(01-03-2018 02:38 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 02:29 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 11:56 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 03:12 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 01:25 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The system might suck but it sucks less than what it replaced. Under the original BCS UCF wouldn’t have played in a BCS game. The initial cutoff was 8th.
Prior to the BCS, UCF could have made it to 8th and not make a major bowl.
Under the BCS the non-AQ made much less, pre-BCS they got nothing from the major bowls.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Uh, actually "under the original BCS system," UCF WOULD have played in a "BCS Bowl" because the AAC was the successor to the Big East and was part of the contract. (See UCF playing in the Fiesta Bowl against Baylor the last year of the BCS).

That's not to say UCF would have had a shot at the BCS Championship Game. But you are incorrect with your premise.

Under the original BCS no UCF would not have made it because the schools that caused television to FORCE the other leagues and the bowls to accept the Big East as a part are not part of the league. AAC is much more CUSA than it is Big East.

If you think lineage is what matters you don't get how it works. Big East was in because of Miami, Syracuse, Pitt, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, BC, and Rutgers are why the Big East was in, not the patch on the uniform. Sure Temple is still around but Temple wasn't why the Big East was part of the BCS.

The AAC IS the legal successor to the old Big East. Your opinions on "lineage" are not relevant. The (new) Big East purchased the name from the Conference.

IF the old BCS were still in place, UCF would have had the bid. That's all that matters.

I think you are making a big assumption that I just don't believe is a valid one. Had the BCS continued after the breakup of the Big East, if it had not been replaced by the CFP I really doubt the other 5 conferences with autobids would have agreed to offer an autobid to the AAC in the new contract. The fact that they continued to allow it during the brief transition period between the BCS and the CFP has more to do with not wanting an ugly confrontation than with a desire to include what had essentially become C-USA v 2.0.

I agree with this. The AAC is the legal successor to the Big Eat football conference, but it is otherwise a new entity. The AAC keeps separate records for it's football league from the old Big East. For example, the all-time leading oassers, tacklers, receivers, rushers, etc. do not take into account what former Big East players did. It's only based on what has been done in that league since the fall of 2013.

Other leagues are legal successors to previous versions, but being a legal successor does not entitle a current version to the same reputation it once had. The SoCon of today is not the SoCon of the 1920's when Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and most of the SEC was in it. It's not the same as when all those ACC schools were in it. Its not even the same as when ECU, Davidson, Marshall, App State, and Georgia Southern were in it. The WAC isn't what it once was regardless of it having the same name and being the legal successor to the league that had Arizona, Arizona State, BYU, Utah, TCU, Boise, and many others.

A top-12 non-BCS team got automatic access to a BCS bowl. (or top-16, if ranked higher than a BCS champion).

Where would UCF have fallen under the old BCS formula? They're #10 in both the AP and Coaches polls. I assume the Harris Poll would have been in that range too. Where would the BCS computers place them? Almost certainly in the top-12.

So, even if the AAC isn't the Big East's legal successor and isn't a BCS conference, UCF would have qualified for a BCS bowl. Ironically, UCF may have kept Auburn out of the BCS bowl, depending on how the computer rankings placed Penn St. and Auburn.

(01-03-2018 04:51 AM)otown Wrote:  The NCAA sold their soul to the CFP.

The NCAA has nothing to do with the CFP.

(01-03-2018 03:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 04:51 AM)otown Wrote:  The NCAA sold their soul to the CFP.

The NCAA has nothing to do with the CFP.

This.

All the whining about the NCAA is misplaced as they don't host the playoffs at all or have any say in how it's run. It's a separate entity created by the FBS schools.

Oh and before more whining of "they should take it back and force the P5 to participate in a 16 team playoff" is really just asking how quick would the P5 leave the NCAA and form their own athletics association reducing the NCAA to NAA status

(01-03-2018 02:29 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 11:56 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 03:12 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 01:25 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The system might suck but it sucks less than what it replaced. Under the original BCS UCF wouldn’t have played in a BCS game. The initial cutoff was 8th.
Prior to the BCS, UCF could have made it to 8th and not make a major bowl.
Under the BCS the non-AQ made much less, pre-BCS they got nothing from the major bowls.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Uh, actually "under the original BCS system," UCF WOULD have played in a "BCS Bowl" because the AAC was the successor to the Big East and was part of the contract. (See UCF playing in the Fiesta Bowl against Baylor the last year of the BCS).

That's not to say UCF would have had a shot at the BCS Championship Game. But you are incorrect with your premise.

Under the original BCS no UCF would not have made it because the schools that caused television to FORCE the other leagues and the bowls to accept the Big East as a part are not part of the league. AAC is much more CUSA than it is Big East.

If you think lineage is what matters you don't get how it works. Big East was in because of Miami, Syracuse, Pitt, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, BC, and Rutgers are why the Big East was in, not the patch on the uniform. Sure Temple is still around but Temple wasn't why the Big East was part of the BCS.

The AAC IS the legal successor to the old Big East. Your opinions on "lineage" are not relevant. The (new) Big East purchased the name from the Conference.

IF the old BCS were still in place, UCF would have had the bid. That's all that matters.

A conference consisting of the current AAC members would not have been given auto inclusion when the BCS buster requirement was 8. That's silliness and you are straining at gnats to prove a bad point.

(01-03-2018 03:37 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 03:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 04:51 AM)otown Wrote:  The NCAA sold their soul to the CFP.

The NCAA has nothing to do with the CFP.

This.

All the whining about the NCAA is misplaced as they don't host the playoffs at all or have any say in how it's run. It's a separate entity created by the FBS schools.

Oh and before more whining of "they should take it back and force the P5 to participate in a 16 team playoff" is really just asking how quick would the P5 leave the NCAA and form their own athletics association reducing the NCAA to NAA status

How about cities that hosts p5 schools make demand that their local city schools play in those bowl games? You do have P5 schools playing in bowls in cities of G5 schools. San Antonio is one of those cities could forced the P5 schools.

(01-03-2018 03:49 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 03:37 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 03:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 04:51 AM)otown Wrote:  The NCAA sold their soul to the CFP.

The NCAA has nothing to do with the CFP.

This.

All the whining about the NCAA is misplaced as they don't host the playoffs at all or have any say in how it's run. It's a separate entity created by the FBS schools.

Oh and before more whining of "they should take it back and force the P5 to participate in a 16 team playoff" is really just asking how quick would the P5 leave the NCAA and form their own athletics association reducing the NCAA to NAA status

How about cities that hosts p5 schools make demand that their local city schools play in those bowl games? You do have P5 schools playing in bowls in cities of G5 schools. San Antonio is one of those cities could forced the P5 schools.

So let me get this straight.

The city of San Antonio which depends on tourism events like the Alamo Bowl would pressure Valero to redo the Alamo Bowl contract so they could have demanded that the PAC send 9-3 Stanford to play 6-5 UTSA who struggles to draw flies in their own hometown instead of nationally ranked 10-2 TCU?

I mean it's not like that would totally kill the Alamo Bowl as money maker at all

(01-03-2018 04:56 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 03:49 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 03:37 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 03:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 04:51 AM)otown Wrote:  The NCAA sold their soul to the CFP.

The NCAA has nothing to do with the CFP.

This.

All the whining about the NCAA is misplaced as they don't host the playoffs at all or have any say in how it's run. It's a separate entity created by the FBS schools.

Oh and before more whining of "they should take it back and force the P5 to participate in a 16 team playoff" is really just asking how quick would the P5 leave the NCAA and form their own athletics association reducing the NCAA to NAA status

How about cities that hosts p5 schools make demand that their local city schools play in those bowl games? You do have P5 schools playing in bowls in cities of G5 schools. San Antonio is one of those cities could forced the P5 schools.

So let me get this straight.

The city of San Antonio which depends on tourism events like the Alamo Bowl would pressure Valero to redo the Alamo Bowl contract so they could have demanded that the PAC send 9-3 Stanford to play 6-5 UTSA who struggles to draw flies in their own hometown instead of nationally ranked 10-2 TCU?

I mean it's not like that would totally kill the Alamo Bowl as money maker at all

Actually, UTSA does draw very large crowds to watch UTSA to play against P5 schools. UTSA against Oklahoma State with camera angles showed that the stadium was packed. UTSA against a team like Georgia State? No crowds want to watch a wrecking ball of Georgia State.

Piggybacking on other bigger fan bases doesn't count. Their average attendance is 30k which may be a big deal to you but I promise you it's not. And again you didn't answer the question. Do you seriously think San Antonio would kill one of its biggest tourism events of the year for UTSA football, a total non-entity in San Antonio's Public Awareness

(01-03-2018 06:16 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Piggybacking on other bigger fan bases doesn't count. Their average attendance is 30k which may be a big deal to you but I promise you it's not. And again you didn't answer the question. Do you seriously think San Antonio would kill one of its biggest tourism events of the year for UTSA football, a total non-entity in San Antonio's Public Awareness

You think teams like Baylor, Texas Tech, etc will draw that many fans after a few seasons of playing the likes of UTSA at home in Waco and Lubbock? The P5 is already a charity of the bottom half piggybacking the top half.

Thats not answering the question either

Why would San Antonio destroy a profitable tourist event to benefit a team most people in San Antonio simply don't care about?