(06-29-2012 07:35 PM)EerMeNow Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 06:17 PM)stever20 Wrote:  From everything they've posted, it's not going to be an open market system at all..

How is it not an open market system?

From what they've posted, a bowl wouldn't be able to pass up like last year Boise to get VT or Michigan. The access bowl teams will be selected by the committee.

(06-29-2012 07:39 PM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 07:32 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  An interesting stat about how the Big 5 stacks up in terms of overall programs from where the BCS AQ's did 10 years ago.

2013 (63 teams)
SEC (14)
ACC (14)
B1G (12)
PAC (12)
B12 (10)
ND (1)

2003 (63 teams)
SEC (12)
ACC (9)
B1G (11)
PAC (10)
B12 (12)
BE (8)
ND (1)

-If you're discounting the BE as among the Big Boys in 2013 than the Big 5 plus ND/BYU have exactly the same number of teams as 2003 WITH the Big East. Looking from this perspective the feeling has to lend itself that the traditional Big East, the conference that Miami FL was so excited about joining in 1991 is done as a big time conference.

-Its pretty much the same 64 teams as in 2003 except that Utah/TCU are in the club while Temple/Rutgers are now outside of it.

The new Big East is basically Conference USA circa 2003, plus a little more muscle in men's basketball (UConn, ND, Nova, GTown) than what it ever had before.

Odd thing is that some people believed C-USA was a power conference when it first formed. At worst it was a tweener with the Mountian West which is the spot the Big East sits it today.

To its credit, the new Big East doesn't have UAB, Tulane or Army dragging things down in football and has ND, UConn, GT, Nova in basketball instead of Southern Miss and East Carolina.

Then also all the football programs at the Texas and Florida schools have "matured" significantly in the last 10 years over what they were during the CUSA heyday.

The new BE is looking to pull off 8-10 million for its TV deal, which considering the marketplace now is equivalent to where the MWC/CUSA were with their 1 million per school deals in the late 90's....they just never advance from those numbers and have stagnated with the addition of MAC level programs.

(06-29-2012 06:48 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  And yet they really dont. Most years there will actually only be 3 at large spots. Five tie-ins, 4-playoff equals 9 of 12 slots already filled. Then a selection committee loaded heavily with biased Big-4/5 good ole boys will sit behind doors in a smokey back room and select what teams are 1-4 and what SEC/Big12/B1G teams will claim the 3 "at large" slots.

Why I can can see a non-Aq getting a bowl at least once during the 12 year run. No chance they ever sniff the playoff. Anyone claiming this offers more access is just pumping sunshine. The BCS has never willingly offered access and they are not about to start now. The only thing they did is remove the BIg East automatic access. Too many assume that means more non-AQ access. They are wrong. It means more Big-4/5 access.

I think for the non-AQs it will mean that teams that once could have made it from a lower rank (#10-#14) won't, but that teams ranked decently pretty much always will (#1-#9).

They made a point about having all conferences getting a representative on the committee. Practically the semi-finals will mostly be "big 5", but I think an undefeated from another conference stands a chance and would always make a BCS level bowl.

Even though we may only have 3 open spots some years, most the contract and semi-final teams will be top 12 (outside maybe one or two). No way does a #7 team for instance not make the top 3 committee choice in that bunch.

(06-29-2012 08:53 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 06:48 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  And yet they really dont. Most years there will actually only be 3 at large spots. Five tie-ins, 4-playoff equals 9 of 12 slots already filled. Then a selection committee loaded heavily with biased Big-4/5 good ole boys will sit behind doors in a smokey back room and select what teams are 1-4 and what SEC/Big12/B1G teams will claim the 3 "at large" slots.

Why I can can see a non-Aq getting a bowl at least once during the 12 year run. No chance they ever sniff the playoff. Anyone claiming this offers more access is just pumping sunshine. The BCS has never willingly offered access and they are not about to start now. The only thing they did is remove the BIg East automatic access. Too many assume that means more non-AQ access. They are wrong. It means more Big-4/5 access.

I think for the non-AQs it will mean that teams that once could have made it from a lower rank (#10-#14) won't, but that teams ranked decently pretty much always will (#1-#9).

They made a point about having all conferences getting a representative on the committee. Practically the semi-finals will mostly be "big 5", but I think an undefeated from another conference stands a chance and would always make a BCS level bowl.

Even though we may only have 3 open spots some years, most the contract and semi-final teams will be top 12 (outside maybe one or two). No way does a #7 team for instance not make the top 3 committee choice in that bunch.

It's still a bowl-based system. And the bowls do not exist to provide opportunities to anyone. They exist to perpetuate themselves by selling tickets and sponsorships, getting good TV ratings, and making enough money to pay the bowl administrators fat salaries and pay for all of those cruises, golf excursions, drinks, and lap dances.

If you want a system that looks more like the NCAA basketball tournament, which provides more opportunities for the little guys (although the hoops tournament selection process is far from perfect -- it is still heavily biased in favor of big names and favored conferences), then you have to take the bowls 100% out of the "playoff" system. Start a playoff of at least 8 teams, then call the bowls the football NIT and let them invite big names over better teams if that's what they want for their sideshow. But you have to push the bowls out and make them truly no more than a sideshow in order to get there.

(06-29-2012 10:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 08:53 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(06-29-2012 06:48 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  And yet they really dont. Most years there will actually only be 3 at large spots. Five tie-ins, 4-playoff equals 9 of 12 slots already filled. Then a selection committee loaded heavily with biased Big-4/5 good ole boys will sit behind doors in a smokey back room and select what teams are 1-4 and what SEC/Big12/B1G teams will claim the 3 "at large" slots.

Why I can can see a non-Aq getting a bowl at least once during the 12 year run. No chance they ever sniff the playoff. Anyone claiming this offers more access is just pumping sunshine. The BCS has never willingly offered access and they are not about to start now. The only thing they did is remove the BIg East automatic access. Too many assume that means more non-AQ access. They are wrong. It means more Big-4/5 access.

I think for the non-AQs it will mean that teams that once could have made it from a lower rank (#10-#14) won't, but that teams ranked decently pretty much always will (#1-#9).

They made a point about having all conferences getting a representative on the committee. Practically the semi-finals will mostly be "big 5", but I think an undefeated from another conference stands a chance and would always make a BCS level bowl.

Even though we may only have 3 open spots some years, most the contract and semi-final teams will be top 12 (outside maybe one or two). No way does a #7 team for instance not make the top 3 committee choice in that bunch.

It's still a bowl-based system. And the bowls do not exist to provide opportunities to anyone. They exist to perpetuate themselves by selling tickets and sponsorships, getting good TV ratings, and making enough money to pay the bowl administrators fat salaries and pay for all of those cruises, golf excursions, drinks, and lap dances.

If you want a system that looks more like the NCAA basketball tournament, which provides more opportunities for the little guys (although the hoops tournament selection process is far from perfect -- it is still heavily biased in favor of big names and favored conferences), then you have to take the bowls 100% out of the "playoff" system. Start a playoff of at least 8 teams, then call the bowls the football NIT and let them invite big names over better teams if that's what they want for their sideshow. But you have to push the bowls out and make them truly no more than a sideshow in order to get there.

I think this would be a great direction for college football to take.