CSNbbs

OZoner Wrote:

catdaddy_2402 Wrote:When a non-BCS school is ready to pony up I feel sure that BCS teams are more than willing to come on the road.

Right. See, because of this system of apartheid you all have created, it's not a matter of whether we're willing to "pony up" the money. You can't deny us admission to the treasury then blame us for not having the wealth.

"System of apartheid"?

So now it's the fault of schools like Clemson who have huge fanbases that schools like Ohio don't? It's Clemson's fault that they get as many fans to the spring game that Ohio averages for the regular season? It's Clemson's fault that while they were growing their program and fanbase in the 1970's that schools like Ohio stood still? Maybe instead of blaming everybody else that has taken the steps to grow their fanbase and put an attractive product that the television and bowl folks want to see you need to look a little closer to home for the source of your problems.

The treasury isn't locked, it's going to the schools that HAVE taken steps to ensure that their place at the table will always be there instead of sitting still and begging for money they have done nothing to earn.

catdaddy_2402 Wrote:The treasury isn't locked, it's going to the schools that HAVE taken steps to ensure that their place at the table will always be there instead of sitting still and begging for money they have done nothing to earn.

So football is no longer about who can win, it's about who can draw the most to a football game? Michigan deserves the National Championship.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:

UCFGoldenKnights#1 Wrote:GTS, you make several points about how the ACC will improve over the next few years, and you may be right; the league probably will get better. The writer of this article, however, is not talking about future seasons; he's talking about THIS season. RIGHT NOW, the highest-ranked ACC and Big East teams in the BCS standings trail the leaders in the MAC, MWC, and WAC. If the season ended today (November 16th), do you really believe it would be fair to send the ACC and Big East champions to BCS bowls and leave out one or two of the three higher ranked non-BCS league champions? I don't see how that could possibly be fair.

That's because the dolts in the media equate one or two elite teams and then a bunch of mediocre/doormats as a great conference. The SEC has lived off that crap endlessly. They field one really good team from the East Division .... one really good team from the West Division ... and suddenly they're the juggernaut conference. Bama struggled most of the night to beat Mississippi State at home. The same MSU team that Georgia Tech blasted 38-7 with a backup true freshman QB playing his first game EVER.

I agree with you that the SEC does get overhyped, and that GT win over MSU is a good one. However, I’d like to point out that Maryland, who currently leads the Atlantic Division, lost to Middle Tennessee (currently 4-6 overall and 2-3 in the Sun Belt Conference) and beat Delaware by only a touchdown. Miami (FL), who leads the Coastal Division, barely beat my UCF Knights 20-14 a few weeks ago in spite of our horrendous offense. Tulsa and UTEP beat us a lot worse than the Canes did. So, you can say that the SEC is overrated, but I don’t see much evidence to suggest that the ACC is good enough to have its champion considered over three non-BCS champions.

Quote:Do you really think the leaders of the MAC, MWC, or WAC would be ranked right now playing the ACC?

Do you really think they wouldn’t?

Quote:I heard this same crap with Tulsa. Then when Tulsa had to actually play somebody (Arkiesaw) they got blasted.

A 7-point loss is a “blasting?”

Quote:The worst thing that could happen for the non-BCS teams is for somebody who is a product of a weak schedule to show up to their BCS bowl and get blasted. Utah only beat the worst Michigan team EVER by 3. They beat a decent TCU team by the same margin.

I can blow a hole in your argument by pointing out that Toledo, currently tied for last place in the MAC West Division with a 1-5 conference record, also beat Michigan. Ball State blew out Toledo, 31-0 . . . and that was on Toledo’s home field.

Quote:Boise State beat a decent Oregon team, adjusting to a new QB, by 5. They haven't and won't play another good team all year.

So what? Like you said, they beat a decent Oregon team (ranked #24 currently). So obviously they are capable of beating teams in the top 25.

Quote:The only ranked team BYU played (TCU) blew them out. They beat perhaps the worst Washington team EVER by one point with the help of the refs on a bogus celebration penalty.

I would only consider BYU for the BCS if they beat Utah this week. I don’t think this will happen, though.

Quote:Ball State hasn't and likely won't play a ranked team all year. The toughest team they played has been NAVY.

But they are currently ranked ahead of the leaders of the ACC and Big East. And they have continued winning big in spite of losing their best wide receiver to a spinal injury. I pointed out the Ball State-Toledo-Michigan comparison earlier . . . perhaps I should also point out that the Indiana team that Ball State beat went on to beat an 8-3 Northwestern team.

Quote:You guys are flirting with disaster here. It won't take many more Hawaii mass destruction blowouts to destroy the credibility of all non-BCS leagues.

I’d be more concerned about the BCS bowl representatives who will emerge from the Big East and ACC if I were you. If the ACC champ gets blown out, it’ll be YOU worrying about your conference’s credibility.

Quote:I want a playoff ... but the BCS is better than what we had previously. And to really show their worthiness, non-BCS schools need to schedule at least one premiere BCS team.

As you said yourself in response to another post in this thread, scheduling is a two-way street. Both sides have to agree. One school cannot force another to play a game . . . well, not without legislative action, anyway.

I’m in favor of either a 12 or 16-team playoff that would involve all 11 Division 1-A conference champions. I know that may not ever happen, but without question, it would be a fairer system than what we have now.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:

UCFGoldenKnights#1 Wrote:GTS, you make several points about how the ACC will improve over the next few years, and you may be right; the league probably will get better. The writer of this article, however, is not talking about future seasons; he's talking about THIS season. RIGHT NOW, the highest-ranked ACC and Big East teams in the BCS standings trail the leaders in the MAC, MWC, and WAC. If the season ended today (November 16th), do you really believe it would be fair to send the ACC and Big East champions to BCS bowls and leave out one or two of the three higher ranked non-BCS league champions? I don't see how that could possibly be fair.

That's because the dolts in the media equate one or two elite teams and then a bunch of mediocre/doormats as a great conference. The SEC has lived off that crap endlessly. They field one really good team from the East Division .... one really good team from the West Division ... and suddenly they're the juggernaut conference. Bama struggled most of the night to beat Mississippi State at home. The same MSU team that Georgia Tech blasted 38-7 with a backup true freshman QB playing his first game EVER.

Do you really think the leaders of the MAC, MWC, or WAC would be ranked right now playing the ACC? I heard this same crap with Tulsa. Then when Tulsa had to actually play somebody (Arkiesaw) they got blasted. The worst thing that could happen for the non-BCS teams is for somebody who is a product of a weak schedule to show up to their BCS bowl and get blasted.

Utah only beat the worst Michigan team EVER by 3. They beat a decent TCU team by the same margin.

Boise State beat a decent Oregon team, adjusting to a new QB, by 5. They haven't and won't play another good team all year.

The only ranked team BYU played (TCU) blew them out. They beat perhaps the worst Washington team EVER by one point with the help of the refs on a bogus celebration penalty.

Ball State hasn't and likely won't play a ranked team all year. The toughest team they played has been NAVY.

You guys are flirting with disaster here. It won't take many more Hawaii mass destruction blowouts to destroy the credibility of all non-BCS leagues.

I want a playoff ... but the BCS is better than what we had previously. And to really show their worthiness, non-BCS schools need to schedule at least one premiere BCS team.

A couple items to remember:

1) Ball St has won all games by at least 12 points not one was close including a 3 td thumping of admittedly weak Indiana but they did beat them soundly.

2) The MAC West has a winning record vs the Big 10 this year(4-3). That to my knowledge has never happened and does speak to the strength of the division this year.

3) Hard to compare the MAC to the ACC since they 2 conferences play each other so rarely. The MAC East is the far weaker of the 2 divisions again this year and has held it's own vs the Big East.

Buffalo 6-4 16-27 Pittsburgh, 1 of 2 BE teams in top 25
BGSU 5-5 27-17 Pittsburgh
Akron 5-5 42- 28 Syracuse, 15-17 Cincinnati .1 of 2 BE top 25 teams
Temple 3-7 9-12 (OT) UCONN
Miami 2-8 20-45 Cincinnati

MAC West is +10 vs the MAC East so far this year, the MAC West is better overall than the Big East.

Utah beat a GOD AWFUL Pittsburgh team.

Pitt was the BE champ and Utah kicked their butts that game it wasn't close. Pitt would have lost to a number of MWC teams that year.

Boise State had a great gameplan and they pulled out several risky plays. They are to be commended. And you can only get away with that so many times (as witnessed this season).
[/quote]

BSU was a 9-10 point dog in that game and won. Don't talk to me about coulda woulda shoulda, they outplayed OK that game. BSU also has a winning record vs the PAC 10 who they play most often OOC. This year they beat Oregon on the road who at the time was the 2nd highest ranked PAC 10 team. If they run the table the rest of this season they deserve a BCS bowl invite, based on their inseason record vs BCS teams and their win over OK in their 1st BCS bowl game.

catdaddy_2402 Wrote:

OZoner Wrote:

catdaddy_2402 Wrote:When a non-BCS school is ready to pony up I feel sure that BCS teams are more than willing to come on the road.

Right. See, because of this system of apartheid you all have created, it's not a matter of whether we're willing to "pony up" the money. You can't deny us admission to the treasury then blame us for not having the wealth.

"System of apartheid"?

So now it's the fault of schools like Clemson who have huge fanbases that schools like Ohio don't? It's Clemson's fault that they get as many fans to the spring game that Ohio averages for the regular season? It's Clemson's fault that while they were growing their program and fanbase in the 1970's that schools like Ohio stood still? Maybe instead of blaming everybody else that has taken the steps to grow their fanbase and put an attractive product that the television and bowl folks want to see you need to look a little closer to home for the source of your problems.

The treasury isn't locked, it's going to the schools that HAVE taken steps to ensure that their place at the table will always be there instead of sitting still and begging for money they have done nothing to earn.

#1 You changed the argument from talent on the field to money. That's a red-herring. Is the game about the game, or is it about money?

#2 Clemson had been building support for decades. IPTAY is not a new thing, nor even 1970s. I say that b/c I give Clemson credit.

#3 Don't blame Ohio U or any of the MAC teams completely for their plight. Zero State has been active in keeping Ohio's public universities at a lower level as much as it can. TPTB take funding, take resources, and disparage the other schools, with the express intent of keeping them down.
It's nuts b/c Columbus ain't exactly the Emerald City...and the state is losing college graduates like crazy b/c Columbus is (or at least was) the only city growing.

The MAC schools don't have leadership to drive past this situation. That's their fault. They own some of the blame. But don't suggest that the MAC has been on a level playing field in terms of money and support.

After reading through this thread, is it any wonder that fans/supporters of non-BCS schools have so much animosity toward the BCS and their blind followers?

I have never read so much pompous, double-talking nonsense in a non-political thread in my life.

It sucks. But it's better than what we had before. At least #1 plays #2 now.

And to ignore the fact that money is the be all and end all of this system, and any progress toward a playoff, is unrealistic.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:It sucks. But it's better than what we had before. At least #1 plays #2 now.

And to ignore the fact that money is the be all and end all of this system, and any progress toward a playoff, is unrealistic.

That's naive as well. A playoff would earn tons more than the BCS (which may or may not pit #1 v #2, that's been evidenced many times in the short existence of the BCS).

Yet the BCS schools oppose it. Why?

One is tradition. Not all decisions are made based on rational thought, or even finance. Kentucky, Vandy, Duke, etc may suck and never get to the BCS, but their fans still consider their presence in the SEC or ACC to make them better than anyone in the MAC, WAC, MWC, etc.

A playoff proves that Utah, Boise St, etc are among the elite.

Second, a playoff lets the have-nots make progress on the haves. With all the benefits of extra money and exposure that the BCS has, many of those teams still get dominated by non-BCS teams (when they actually schedule them). A playoff system, even while giving the BCS teams more money, has a proportionally bigger effect on the xBCS schools. And that means you'll see them dominate even more.

So in the end, just having more money than others is perceived as better than having more money period.

If the BCS can find a way to have a playoff and exclude the other Div IA teams...they'll do it in a heartbeat. And don't think they are working that strategy even now.

Quote:A playoff proves that Utah, Boise St, etc are among the elite.

Will it really, or will it expose them like the FCS playoffs expose the autobid teams from conferences like the OVC and MEAC?

A playoff would make more money total than the BCS, but it would make less for those already making money in the BCS. That is why a playoff is still years away.

I agree ^ but the salient point is WHO is making all of that money now and in a playoff scenario. Hence, the resistance.

Speaking of money and college football.....

In big-time football spending war, the rich get richer

catdaddy_2402 Wrote:

Okie Chippewa Wrote:Q: Who played The Citadel, South Carolina State, Western Carolina, Chattanooga, Delaware, Rhode Island, William & Mary, Furman, McNeese St, Charleston Southern, Jacksonville St, Gardner-Webb, Richmond and James Madison this year?

A: The same conference who had THREE of its teams play TWO FCS teams this year. And why did they play those games? Because they refused to leave their comfy confines, like the majority of FBS teams not in the Pacific 10.

Addendum: Everyone remembers the trick plays Boise State used to beat Oklahoma, but few remember that BSU lead almost the entire game WITHOUT a single trick play. It was only after they fell behind in the last minute and in the OT did the Broncos deceive the Sooners.

4. History/similarities. Pretty much any OOC game against an SEC team not named Arkansas is a matchup of a former Southern Conference mate. The Texas A&M matchup was a matchup between two former military based ag/technical schools, as was the matchups with Va Tech before they became conference foes.

I don't think it is fair to compare what MAC schools are doing for money or the fans they have ect....when you are talking schools of another class.

Most MAC schools were designed to be regional colleges, they don't have the land grant and the research that goes with it and the higher paid faculty, you can go on and on.

Ohio had plans to build a 55,000 seat stadium in the 60's and play an independent schedule in football but the economy tanked in Southern Ohio so it never happened.

Had Southern Ohio witnessed a growth explosion over the past 40 years then I think our numbers would have exploded too for football. It is not how history played out.

MileHighBronco Wrote:I agree ^ but the salient point is WHO is making all of that money now and in a playoff scenario. Hence, the resistance.

Speaking of money and college football.....

In big-time football spending war, the rich get richer

Great article. We cheer about the rise of Ball State's program on here and the reality is that it can't compete financially with what is happening in the Big XII or SEC.

Would the MAC be any better off though financially if it moved to FCS? There are some FCS programs with MAC level facilities.

A few years ago I would have been solidly in the camp of staying in the FBS but with the way all the payouts for FCS schools have increased and the facility building going on at Montana, JMU ect...I think proves that you can grow a program at that level.

Its all going to depend on if FCS schools continue making the move up. If they do, that could ultimately undermine FCS as a subdivision.

What it says to me is that Ball St. is proof that you don't need a $10 million dollar football budget to compete with MOST BCS teams.

We'll never be in the "haves" category but as long as we can be competitive on the field, I'm OK with it. I vote NO to moving to FCS, unless something really drastic changes the landscape in college football.

Quote:#1 You changed the argument from talent on the field to money. That's a red-herring. Is the game about the game, or is it about money?

I wasn't responding to any argument about talent on the field, I was answering an argument about playing non-BCS teams at home. If they want BCS teams to play them at home then up the payouts so that they don't lose money coming to your place. Until that happens you are going to have an imbalance because for the most part football funds every other athletic program at most schools out there.

Quote:#2 Clemson had been building support for decades. IPTAY is not a new thing, nor even 1970s. I say that b/c I give Clemson credit.

Lucky for Clemson they had the foresight in the 1970's to realize that if you have a successful football program, a large stadium, and a large fanbase you aren't going to be pinching pennies athletically. Everybody likes to say the ACC only got BCS access because of FSU, but the ACC only got FSU because of what Clemson did on the football field in the 1980's.

Quote:#3 Don't blame Ohio U or any of the MAC teams completely for their plight. Zero State has been active in keeping Ohio's public universities at a lower level as much as it can. TPTB take funding, take resources, and disparage the other schools, with the express intent of keeping them down.
It's nuts b/c Columbus ain't exactly the Emerald City...and the state is losing college graduates like crazy b/c Columbus is (or at least was) the only city growing.

I understand that, but to act like the MAC schools are the only ones who have had a larger in-state school try to keep them down is misguided. Even Clemson has had that problem with South Carolina, and still does to some point. The fact that Clemson was founded because South Carolina catered to the privileged elite, ignoring the common citizen has led to resentment to this day, especially as Clemson has surpassed South Carolina academically.
The facts are every smaller public school that shares a state with a larger public institution has faced the same challenges the Ohio MAC schools have faced but instead of resting on that crutch and complaining about it they used it as a weapon and fought the power. Have all of them succeeded? No, but they are in better shape than when they started. ECU has not one but two 800lb gorillas fighting them for every penny they get. They could sit back and moan about it instead of fighting...but they'd be a much smaller school and battling Appalachian State for the SoCon title instead of getting BCS home games every single year.

Quote:The MAC schools don't have leadership to drive past this situation. That's their fault. They own some of the blame. But don't suggest that the MAC has been on a level playing field in terms of money and support.

I never said that the MAC was on a level playing field. Hell, there aren't many BCS schools that are on a level playing field with Ohio State and Michigan. But until the MAC takes the first major step and solves that leadership problem don't expect anybody to be overly eager to come to your aid.

I wish the commishes of the MAC, WAC, MWC, and Sun Belt would all get together and say, "How about we all just play each other non-conference? Don't schedule any BCS teams." I know it would never happen and really can't happen because of the payouts schools get, but what would the BCS schools do if they couldn't schedule the bottoms of each of the non-BCS leagues. There'd be a lot of teams not getting to their needed 6 wins.

MikeSpicer Wrote:I wish the commishes of the MAC, WAC, MWC, and Sun Belt would all get together and say, "How about we all just play each other non-conference? Don't schedule any BCS teams." I know it would never happen and really can't happen because of the payouts schools get, but what would the BCS schools do if they couldn't schedule the bottoms of each of the non-BCS leagues. There'd be a lot of teams not getting to their needed 6 wins.

I was thinking the same thing. If more OOC games are between non-BCS schools there will be fewer for BCS schools to pick and choose from, and they have to limit their I-AA games. Might create a little more leverage for the non-BCS schools if they stick together.

NIU007 Wrote:

MikeSpicer Wrote:I wish the commishes of the MAC, WAC, MWC, and Sun Belt would all get together and say, "How about we all just play each other non-conference? Don't schedule any BCS teams." I know it would never happen and really can't happen because of the payouts schools get, but what would the BCS schools do if they couldn't schedule the bottoms of each of the non-BCS leagues. There'd be a lot of teams not getting to their needed 6 wins.

I was thinking the same thing. If more OOC games are between non-BCS schools there will be fewer for BCS schools to pick and choose from, and they have to limit their I-AA games. Might create a little more leverage for the non-BCS schools if they stick together.

It might, but you always have exceptions to the situation. Rivalries like Miami v Cincy, Colorado v Colo St, TCU v TX Tech, UCF v USF.

Then there are situations like the MAC, who lobbied the OH legislature to get a shot at Zero State. Turning back on that will piss some folks off.

I agree that sticking together is essential. But, I think they need a dramatically different plan forward. And then push to get it.

DrTorch Wrote:

NIU007 Wrote:

MikeSpicer Wrote:I wish the commishes of the MAC, WAC, MWC, and Sun Belt would all get together and say, "How about we all just play each other non-conference? Don't schedule any BCS teams." I know it would never happen and really can't happen because of the payouts schools get, but what would the BCS schools do if they couldn't schedule the bottoms of each of the non-BCS leagues. There'd be a lot of teams not getting to their needed 6 wins.

I was thinking the same thing. If more OOC games are between non-BCS schools there will be fewer for BCS schools to pick and choose from, and they have to limit their I-AA games. Might create a little more leverage for the non-BCS schools if they stick together.

It might, but you always have exceptions to the situation. Rivalries like Miami v Cincy, Colorado v Colo St, TCU v TX Tech, UCF v USF.

Then there are situations like the MAC, who lobbied the OH legislature to get a shot at Zero State. Turning back on that will piss some folks off.

I agree that sticking together is essential. But, I think they need a dramatically different plan forward. And then push to get it.

There are exceptions as you mentioned, which work well for the teams involved. NIU doesn't have any rivalry like that with other in-state schools so I hadn't thought of those. That still leaves a few OOC games to play against other non-BCS opponents.