NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Thu Nov 27, 2014 10:01 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: A BCS fix
PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 5:22 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 9:02 pm
Posts: 1476
Location: Richmond, Virginia
http://www.bcsfix.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: A BCS fix
PostPosted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 1:09 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 10:57 pm
Posts: 1292
Location: Portland! (and about time!)
Boise State needs USC more than USC needs Boise State.

The BCS can rig the system because Boise State's credibility hinges on being at the same "official" level as USC.

All the BCS schools have to do is leave the NCAA. They will take 90% of the fans with them, and they will hoard MORE money. The mid-majors will then be left to fight for scraps.

That's why there won't be much change.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: A BCS fix
PostPosted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 1:51 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1572
Agree, there is a BCS fix. Certain interests indeed are being protected.

First of all, I can understand the disappointment of Texas. However, if I had a vote, I would have also gave the edge to Oklahoma, ever so slightly.
I remember a few years back where Texas did get a break, and Mack Brown's lobbying and crying did pay off. Even with the latest, Texas does benefit from media points, i. e. big state, big name, big campus, better PR connections, huge and influential alumni, etc. (Oklahoma has it too, but perhaps not the level of Texas).
Texas may have a gripe about the BCS Championship game, but others from outside the Big 12, such as USC, Penn State, and Utah, have plausible arguments as well. Texas did not beat Texas Tech; it's the main factor that cost them. If the head-to-head argument is to be the major determinant, then the same principle should be applied to loses as well as wins.

Utah will get a BCS game, and deservingly. I would like to see Boise State and Ball State tangle on a neutral field with the pot sweetened; maybe the Independence Bowl can work that out. With all the conference tie-ins; the system has really compromised flexibility to enhance some premier match-ups, sometimes external to the BCS selection.

In terms of the Big East entry; I am glad to see Cincinnati make it. It's someone new, and shows the conference has respectable balance.

I don't want to see an Oregon State-Penn State rematch for the Rose Bowl. I expect it to be USC which should get high ratings.

12 team BCS conferences are very attractive for conference championship games when one or both competitors are on line for a BCS championship game bid. The FLA-ALA game will be huge. For the SEC, it could hardly be a much better set-up in terms of pre-bowl ratings. While a particular conference may theoretically have the top two teams in the country, bowls are not set-up, nor prefer, to match or re-match teams from the same conference, though there has been precedence, such as the Orange Bowl having a Nebraska--Oklahoma re-match decades ago, before the BCS was implemented.



Last edited by sec03 on Tue Dec 02, 2008 2:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: A BCS fix
PostPosted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 2:34 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1572
Lash, Panther, others on this topic---

The fundamental question is whether or not the Big East wants to change what they currently have. I do not see them doing so other than a few down-the-line messages coming occasionally from places such as West Virginia and Louisville, as Lash noted.

If the Big East ever decides to split/expand, their focus has to be "cultivation" rather than additions that are at the top levels in terms of name recognition and prior performance.
I find it hard to dismiss a school such as UCF in terms of potential. They could add a lot to the Big East in a number of dimensions. To expect a non-BCS school to exhibit BCS credentials beforehand, may be asking too much; particularly for any school east of the Mississippi River. Places such as BYU and Utah have it now, but geographically, they are beyond the BE reach.

Only Notre Dame would not need the cultivation. Navy and Army? We know that story and the elements involved. The focus has to be upon the "willing".

The BE is going to stay the course, and react when forced to by the situation at hand. It's their history; it's their pattern.

If in the unlikely event the BE was threatened in terms of their automatic BCS bid; they would find the innovation for change very quickly, though perhaps minimally. And that new school or schools, would be declared a "valued" addition(s) quiet nicely.



Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: A BCS fix
PostPosted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:37 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 10:22 am
Posts: 1030

sec03 wrote:
Lash, Panther, others on this topic---

The fundamental question is whether or not the Big East wants to change what they currently have. I do not see them doing so other than a few down-the-line messages coming occasionally from places such as West Virginia and Louisville, as Lash noted.

If the Big East ever decides to split/expand, their focus has to be "cultivation" rather than additions that are at the top levels in terms of name recognition and prior performance.
I find it hard to dismiss a school such as UCF in terms of potential. They could add a lot to the Big East in a number of dimensions. To expect a non-BCS school to exhibit BCS credentials beforehand, may be asking too much; particularly for any school east of the Mississippi River. Places such as BYU and Utah have it now, but geographically, they are beyond the BE reach.

Only Notre Dame would not need the cultivation. Navy and Army? We know that story and the elements involved. The focus has to be upon the "willing".



I understand what you are saying about BYU and Utah versus the BE candidates (i.e. cultivation).

IMO, it's the whole chicken versus the egg argument. In other words, do the universities have the commitment to excel in academics and athletics BEFORE coming to the BE without an invitation or do they NEED a BE invite before this stuff starts?

IMO, what the BE wants to do is to have the schools take the initiative upon themselves to improve their academics, facilities, attendance, etc. PRIOR to BE admission. UL was easy because of their committment to athletics prior to admission and they carried a decent brand name - at least on the BB side. IIRC, they had the highest non-BCS athletic budget (maybe BYU was bigger) prior to entering the BE. In other words, they didn't need the BE to do this themselves. Cincy started the $100 million 'Varsity Village' without BE admission and their President Zimpher has really started the initiative to improve academics - again prior to BE admission.

I think that the other schools who didn't get invited took notice and are doing what they can to improve themselves for the inevitable split and expansion.

I mean just take a look at what UCF is doing in terms of facilities. I have reservations with UCF at this point but that's just me. The obvious advantage for UCF is a travel partner for the BE's 'outlier'

I still think 2013 is the key date but that's JMO.


sec03 wrote:

The BE is going to stay the course, and react when forced to by the situation at hand. It's their history; it's their pattern.

If in the unlikely event the BE was threatened in terms of their automatic BCS bid; they would find the innovation for change very quickly, though perhaps minimally. And that new school or schools, would be declared a "valued" addition(s) quiet nicely.


I can't say I disagree with either statement. I will say however, while I can fault Tranghese for many things, I thought he did a good job of rebuilding the BE when it was left for dead.

And remember, it's up to the FB presidents to force the issue.


Last edited by panthersc97 on Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: A BCS fix
PostPosted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:39 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 10:22 am
Posts: 1030
I hope the BCS at least changes it so that ONLY conference champions can make the BCS title game. I realize there are problems with anything but that my 2 cents. JMO.......


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: A BCS fix
PostPosted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 6:29 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:04 pm
Posts: 407
Boise State needed to be in the BCS games this year; Ohio State out. Boise State was undefeated; Ohio State had two loses, to this year's Rose Bowl participants.

Ohio State is one of those schools the sports media adores. While they are usually very good each year, there's a persistent tendency to overrate them and assure they reach the highest bowl possible (including some nat'l championship games), with a tad of favoritism consistently injected.

If Penn State had OSU's record; with the OSU-PENN STATE score reversed; would Penn State be in the BCS this year? I have my doubts, even though Penn State's traveling fan base can match or exceed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A BCS fix
PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 11:11 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 11:15 pm
Posts: 261
Location: Louisville, KY
pounder wrote:
Boise State needs USC more than USC needs Boise State.

The BCS can rig the system because Boise State's credibility hinges on being at the same "official" level as USC.

All the BCS schools have to do is leave the NCAA. They will take 90% of the fans with them, and they will hoard MORE money. The mid-majors will then be left to fight for scraps.

That's why there won't be much change.


That also brings a whole lot of mess the BCS schools don't want to deal with. Losing out on March Madness money (the tournament will still be just fine without 4 of the conferences), the Pac-10 and Big 10 won't do this because of their philosophy of excellence in all sports, probably Title IX ramifications (or the negative perception from dropping other sports), since football will now be the main provider of money into the athletic program, and then the whole mess of the BE being a half-fb-playing/half-non-fb, not to mention a lot of those schools with FB in the Big East also have a rich basketball tradition, so they're not going to be as willing to jump to what would essentially be a 4-conference tournament.

That would leave you with the ACC, Big 12, and SEC. Great basketball there, but it won't draw nearly the interest nor the money, since you'd have a 36-team BCS, so your matchups would be VERY limited (it's pretty much a guarantee there would be no way in hell the NCAA would allow the rogue schools to play NCAA schools). Looking at it through pigskin-tinted lenses, yes, the BCS walking away could work. But when you sit back and look at the scheme of things, the BCS schools that would walk away have much more to lose than the NCAA, and it's almost guaranteed they would lose about as much as they would gain, if not more.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A BCS fix
PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 11:31 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 11:15 pm
Posts: 261
Location: Louisville, KY
sec03 wrote:
Lash, Panther, others on this topic---

The fundamental question is whether or not the Big East wants to change what they currently have. I do not see them doing so other than a few down-the-line messages coming occasionally from places such as West Virginia and Louisville, as Lash noted.

If the Big East ever decides to split/expand, their focus has to be "cultivation" rather than additions that are at the top levels in terms of name recognition and prior performance.
I find it hard to dismiss a school such as UCF in terms of potential. They could add a lot to the Big East in a number of dimensions. To expect a non-BCS school to exhibit BCS credentials beforehand, may be asking too much; particularly for any school east of the Mississippi River. Places such as BYU and Utah have it now, but geographically, they are beyond the BE reach.

Only Notre Dame would not need the cultivation. Navy and Army? We know that story and the elements involved. The focus has to be upon the "willing".

The BE is going to stay the course, and react when forced to by the situation at hand. It's their history; it's their pattern.

If in the unlikely event the BE was threatened in terms of their automatic BCS bid; they would find the innovation for change very quickly, though perhaps minimally. And that new school or schools, would be declared a "valued" addition(s) quiet nicely.


I absolutely disagree. If cultivation was one of the keys in a BE split/expansion, they would entice Georgetown and Villanova to move up to I-A, that way they get to keep high-quality basketball schools and add football schools. It's pretty safe to say there's no way in hades either school nor the BE is interested in doing that.

A lot of the problem is that people are looking at things like this just through the football scope, and they ignore a lot of other factors that are involved in expansion. The Big East doesn't want a football school for sake of football, the school also has to have good basketball and other quality sports, and I'm sure academics will also play into it unless they have something to put on the table that would be a boon to the conference (ie: South Florida keeping the FL player pipeline accessible).

Really UCF doesn't have anything to offer that USF already has, except Disney World. It's still a commuter school that plays mid-level football decently well, but they are lacking in a few other sports and don't have the academics yet to be attractive, and with USF still providing a gateway to Florida players, don't have that trump card. Memphis has the other credidentials, but really hasn't shown the commitment to football the BE is looking for. ECU doesn't quite have the other sports the BE is looking for either. The good news for the BE right now is that with the hoopla over the stadium construction at Rutgers, that probably puts enough doubt in the Big 10's mind that they aren't going anywhere, which keeps everything intact for the moment.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A BCS fix
PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 11:40 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 11:15 pm
Posts: 261
Location: Louisville, KY
And I will say this, anyone who says that the regular season wouldn't matter in a playoff needs to be smacked. Last time I checked, you had to be in the top two in your conference to get into the BCS, why would or should a playoff be any different?

Also, I say if there is a playoff, do it like the tournament, all 11 I-A conferences get in, leaving 5 at large spots, of which you have to be the second best team in a conference. And let a tournament committee decide who goes and who doesn't (also like in basketball), that way you get rid of the bias and ignorance of the pollsters. Since there are no actual conference tournaments, the regular season still matters plenty, as does who you play (ie: you would get more credit for losing a close game to a solid BCS or non-BCS I-A school than drubbing a bad I-AA school), you could entice schools to play less of the meaningless smackdowns.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 

cron




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group