Keep this in mind about superconferences... | Page 2 | Syracusefan.com

Keep this in mind about superconferences...

College basketball's regular season wouldn't be so devalued if it were an 8 or 16 playoff. College football wouldn't and couldn't repeat that 64 team model.

Look, every BCS conference commissioner, and most college Presidents, have come to the conclusion I posted. People are free to argue with their logic, but that is what they believe and they will act accordingly.
 
Scooch, agree with the sentiment but eventually they will have to give in to public pressure. it only takes once jackass congressman to make a big issue of it.
 
Look, every BCS conference commissioner, and most college Presidents, have come to the conclusion I posted. People are free to argue with their logic, but that is what they believe and they will act accordingly.

whoa, thats a strong statement.

maybe the irrevelent bcs commissionsers like the ones of the bmw, acc and b12 have, but clearly the pac12 and sec havnt come to that conclussion or they wouldnt be entertaining 16 and the inevitable results that brings. my guess if a hypothetical vote occured, the b10 wouldve abstained and then gone with the pac12/sec coalition.

i cant fathom why the regular seasonwould no longer be a money making machine for them. they would simply be going to a model that you have heard before...one used by the NFL. i dont think the regular season there sucks nor do i only watch the bowl games now.

you would still have the networks showing games. you would still have the networks little brothers showing games. you would still have the regional networks showing games. and i would guess they would make all the regional networks available to anyone who wanted to pay for an out of market game. for example, apparently i have the longhorn network. watched the texas game yesterday. guess it was added to my FIOS sports tier. love it.

and to tristan love ya...but if you think tcu, sfu, storz freakin state, baylor, iowa st and for the sake of arguement byu, of the current bcs teams gets into the final 64 before SU...you need to lay off whatever theyre serving in Monte Carlo.

but yes syracusefaners...rutgers would be 'drafted' before SU.

:eek:
 
Look, every BCS conference commissioner, and most college Presidents, have come to the conclusion I posted. People are free to argue with their logic, but that is what they believe and they will act accordingly.
Further confirmation that these people are idiots. We already have a playoff with 2 teams. Every time we've had a 1 loss team in the national championship, the regular season was devalued. somehow a 2 team playoff is fine, but an 8 team playoff is no different than a 64 team playoff.
 
We already have a playoff with 2 teams. Every time we've had a 1 loss team in the national championship, the regular season was devalued.

The current two team playoff is supposed to match up the two best teams, as determined by the BCS. Since when does going undefeated automatically make you one of the two best.
 
Regardless of who controls the rights, the NFL regular season is not ruined by the playoffs. It is anything but obsolete. College would be the same - high interest in reg season, high interest in playoff. MUCH higher than BCS.
 
Regardless of who controls the rights, the NFL regular season is not ruined by the playoffs. It is anything but obsolete. College would be the same - high interest in reg season, high interest in playoff. MUCH higher than BCS.

Yes, but if the conferences can't cash in on that interest, they don't care. As always, this isn't about the money, it's about who GETS the money.
 
For those who think Rutgers would get an invite before Syracuse, I'm honestly just curious, why? Not trying to flame or instigate anything, I'm just legitimately curious as to why you folks think Rutgers is a "superior" candidate. I just don't see it.
 
Yes, but if the conferences can't cash in on that interest, they don't care. As always, this isn't about the money, it's about who GETS the money.

Why wouldn't the colleges get the money ?
 
Syracuse has the advantage over Rutgers in regards to the ACC. 3 of the 12 members are private institutions, its a basketball first conference, we play first class lacrosse. I believe if the ACC expanded into Big East the top 2 candidates would be Syracuse and Pittsburgh.
However, Rutgers is more appealing to the B1G than Syracuse. Rutgers is a public land grant university. 11 of the 12 members of the B1G are public land grant universities (Northwestern the exception) That is why the B1G would want Rutgers over Syracuse with that said, the B1G is not going to add anybody until Notre Dame joins the conference. If the B1G got Notre Dame as the 13th team you gotta believe Missouri would be 14th and if they wanted 16 teams then Maryland 15th and either Pittsburgh or Rutgers as 16th because as much as Rutgers tries to sell the NYC market when talking about themselves its just not there. Rutgers is in NJ not NY and they spew all about 2006 they want but that is 5 years ago and nobody cares I mean Cincinnati went to back to back BCS bowls and Rutgers acts like 2006 was a NC season and not anything more than a bowl win against Kansas State something we did last year.
 
If and when a few of them are formed, it means that there will never, ever, ever be a true playoff. At most you may see a +1, but that's it.

So if you want an 8 or 16 team playoff, and believe me that's a remote possibility anyway, you should be rooting against superconferences.

Nonsense. If we get four 16 team Superconference's they will break away from the NCAA and run their own playoff. That's the only reason we don't have one now: The conferences didn't want the NCAA running it. They will make far more money from a playoff than from the bowls.
 
Nonsense. If we get four 16 team Superconference's they will break away from the NCAA and run their own playoff. That's the only reason we don't have one now: The conferences didn't want the NCAA running it. They will make far more money from a playoff than from the bowls.

I think there's a huge misunderstanding about what the NCAA is. The NCAA isn't some third-party organization that manages these universities. In fact, 95% of the NCAA organizational structure is completely made up of committees of actual university presidents. There's a governance council -- presidents. There's a Division I council -- presidents. There are legislative committees which are made up of presidents. Rules committees (presidents). Other than the president and an executive committee, and some additional staff members for investigations/administration, the NCAA basically is just a bunch of presidents self-governing themselves.

So when people talk about how these schools are going to get away from the NCAA... it's kind of a misnomer. These schools basically ARE the NCAA.

I promise you, these schools aren't looking to leave. In fact, many of them are the ones suggesting widespread reform. Many of the major presidents were at the retreat a few weeks ago, the one organized by Mark Emmert, and were suggesting things like rules reform, D-1 playoff system, three subdivisions, etc. These people aren't looking to leave the NCAA. They are the NCAA. They're just going to have a bigger voting bloc going forward.
 
I think there's a huge misunderstanding about what the NCAA is. The NCAA isn't some third-party organization that manages these universities. In fact, 95% of the NCAA organizational structure is completely made up of committees of actual university presidents. There's a governance council -- presidents. There's a Division I council -- presidents. There are legislative committees which are made up of presidents. Rules committees (presidents). Other than the president and an executive committee, and some additional staff members for investigations/administration, the NCAA basically is just a bunch of presidents self-governing themselves.

So when people talk about how these schools are going to get away from the NCAA... it's kind of a misnomer. These schools basically ARE the NCAA.

I promise you, these schools aren't looking to leave. In fact, many of them are the ones suggesting widespread reform. Many of the major presidents were at the retreat a few weeks ago, the one organized by Mark Emmert, and were suggesting things like rules reform, D-1 playoff system, three subdivisions, etc. These people aren't looking to leave the NCAA. They are the NCAA. They're just going to have a bigger voting bloc going forward.

And yet we don't have a playoff because the NCAA would run it and the conferences don't want that. That's been confirmed in several columsn and interviews, including one with Jake Crouthamel.
 
It's only partially relevant, but I'd love to know what the preferred ranking of scenarios is of the SUAD and Board of Trustees.
 
And yet we don't have a playoff because the NCAA would run it and the conferences don't want that. That's been confirmed in several columsn and interviews, including one with Jake Crouthamel.

That's not why. It's no disrespect to Jake, but there are a number of reasons and that's not the main one.

Let me ask you this: do you think they're really going to miss out on 4-5 times more revenue just because they don't want the NCAA managing a playoff? That's not even remotely realistic if one really starts to think about it.

Jim Delany said in 2005 before Congress that there would be roughly four times as much money from a playoff than the BCS system. Even if the NCAA ran it, the additional monies would be overwhelming. If you ran a business and were making $100k per year, and someone came to you and said they would guarantee you making $400k a year net and all you had to do was let another person share in some additional revenue, would you really pass that up just so you can run it all to yourself? Maybe you would, maybe some others might, but most people would not.

While it's probably true the BCS was initially set up to avoid having the other FBS conferences getting a piece of the pie, the reason the BCS continues is because of the enormous job the bowls have done with their payola of athletic directors and presidents. Read Death to the BCS... it exposes the underbelly of the BCS and why it continues today. These guys are putting their own interests before the interests of schools. When it comes down to it, these presidents ARE the NCAA.

Again, let me reiterate this: the NCAA is going to three subdivisions most likely. It's been discussed for several months and was brought up again at this retreat last month. I promise you if this is passed, they'll scrap the BCS and go to a playoff. There's no other reason to go to three subdivisions.
 
Here's a thought I haven't seen addressed yet. If the Big-12 folds, does another conference come in to replace it, say the Mountain West? Is there a reason there are six BCS conferences, although my guess is those were simply the power conferences. If untimately this plays out with 6 superconferences of 16 teams you're pulling the vast majority of 1-A schools anyway.
 
6x16? Really?

As long as the BCS is in place, the AQ conference members are all about limiting the number of ways the pie is cut. They need a small majority to keep their power. 64 just does that. 72 (3x16 + 2x12) works as well, though it complicates a limited playoff (you might need the 2 12-team conferences to have a play-in game or let the polls decide). 96 is just too many.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
166,500
Messages
4,642,648
Members
5,880
Latest member
Ncountryfan

Online statistics

Members online
301
Guests online
1,060
Total visitors
1,361


Top Bottom