Gundy of Okie State is in favor of expansion, Art Briles of Baylor wants expansion,

(1) I read that quote from Art Briles and you are misrepresenting it quite egregiously and
(2) Those are coaches, so they are not the ones voting on it.

Quote: Kansas would be for expansion as well since they do not really want to leave Kansas State behind and it could get messy.

You are drawing an inference, and given the way that you demonstrate an incapacity to understand what is said is plain English, I don't see any reason to give any credence to any inference you draw.

Its also the case that Kansas has long been rumored to be against any expansion that cuts down its access to Texas ... while many think of top FB schools as the ones most keen on recruiting grounds, in some ways its the schools fighting to keep up with the top FB schools in their conference that are most in need of regular access to strong recruiting grounds.

Quote: TCU could be against it because of MWC members being listed on the expansion list. Boise State is the one that they may be opposed to of adding. Why? Boise State have upset them in the past in bowl games.

This is not even an inference, its just idle speculation.

Quote: From what I read, Texas was also on board as well.

From what you read where? I frankly think you have either misinterpreted something sensible or have run across baseless speculation and are running with it.

Quote: The issue is who they agree on expanding with.

If what you have read is that Texas would be fine with expansion as long as it is some school that is patently obviously not available ... the "why, if we can get Nebraska and Notre Dame, we'd be fine with it" line of argument, that would explain how you reach a conclusion but cannot present a credible source to back it up.

Quote: Not everybody was on board adding Louisville which is why they dragged their feet on that one. They are dragging their feet again. There is too many egos to even settle on who to expand with.

So your claim is that they are 9-1 in favor of expansion, but not 9-1 in favor of any actual expansion?

Then describing that as "9-1 in favor of expansion" is grossly misleading.

I'm turning you off, you are just a noise generator.

Congratulations - one of the dumbest posts in a long time.

(07-30-2015 05:27 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-30-2015 02:21 PM)nert Wrote:  

(07-29-2015 03:34 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-29-2015 03:25 PM)nert Wrote:  

(07-29-2015 02:12 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  BCS was a conference thing. One could just as easily argue that not being a full member of the conference nor doing so shortly after the start of the BCS, means that the team wasn't a BCS team.

But as I said, not really worth arguing over.

Being BCS was a football thing. The same conferences/schools were usually referred to as being in "Power Conferences" in basketball to distinguish them from "mid-majors" - so being football-only in the BigEast was as BCS as anyone else. It wasn't just a conference thing - as NotreDame was BCS, but was a true independent in FB (not so much now) but was a member of the BigEast in almost everything else (hockey was in the CCHA...).

Basketball schools that were in "BCS conferences" were commonly referred to as such.

Temple was unquestionably a football-only member of a BCS conference, for the 1998 - 2004 seasons.

Does that make it an "original BCS school"? It depends entirely how you define that.

No, it actually doesn't.

Of course it does. You fabricated a definition to support your claim.

I'm using the definition that everyone else used, in that era.

It was always a football term. Afterall - BCS stood for Bowl Championship Series. It had nothing to do whatsoever with any other sport.

FAIL

Now this poster below has it right.

(07-30-2015 06:25 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  By and large BCD was not used as a basketball term. It was purely a football term. So the difference between full and partial member was mostly irrelevant, other than temple just simply sucked.

That's exactly right - except for the typo (BCS - not BCD).

(07-30-2015 06:25 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  By and large BCD was not used as a basketball term. It was purely a football term. So the difference between full and partial member was mostly irrelevant, other than temple just simply sucked.

I heard basketball teams being referred to as being in "BCS conferences" all the time.

You are incorrect.

(07-31-2015 12:14 AM)nert Wrote:  Congratulations - one of the dumbest posts in a long time.

(07-30-2015 05:27 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-30-2015 02:21 PM)nert Wrote:  

(07-29-2015 03:34 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-29-2015 03:25 PM)nert Wrote:  Being BCS was a football thing. The same conferences/schools were usually referred to as being in "Power Conferences" in basketball to distinguish them from "mid-majors" - so being football-only in the BigEast was as BCS as anyone else. It wasn't just a conference thing - as NotreDame was BCS, but was a true independent in FB (not so much now) but was a member of the BigEast in almost everything else (hockey was in the CCHA...).

Basketball schools that were in "BCS conferences" were commonly referred to as such.

Temple was unquestionably a football-only member of a BCS conference, for the 1998 - 2004 seasons.

Does that make it an "original BCS school"? It depends entirely how you define that.

No, it actually doesn't.

Of course it does. You fabricated a definition to support your claim.

I'm using the definition that everyone else used, in that era.

It was always a football term. Afterall - BCS stood for Bowl Championship Series. It had nothing to do whatsoever with any other sport.

FAIL

Now this poster below has it right.

(07-30-2015 06:25 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  By and large BCD was not used as a basketball term. It was purely a football term. So the difference between full and partial member was mostly irrelevant, other than temple just simply sucked.

That's exactly right - except for the typo (BCS - not BCD).

But it was common knowledge that to say a team (in any sport) belonged to a "BCS conference" simply meant they belonged to one of B1G, PAC, ACC, Big East, XII or SEC.

And it was used as such.

(07-31-2015 08:09 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  But it was common knowledge that to say a team (in any sport) belonged to a "BCS conference" simply meant they belonged to one of B1G, PAC, ACC, Big East, XII or SEC.

And it was used as such.

And so Temple was a "BCS" school until they got kicked out of the old Big East for their subpar FB facilities and program, and then they weren't.

But IIRC, "major" and "mid-major" was originally directed at specific programs, not at whole conferences.

(07-31-2015 08:57 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 08:09 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  But it was common knowledge that to say a team (in any sport) belonged to a "BCS conference" simply meant they belonged to one of B1G, PAC, ACC, Big East, XII or SEC.

And it was used as such.

And so Temple was a "BCS" school until they got kicked out of the old Big East for their subpar FB facilities and program, and then they weren't.

But IIRC, "major" and "mid-major" was originally directed at specific programs, not at whole conferences.

Temple was a football-only member of a BCS conference, for the 1998 (start of BCS) through 2004 seasons and again in 2012. I have not denied that.

(07-31-2015 08:08 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-30-2015 06:25 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  By and large BCD was not used as a basketball term. It was purely a football term. So the difference between full and partial member was mostly irrelevant, other than temple just simply sucked.

I heard basketball teams being referred to as being in "BCS conferences" all the time.

You are incorrect.

In basketball the term was "major" and "mid-major" For the last phucking time, just because you say something, does not make it factual. Those conferences were BCS, even if in a different sport, so on occasion you may hear someone use that term. You also hear people say " I could care less." People saying something does not make it accurate. For basketball the term was mid-major for those schools and conferences not considered major, and while there were only six BCS conferences, there were eight conferences in basketball generally considered "major" depending on which years you are talking about. When Temple was still in the BCS, C-USA and the A-10 were considered "major" basketball conferences by nearly every metric, and every media outlet. Even ESPN.

So there is someone wrong on here, and it's not the three of us telling you the same thing. It is the other one. YOU!

(07-31-2015 10:09 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 08:57 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 08:09 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  But it was common knowledge that to say a team (in any sport) belonged to a "BCS conference" simply meant they belonged to one of B1G, PAC, ACC, Big East, XII or SEC.

And it was used as such.

And so Temple was a "BCS" school until they got kicked out of the old Big East for their subpar FB facilities and program, and then they weren't.

But IIRC, "major" and "mid-major" was originally directed at specific programs, not at whole conferences.

Temple was a football-only member of a BCS conference, for the 1998 (start of BCS) through 2004 seasons and again in 2012. I have not denied that.

actually you did at first. I mean if you want to be technical.

bison Wrote:Right, but those Big East schools were only in a BCS conference for 2005 - 2012 seasons (2004 - 2012 for UConn, Temple only the 2013 season).

(07-31-2015 10:31 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 08:08 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-30-2015 06:25 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  By and large BCD was not used as a basketball term. It was purely a football term. So the difference between full and partial member was mostly irrelevant, other than temple just simply sucked.

I heard basketball teams being referred to as being in "BCS conferences" all the time.

You are incorrect.

In basketball the term was "major" and "mid-major" For the last phucking time, just because you say something, does not make it factual. Those conferences were BCS, even if in a different sport, so on occasion you may hear someone use that term. You also hear people say " I could care less." People saying something does not make it accurate. For basketball the term was mid-major for those schools and conferences not considered major, and while there were only six BCS conferences, there were eight conferences in basketball generally considered "major" depending on which years you are talking about. When Temple was still in the BCS, C-USA and the A-10 were considered "major" basketball conferences by nearly every metric, and every media outlet. Even ESPN.

So there is someone wrong on here, and it's not the three of us telling you the same thing. It is the other one. YOU!

Just because three people say one thing and another person says different does not make the three people correct.

I know what I heard. You don't tell me what I heard. "BCS Conference" was used pervasively in the era to mean one of those six conferences.

(07-31-2015 10:33 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 10:09 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 08:57 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 08:09 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  But it was common knowledge that to say a team (in any sport) belonged to a "BCS conference" simply meant they belonged to one of B1G, PAC, ACC, Big East, XII or SEC.

And it was used as such.

And so Temple was a "BCS" school until they got kicked out of the old Big East for their subpar FB facilities and program, and then they weren't.

But IIRC, "major" and "mid-major" was originally directed at specific programs, not at whole conferences.

Temple was a football-only member of a BCS conference, for the 1998 (start of BCS) through 2004 seasons and again in 2012. I have not denied that.

actually you did at first. I mean if you want to be technical.

bison Wrote:Right, but those Big East schools were only in a BCS conference for 2005 - 2012 seasons (2004 - 2012 for UConn, Temple only the 2013 season).

That wasn't a denial, it was just a mistake - which I corrected.

Doesn't mean that Temple was an "original BCS team".


I don't really care to argue about this any more. You aren't right, but I'm not going to respond any more.

(07-31-2015 10:46 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Just because three people say one thing and another person says different does not make the three people correct.

I know what I heard. You don't tell me what I heard. "BCS Conference" was used pervasively in the era to mean one of those six conferences.

And just because you "heard" something, doesn't make it true. I even laid it out for you as plainly as I could. No one said you didn't hear it: we said that didn't make it true. Which you ignored.

From the BCS Wesbite Wrote:Thanks for visiting the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) official website. The BCS is one of the most successful events in the history of college football, yet it is often misunderstood. We hope the information on this site will help answer your questions and give you an accurate picture of what the BCS is and isn't.

The BCS is a five-game showcase of college football. It is designed to ensure that the two top-rated teams in the country meet in the national championship game, and to create exciting and competitive matchups among eight other highly regarded teams in four other bowl games. For more on the background of the BCS, click here.

It has been undeniably successful in achieving those goals. Thanks to the BCS, the top two teams have played each other 15 times in 15 years by BCS measurements and 12 times in the last 15 according to the AP poll -- including the last nine years in a row. Additionally, it has provided more access to the major bowls for all Division I Football Bowl Subdivision conferences, more television exposure, and more postseason revenue than ever before.

This site is a resource for college football fans, media and others interested in how the system works. Check here often for news about the BCS and the schools, conferences and bowls

Can you show me where it talks about basketball? Anywhere? Just because you heard something, doesn't make it true. And you have already stated how you just say things, and don't actually bother to research how true it is, and you just assume. So I think I will take my word for it, and Nert's, and Bruce's over yours.

This one needs to be closed. Argue the term BCS team in private messages to each other if you want