USAToday article discussing yesterday's BCS meeting at http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... g-format/1

The idea, suggested by some, that the AQ conferences would ever agree to eliminate AQ bids ignores the fact that this is virtually impossible to do. 5 of the 6 AQ conferences already have tie-ins with BCS bowls. There is no way to run the thing without honoring those tie-ins. The only conference that can be denied an AQ bid is the Big East & that could happen in this round - especially since Rutgers is the only school remaining in the Big Eat from the original group that was included among the AQ conferences when the BCS was formed.

The other factor in eliminating an AQ bid is that "undeserving" schools from the Big East & ACC are not the only ones who would face elimination in a bad year. The other conferences have at times also been in the same boat. Even if the Cotton Bowl were added as a 5th bowl, raising the total of partipants to 12, here are AQ conference champions who have finished outside the top 12 in BCS history:

1999/2000 - #24 Stanford (Pac Ten)
2000/2001 - #13 Purdue (Big Ten)
2001/2002 - #13 LSU (SEC)
2002/2003 - #14 Florida State (ACC)
2004/2005 - #13 Michigan (Big Ten)
2005/2006 - #22 Florida State (ACC)
2006/2007 - #14 Wake forest (ACC)
2007/2008 - #13 Illinois (Big Ten)
2008/2009 - #19 Virginia Tech (ACC)
2010/2011 - #13 Virginia Tech (ACC)
2011/2012 - #15 Michigan state (Big Ten)

So, even with the Big East excluded, almost every year there is a representative of the other conferences who has gained access to the BCS & has finished outside the top 12. If this year continues as the rankings stand today, the Big Ten champ will finish outside the top 12 for the 3rd time. There is no way that these conferences are going to agree to a system that excludes their champion even once - much less multiple times.

Also worth noting that in some of these cases, you are including schools on the list that were upset winners of a conference championship game where the conference also sent a top 10 school to the BCS in addition to the school listed above. And your list seems to be missing all the Big East times.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

ESPN article regarding some of the ideas discussed at this week's BCS meeting in SF.BCS Commissioners trying to come up with new model to present to BCS Presidents by next June.Their next meeting is in January.Link at http://espn.go.com/college-football/sto ... ources-say

SI with AP article with comments from Big Ten Commish and others regarding possible future changes to the BCS system at http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/f ... t=cf_t2_a3

Sac Bee article discussing possible future BCS changes at http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/04/416113 ... nefit.html

Article out of NO with comments from SBC Commish and others regarding Tuesday's BCS meeting to discuss possible future BCS changes.Link at http://www.nola.com/lsu/index.ssf/2012/ ... _near.html

NYTimes article discussing tomorrow's BCS meeting in New Orleans at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/sport ... eason.html

Cleveland paper with TSN reprint article discussing today's BCS meeting in New Orleans at http://www.cleveland.com/sports/index.s ... one_a.html

NYTimes article with update on today's BCS meeting in NO at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/sport ... ayoff.html

I've had lots of good conversation the past few months on the topic (albeit email based and using skype since I'm so far away), and it looks pretty solid that a change is coming. That hold-ups had been the Big ten and Pac-12 of the conferences that matter. But in the end, when you look at recent trends, and with both conferences now expanding to 12 and adding championship games, things have changed. It had been that both conferences were well positioned for 2 BCS spots each year due to the fact that there wasn't the "knock out" championship game that would lock up an additional Loss for one of the teams. That, and the trends have shown that due to the nature of the ranking system, the SEc is indeed favored since top to bottom, it's a tougher conference. In sum, if you're not in the SEC, you can have 1 loss and will likely be #3 in the BCS rankings if there is an undefeated SEC team and a 1 loss SEC team. So if you're #3, a +1 gives you a shot at the title, albeit a 1 loss Michigan, Ohio St., Wosconsin, Penn St., Oregon or USC team.

What I think needs to be done though is to preserve the existing bowls by highlighting them better. They really need to arrange it so that ALL non-BCS bowls are played no later than Jan 1st. It's pretty awful having Rose Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, etc on day and then having some RateMyPoo.com Bowl the day before the title game a week later, or some of the other bowls we saw. All eyes need to be on the best of the best. Staggering the BCS games is fine over the span of 2-3 days. But with the importance of 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3, those games should be highlight games, the only games played that day so everyone is watching.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

Agree with your comment about not allowing the crap bowls to extend beyond, say December 30th.

Problem is that these are certified by the NCAA, and most exist only so that ESPN has something to televise.
I think there are now perhaps 8-10 bowls that would not exist, if they weren't under-written by ESPN.

However, the NCAA is not part of the BCS arrangement.

I think all 11 conferences + Notre Dame are represented at the current BCS meetings, therefore only independents (BYU, Army, Navy) are not.
If this entire group comes up with something that is essentially supported by 117 of 120 FBS schools, could they then hand the operation over to the NCAA to run it ?
The NCAA is the logical organization, and nobody can say that they don't effectively "reel in the money" for "the big dance" in March...

Article from Memphis paper with comments from NCAA President concerning BCS situation at http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/20 ... es-playoff

So why did Mark Emmert talk about a 4-team playoff ?
He must have been given a "heads-up" that that format is likely to emerge as the winner from the BCS disccussions.

I THINK the NCAA by-laws state that for a playoff, at least half of the teams must be "at-large".
If I am correct, and the NCAA is to be the sponsor of this playoff (they are NOT currently the sponsor of the BCS National Championship Game),
there would likely be NO automatic qualifiers (AQ's) into the 4-team bracket.
Would there be an NCAA selection committee ? Or would the seeding be based on the current polls ?

USAToday article discussing possible future BCS changes at http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/ ... 52623072/1