BCS and the Big East

[matcuse]

espn is reporting that bcs might change the format and just pick #1 and #2 and sever their ties with the other bowls and just sponser the National title game, if thats the case why would byu and boise st even bother moving or any other team

 

[MaxwellCuse]

I still think the Big East would be better off if they just invited Navy, UCF, Temple and UMASS, upgraded Nova and invited Butler. Rutgers might then have a chance to win the conference every 5 or 6 years.

 

[Stern]

espn is reporting that bcs might change the format and just pick #1 and #2 and sever their ties with the other bowls and just sponser the National title game, if thats the case why would byu and boise st even bother moving or any other team

The BCS is going to do this and it kills every small conference and non AQ conference. Now everyone fends for themselves, no handouts. No freebies. It also means Notre Dame will NEVER EVER EVER have to join a conference. They can stay independent forever and keep all the other sports in the Big East.

It also means Big East Football doesn't have to do much really because they won't get a tie-in with the Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, or Rose Bowl. So if they have 8 teams, 10, 12 teams,...it doesn't matter. Add Boise and a major bowl STILL won't give them a tie-in. Why would they? And Boise won't come because they have no reason too now! The Rose goes back to Pac 12 vs Big 10. The Sugar, Orange, and Fiesta will have 1 tie in with the SEC, ACC, or Big 12 and have one at large spot for ND, Boise on a good year (or any school of that liking), or an at large from a major conference.

And the Big East Football conference Champ every year can go have fun heading to the Beef O Grady Bowl or the Car Care bowl or whatever. Sure its possible for a Big East school to get an at large spot, but lets be honest...it probably ain't ever happening!!!! Big East football is now officially over with this news!

 

[SWC75]

I always hated that the BCS split a division in half, turning it into the "ins" and "outs". Teams should get top bowl spots just based on their ranking, no matter what conference they are in. Then the conferences might make some geographical sense.

 

[Stern]

I always hated that the BCS split a division in half, turning it into the "ins" and "outs". Teams should get top bowl spots just based on their ranking, no matter what conference they are in. Then the conferences might make some geographical sense.

Doing it this way will be worse for someone like you who wants that. This makes the current system "likable". These current non AQ conference will have to fend for themselves now, including a conference like the Big East. Lets be honest, the Fiesta will have a tie in with the Big 12 and have 1 at large. the Orange will have a tie-in with the ACC and have an at large. And the Sugar will tie in with the SEC and have and at large. With 3 at large/open spots. You could have 2 SEC schools and ND take an at large spot. Or whatever combination you want to come up with. If the game is meaningless and there are no rules or pecking order as to who these 3 bowls have to take or forced to take this team...then its about taking the team that will bring in the most money. Leaving out every Big East school, leaving out many smaller schools in the "major conferences" who don't travel well, and even hurting a team like Boise. I mean who ya taking a 11-0 Boise team or a 8-3 Notre Dame. Or a 9-2 Ohio St team...a school like Boise is dead with this new rule. If not forced nobody is going to take them now. Boise can go 11-0, NOT be in the Top 2 of the BCS, so it takes them out of the national title. And since none of the major bowls are forced to take them, they can go play in some garbage bowl and make zero money in a joke of a game vs the 2nd team out of the Mountain West or something.

 

[SWC75]

Doing it this way will be worse for someone like you who wants that. This makes the current system "likable". These current non AQ conference will have to fend for themselves now, including a conference like the Big East. Lets be honest, the Fiesta will have a tie in with the Big 12 and have 1 at large. the Orange will have a tie-in with the ACC and have an at large. And the Sugar will tie in with the SEC and have and at large. With 3 at large/open spots. You could have 2 SEC schools and ND take an at large spot. Or whatever combination you want to come up with. If the game is meaningless and there are no rules or pecking order as to who these 3 bowls have to take or forced to take this team...then its about taking the team that will bring in the most money. Leaving out every Big East school, leaving out many smaller schools in the "major conferences" who don't travel well, and even hurting a team like Boise. I mean who ya taking a 11-0 Boise team or a 8-3 Notre Dame. Or a 9-2 Ohio St team...a school like Boise is dead with this new rule. If not forced nobody is going to take them now. Boise can go 11-0, NOT be in the Top 2 of the BCS, so it takes them out of the national title. And since none of the major bowls are forced to take them, they can go play in some garbage bowl and make zero money in a joke of a game vs the 2nd team out of the Mountain West or something.

How about using the BCS rankings to determine the pairings for all major college bowls, with no automatic qualifiers?

 

[Stern]

How about using the BCS rankings to determine the pairings for all major college bowls, with no automatic qualifiers?

FOR EXAMPLE: Why would a bowl played played in Florida (lets say the Orange Bowl) why should they be FORCED to take a team or 2 teams they don't want or that won't travel? The people putting on the bowl are putting lots and lots of money, now you want to PUNISH them by giving them lets say for arguments sake a Stanford vs Boise St game because the BCS rankings say they deserve to play in that game. It makes NO FRIGGIN SENSE! Stanford and Boise fans are upset they gotta travel across the country and spend thousands of dollars to see their team in a bowl game. The Bowl is upset because they got 2 teams from across the country playing in a game where a small fraction of their fans will come see and be totally fish out of water playing each other on the opposite coast. But hey, Joe Q. Fan sitting at home who is watching the game for free and has put up no money and taking no risk is happy because that's the "FAIR" Match-Up for a Bowl Game according to the rankings. Are you serious?!

People forget, aside from the BCS Title game, every other bowl game has zero meaning. They are being played to make money and not to reward the best teams or put on the best possible game. Why do you think these bowls have Tie-In's with conferences? Because they want teams in the general area of their bowls playing in them, at least in the same time-zone roughly. Doing it the way you want would create the biggest pig fu*k out there. You could have Auburn vs Miami in the Rose Bowl playing in Pasadena. And then have Stanford vs Boise playing at 5pm west coast time when people are still at work. And you WANT that system??? Because it uses the BCS Rankings as fairness? Come on!

 

[SWC75]

FOR EXAMPLE: Why would a bowl played played in Florida (lets say the Orange Bowl) why should they be FORCED to take a team or 2 teams they don't want or that won't travel? The people putting on the bowl are putting lots and lots of money, now you want to PUNISH them by giving them lets say for arguments sake a Stanford vs Boise St game because the BCS rankings say they deserve to play in that game. It makes NO FRIGGIN SENSE! Stanford and Boise fans are upset they gotta travel across the country and spend thousands of dollars to see their team in a bowl game. The Bowl is upset because they got 2 teams from across the country playing in a game where a small fraction of their fans will come see and be totally fish out of water playing each other on the opposite coast. But hey, Joe Q. Fan sitting at home who is watching the game for free and has put up no money and taking no risk is happy because that's the "FAIR" Match-Up for a Bowl Game according to the rankings. Are you serious?!

People forget, aside from the BCS Title game, every other bowl game has zero meaning. They are being played to make money and not to reward the best teams or put on the best possible game. Why do you think these bowls have Tie-In's with conferences? Because they want teams in the general area of their bowls playing in them, at least in the same time-zone roughly. Doing it the way you want would create the biggest pig fu*k out there. You could have Auburn vs Miami in the Rose Bowl playing in Pasadena. And then have Stanford vs Boise playing at 5pm west coast time when people are still at work. And you WANT that system??? Because it uses the BCS Rankings as fairness? Come on!

Why do tie-ins with conferecnes produce better results than seeded match-ups? That's out of their control, too.

 

[Stern]

Why do tie-ins with conferecnes produce better results than seeded match-ups? That's out of their control, too.

No its not, tie-in's are total control. The Orange Bowl knows 10 times out of 10 they are going to have the ACC champ in their game (short of the ACC champ being #1 or #2). That's what the bowl wants, that's what the ACC teams want. Everyone is happy. Same with the SEC and Sugar Bowl. Fiesta and Big 12. And of course the Rose with their deal. Under the scenario YOU are proposing, they are sending schools all over the place with no logic behind it. Just based on a computer printout. Teams ranked 5 and 6 go to the Orange. Ok, Stanford and Boise you pack up for South Florida. WHAT???? 3 vs 4 go to the Rose, ok Auburn and Florida St, that's you pack for Pasadena. That makes zero sense. You remove ALL the human element from the equation with your scenario.

 

[Madbiker]

Let's face it, what the bowls really want is to be free to choose from the ultra elite football factory schools...Ohio St, LSU, Alabama, Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, USC, Florida St., ND. Most other schools would never get a chance unless they have a once a century year and go undefeated. If this goes through Big East football is defunct and frankly so is ACC football. Forget about ever seeing a real playoff. The same dozen schools will always "own" the BCS bowls.

 

[obliterata]

I still think the Big East would be better off if they just invited Navy, UCF, Temple and UMASS, upgraded Nova and invited Butler.

If I was the Big East I'd add Memphis and the $100,000,000 the FedEx honcho said he'd give to the BCS conference with an AQ that added the Tigers. Then I'd use the money to hopefully attract a big time football school.

Maybe give $70 mil to Oklahoma and $10 mil each to Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Kansas St. Or maybe give it all to Texas, LSU, or Florida. Or maybe go after FSU or another ACC school or two. Or maybe give it all to Notre Dame to join for all sports. Or try something else.

 

[kingottoiii]

This is great news and the way it should be. I liked the old Bowl system better. Never understood why the BCS was for anything but 1 vs 2. So now we will have...

Rose P12 1 or 2 vs B1G 1 or 2
Sugar SEC 1 or 2 vs ND or 2/3 from P12, ACC, B1G, or B12
Orange ACC 1 or 2 vs ND or 2/3 from P12, SEC, B1G, or B12
Fiesta B12 1 or 2 vs ND or 2/3 from P12, ACC, B1G, or SEC
NCG BCS 1 vs BCS 2

This will make it almost impossible for a non Big 5 conference team to get to one of the big boy Bowls. They would have to go undefeated to get taken. Which means those schools are stuck playing in shitty Bowls and get little to no money. This also gives the B12 incentive to go back to 12. Texas can lose the B12 CG and end up 10-3 and will still make a major Bowl. They no longer need to be highly ranked in the BCS to get there.

The only issue I see is money. Currently the Rose, Sugar, Orange, and Fiesta pay out around $15 million to each team. That is because they are all part of the BCS and the money is distributed amongst all 5 games. Without the BCS won't those payouts drop to $5-10 million for the big 4 Bowls? And the NCG go up? Will TV networks buy the rights for those Bowls for the same as they do now if they are buying individual games and not a bundle?

 

[SWC75]

[oquote="Stern, post: 81971"]No its not, tie-in's are total control. The Orange Bowl knows 10 times out of 10 they are going to have the ACC champ in their game (short of the ACC champ being #1 or #2). That's what the bowl wants, that's what the ACC teams want. Everyone is happy. Same with the SEC and Sugar Bowl. Fiesta and Big 12. And of course the Rose with their deal. Under the scenario YOU are proposing, they are sending schools all over the place with no logic behind it. Just based on a computer printout. Teams ranked 5 and 6 go to the Orange. Ok, Stanford and Boise you pack up for South Florida. WHAT???? 3 vs 4 go to the Rose, ok Auburn and Florida St, that's you pack for Pasadena. That makes zero sense. You remove ALL the human element from the equation with your scenario.[/quote]

Logic and bowls in the same sentence.

How about a system that gets us the 1 vs. 2 game and then organizes the bowls geographically and uses the BCS system to rank the teams in each section and then pairs the teams in each region by their ranking. That eliminates the travel problem and still gives us a merit-based system.

 

[syracuse95]

So, in other words, we're reverting back to the Bowl Alliance of the late 90's.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

 

[Stern]

Logic and bowls in the same sentence.

How about a system that gets us the 1 vs. 2 game and then organizes the bowls geographically and uses the BCS system to rank the teams in each section and then pairs the teams in each region by their ranking. That eliminates the travel problem and still gives us a merit-based system.

Why would the bowls go for that? They are putting up the money let them take WHO they want! They shouldn't be handcuffed in anyway

 

[SWC75]

Why would the bowls go for that? They are putting up the money let them take WHO they want! They shouldn't be handcuffed in anyway

They are taking in the money from the schools and the fans. Why should the tail wag the dog?

 

[Stern]

They are taking in the money from the schools and the fans. Why should the tail wag the dog?

If they don't put up the money there is no game to be played. You do understand that

 

[Madbiker]

What the bowls want are regional schools that are reasonably close so their fans will attend. That's why they are so against a national playoff system. A return to this just screws the Big East even more. The only reason the Big East ever was given an AQ in the first place was due solely to the expectation the Miami would be the representative 4 of every 5 years so the Orange Bowl was happy.

 

[SWC75]

If they don't put up the money there is no game to be played. You do understand that

I read the Sports Illustrated article on the bowls last eyar. They are basically leaches who drain the schools by making them buy more tickets than they will ever sell in exchange for the school having what Coach Mac called "Bowl Credibilty". They are creatures of the NCAA and their existance is dependent on being sancitoned by the NCAA, which should get rid of about 2/3 of them.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1183842/index.htm

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1177192/index.htm