(12-16-2010 09:22 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(12-16-2010 08:43 PM)Nola Gator Wrote:  

(12-16-2010 07:48 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I really don't give a sh!t why ND isn't in the Big Tin, and wish they weren't in The BEast. I'm of the opinion that without their football program in the conference, there's little advantage to their membership. However, to answer your question, every news report for the last 50 years has stated that Notre Dame desires independence - outside the Big Tin. There have been no reports of Irish interest in joining - EVER - except from ESPN reporters who wish they would join...

The fact that you don't get this doesn't bode well for a Florida education, either...

lol. So in other words, dropping a bunch of money cant get a school to do something as you said (incorrectly). Thats all. Just wanted to point out that you were wrong.

Also, nice flame on the education comment. But you are from West Virginia so I'm impressed that you are typing on a computer and not burning it along with your couches. I'm willing to post my law degree and other credentials against yours anytime.

im lost...what are you trying to say?

Guys, he said he has a law degree - they're good at talking circles - so let it go.

Up2

Ignoring the FL-WV bickering and commenting on the original post...

This is a non-story. This is less consequential than when Obama said he was against the BCS. Mark Cuban is a great salesman and an even greater self-promoter, but he has nothing to contribute here. As even he admits in the ESPN article, most of what he is offering is startup capital for an alternative to the BCS. But startup capital isn't required in great amounts for this venture, and besides, it is the one thing that the BCS schools have in abundance (combined endowments of BCS schools are over $100 billion).

A self promoter like Mark Cuban has little influence with the real decision makers here: the presidents of the biggest, most influential universities. The presidents are almost unanimously against playoff system because they think it puts sports on a pedestal above academics. They see opposing a playoff as their last-ditch stand for the priority of academics, since they have caved every other major instance that they've had to choose between the two. Unless someone can change the minds of these presidents, the BCS will continue to exist.

Even federal action against the BCS has little chance of forcing a playoff. I quote Ohio State's president from a few weeks ago during his "little sisters of the poor" interview:
"If you put a gun to my head and said, 'What are you going to do about a playoff system [if] the BCS system as it now exists goes away?' I would vote immediately to go back to the bowl system."

(12-16-2010 01:15 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  This is an interesting new development in the push for a playoff...

ESPN: Mark Cuban exploring BCS alternative

I like it, but doesn't a Cuban controlled playoff face the same limitation from the NCAA as the BCS. Namely that the NCAA won't allow any type of playoff that they do not control ?

So, to implement a non-NCAA controlled playoff, whether it be through Cuban, or the BCS, all schools would have to agree to pull away from the NCAA for football. I'm not saying it won't happen but if it were going to happen, I think it would have happened years ago. More of the same old, same old.

The news about Cuban’s idea got me thinking though, what if the non-AQ’s would start without their BCS masters?

If the non-AQ’s start a playoff system on their own, you could have the MWC, C-USA, MAC, Sun Belt, WAC and at least BYU of the independents to start with. Army and Navy might want to be a part of the new coalition and if the money was right maybe even ND would join. Heck the BE may be interested since they never get an at large bid and their contracts are always behind the other conferences.

Worst case scenario you start with the 5 non-AQ conferences and BYU. You could take each conference winner and 3 at large bids. The games that would result would surely get good ratings even going up against the early season bowls. Play the first 2 rounds at the higher seeds home field and the final at a neutral location.

Off the top of my head, this year would have TCU, Boise (due to their higher rank even though the WAC was a 3 way tie), UCF, Miami (OH) and FIU as conference champs. The 3 at large bids would be Nevada, Utah and Hawaii if you take the highest ranked. I believe that the seeds would look like this.

TCU #1 – FIU #8
Boise #2 – Miami #7
Nevada #3 – UCF #6
Utah #4 – Hawaii #5

There would be a couple of good games in the first round. If the highest seeds won you would end up with 2 rematches, TCU – Utah and Boise – Nevada. I don’t like the rematches but it is more likely to happen the smaller the pool of schools you have to choose from. Again, following seeds you end up with TCU – Boise in the final. I think that would make for some great programming in December. Much better than most bowls that would be played then.

(12-16-2010 02:57 PM)army56mike Wrote:  GO MARK CUBAN!
GO MARK CUBAN!
GO MARK CUBAN!

YOU CAN DO IT!!!

Makes perfect sense, a bunch of communist/socialist school prez to be taken over by mark CUBAN.

FBS football is not a sanctioned NCAA sport. The problem that I see is getting additional games. Right now 12 is max.

(12-16-2010 02:03 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-16-2010 01:24 PM)Raleighwood Pirate Wrote:  I read it on ESPN this morning. I thought it was great. There are only two ways to take the BCS down. Federal Government involvement - which is aptly stated in your quote about how inept they are. Or, by the free market system of competition. I hope Cuban does pull this off. Let the markets decided what they want. CUSA, MWC, WAC, Sun Belt and the INDY's would be ready to stand in line to join this new exploit. I would assume that the AQ conferences would jump ship too.

I agree that the free market is the only realistic way that a playoff system will come to fruition, but no one should ever assume that the AQ conferences would ever jump ship. It's not just about absolute dollars for the AQ conferences - maintaining the gap between them and the non-AQ conferences is just as (if not more) important. I know that the non-AQ conferences want the opposite and are trying to break down the revenue and access gaps, yet the reality is that the only playoff proposals that have a snowball's chance in Hades of ever being agreed upon by the AQ conferences are the ones that are just as elitist in terms of access and money as the BCS system today.

You are completely correct and that is the exact reason why college football is the most corrupt sport in the world. Boxing and professional wrestling think college football should get their act together. If I tried to explain how this system works to someone who had never seen it their head would explode.

(12-17-2010 12:57 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(12-16-2010 01:15 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  This is an interesting new development in the push for a playoff...

ESPN: Mark Cuban exploring BCS alternative

I like it, but doesn't a Cuban controlled playoff face the same limitation from the NCAA as the BCS. Namely that the NCAA won't allow any type of playoff that they do not control ?

So, to implement a non-NCAA controlled playoff, whether it be through Cuban, or the BCS, all schools would have to agree to pull away from the NCAA for football. I'm not saying it won't happen but if it were going to happen, I think it would have happened years ago. More of the same old, same old.

The NCAA has absolutely no control over the bowl system, other than making rules for qualification. I don't see any problem. It would be like the NIT basketball tourney used to be when it was the premier event. A private tournament of the nation's best teams. The NCAA has only to start up its own officially sanctioned post-season tournament to relegate Cuban's tourney to historical status - just like the NCAA did with the NIT...

But worrying about whether the NCAA controls Cuban's tournament is ludicrous. The NCAA doesn't control sh!t in football. It never has. And if it tried to flex its muscle, another organization, like the old CFA, would soon be formed by those schools that prefer to ignore the NCAA (all BCS conference schools)...

Never underestimate the power of ego. In this case that ego belongs to Mike Slive and the rest of the SEC. How long are they going to tolerate being the nation's top conference but allowing the B10 to be the nation's wealthiest league? I'm skeptical that this will get done but a playoff of some sort is definitely coming down the tracks.

(12-16-2010 08:43 PM)Nola Gator Wrote:  I'm willing to post my law degree and other credentials against yours anytime.

Really this old gag. Jeez.

(12-17-2010 11:37 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Never underestimate the power of ego. In this case that ego belongs to Mike Slive and the rest of the SEC. How long are they going to tolerate being the nation's top conference but allowing the B10 to be the nation's wealthiest league? I'm skeptical that this will get done but a playoff of some sort is definitely coming down the tracks.

Common misperception #1: "The Big Ten and SEC are rivals."

On the field and between fans in the message board and blog world, yes. In terms of how bowl revenue is divided, though, absolutely not. They are 100% on the same page. Note that in Jim Delany's defense of the BCS system last week, he constantly referred to what the Big Ten and SEC want even more than talking about the Pac-10 and the Rose Bowl. Slive has proposed a plus-one, but that's a whole lot different than a playoff - he just wants to re-seed 4 teams that are currently in the BCS system. Do NOT take that to mean that the SEC would EVER want to grant a single iota of greater access to the non-AQ schools or a playoff system that removes the bowls. They're open to a plus-one type of system, but on their exclusive terms just like today's BCS system. A plus-one is a LOT different than a playoff in terms of structure and who controls the access and money. Note that for all of the talk about the Rose Bowl/Big Ten/Pac-10, the Big Ten and SEC have more bowl relationships than any other conferences. Just check out what you're going to be watching on New Year's Day this year before the Rose Bowl starts: three Big Ten vs. SEC games.

(12-17-2010 04:07 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-17-2010 11:37 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Never underestimate the power of ego. In this case that ego belongs to Mike Slive and the rest of the SEC. How long are they going to tolerate being the nation's top conference but allowing the B10 to be the nation's wealthiest league? I'm skeptical that this will get done but a playoff of some sort is definitely coming down the tracks.

Common misperception #1: "The Big Ten and SEC are rivals."

On the field and between fans in the message board and blog world, yes. In terms of how bowl revenue is divided, though, absolutely not. They are 100% on the same page. Note that in Jim Delany's defense of the BCS system last week, he constantly referred to what the Big Ten and SEC want even more than talking about the Pac-10 and the Rose Bowl. Slive has proposed a plus-one, but that's a whole lot different than a playoff - he just wants to re-seed 4 teams that are currently in the BCS system. Do NOT take that to mean that the SEC would EVER want to grant a single iota of greater access to the non-AQ schools or a playoff system that removes the bowls. They're open to a plus-one type of system, but on their exclusive terms just like today's BCS system. A plus-one is a LOT different than a playoff in terms of structure and who controls the access and money. Note that for all of the talk about the Rose Bowl/Big Ten/Pac-10, the Big Ten and SEC have more bowl relationships than any other conferences. Just check out what you're going to be watching on New Year's Day this year before the Rose Bowl starts: three Big Ten vs. SEC games.

Frank -- on a semi-related note, I enjoyed your latest blog post. That was great reading.

Really emphasizes my long-held view that if the non-AQs want a playoff, then "start a playoff, and even have the NCAA sanction it as a Division I FBS Playoff".

(12-17-2010 04:59 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  Frank -- on a semi-related note, I enjoyed your latest blog post. That was great reading.

Really emphasizes my long-held view that if the non-AQs want a playoff, then "start a playoff, and even have the NCAA sanction it as a Division I FBS Playoff".

I appreciate the kind words!

(12-17-2010 04:07 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Slive has proposed a plus-one, but that's a whole lot different than a playoff - he just wants to re-seed 4 teams that are currently in the BCS system. Do NOT take that to mean that the SEC would EVER want to grant a single iota of greater access to the non-AQ schools or a playoff system that removes the bowls. They're open to a plus-one type of system, but on their exclusive terms just like today's BCS system. A plus-one is a LOT different than a playoff in terms of structure and who controls the access and money.

It's no wonder that Slive wants a plus-one within the BCS. It would benefit the SEC more than anyone else. A four-team format would pretty much guarantee an SEC team in the "final four" every year, with the potential in almost any year for two SEC teams in the group of four with a shot at the title. Look at the final BCS standings for the last five years: At least one SEC team in the top four every year; two out of five years there were two SEC teams in the top four.

Cuban is a good business man. He simply sees a chance to put his hand in the $$$$ pot.