We know what's going on in terms of what's happening in the BE, we know VT got the invite to the ACC because Virginia goverment applied political pressure to UVA. Last night, I realized something, could state goverment apply pressure to the BE schools to admit another state school, such as West Virginia goverment applying pressure to WVU to add Marshall to the BE? Or Penn. goverment applying pressure to Pitt to reinvite Temple. Very interesting if you asked me. Who knows if that happens.

Temple, Pitt, Penn State, and Lincoln Universities in Pennsylvania are STATE RELATED and NOT state owned and operated. The Commonwealth has representation on their Board of Trustees, and receive considerable state revenue, each has a major degree of independence. The Pennsylvania legislature tried to get involved in the Pitt-PSU series once, and was basically told to stay out of it by Penn State. Penn State may rule the Legislature rather than the other way around.

There are 14 state colleges and university in Pennsylvania that are totally state owned and operated. They play Division II and make up the Pennsylvania Athletic Conference.

The level of political pressure in terms of college athletics varies and depends on a multitude of factors. For example, the Arkansas legislature is probably in no hurry to pressure the Razorbacks to play Arkansas State. The Mississiippi Legislature is not forcing Miss State and Ole Miss play Southern Miss or the Alabama legislature forcing Alabama or Auburn play UAB or Troy State.

LA-Lafayette wanted to go by the University of Louisiana when it changed its name SW LA. LSU forces haulted that from happening.

Maybe Marshall has some pull in West Virginia, but not enough to overcome the WVU alumni, including law school graduates, that are within or influence the governing bodies of the State.

VPI is another matter. It exploited the ACC expansion stalemate at the right moment, and the BE football 6 lawsuit gave them a political opening. They played it well.

i think the only politics involved in the big east now is the football party , the bball party, and the notre dame party.

Associated Press

CHICAGO -- Saying they made "significant progress" but reached no agreements, BCS representatives met with presidents from the five football conferences who feel they have been shut out of the system.


The two sides met for four hours on Monday in a conference room near O'Hare International Airport to discuss possible changes to the postseason format.


They emerged from the closed-door session optimistic that a resolution could be reached in the coming months -- but declined to offer any specifics.


Recently, presidents from the five Division I-A conferences not represented by the BCS have called for an overhaul to the system.


They say it's unfair to smaller schools -- who have little chance at reaching the national championship game -- and severely limits their opportunities at playing in a big-money bowl game.


Tulane President Scott Cowen, one of the most vocal critics of the current format, said BCS representatives seemed willing to at least consider proposed changes to the postseason system.


"I think they're very open to possible change, I really do," Cowen said. "Have they made commitments today? No. And I wouldn't if I were on their side. But that willingness is there."


The BCS was created in 1998 by the six largest football conferences -- the Pacific-10, Big 12, Big Ten, Atlantic Coast, Southeastern and Big East. It guarantees the champions of those conferences will play in one of the four most lucrative postseason bowl games, leaving two at-large berths for schools like Tulane.

Money, exposure and a shot at the national championship are the biggest issues. The BCS bowls generate more than $100 million a year for the big conferences. The BCS gives about $8 million a year to the schools from the other five conferences.


"If we can make some marginal improvements that will help them a little bit, I think we're interested in doing that," Nebraska-Lincoln Chancellor Harvey Perlman said. "I think everyone is realistic that there isn't anything we can do ... that is going to solve all the problems of the world. I think they are realistic about that as we are."


One possibility is adding a championship game after the four BCS games, and adding another game to the system to give schools from smaller conferences a better chance to get into major bowls.


The sides meet again on Nov. 16 in New Orleans.


"We didn't get all the way there today," said Oregon President David Frohnmayer, a committee member. "We'll see this play out when we actually try to move from the level of exalted principles and important values, which is a process we need to go through, down to saying, 'Now how do the pieces really move?'


"And we're not there yet."


To back up his claim that change is needed, Cowen points out that Tulane went 11-0 during the 1998 season but failed to qualify for any of the BCS bowls. Tulane played in the Liberty Bowl, where it received millions less than it might have in a BCS bowl.


However, in the 20 years before the BCS started, only one school other than independent Notre Dame not currently in the six conferences played in one of the series' four bowls.


In addition to Tulane's Conference USA, the other leagues represented at the meeting were the Mountain West, Mid-American, Sun Belt and Western Athletic.


Frohnmayer said presidents on both sides are fully aware that whatever shape the postseason format takes, it most certainly will influenced by what fans and TV networks want.


"I don't think any of us are flying under false colors," Frohnmayer said. "If the market reacts positively to something that we think has value, that's a win for everybody. If a market rejects certain avenues, they won't fly."


The current BCS contract expires after the 2005 season.

LOL, not without a BCS SOS they won't!




Two words....conference affiliation.

Regardless of the issue of conference affiliation, it can be stated for the record that the current "non-BCS" schools have more guarantees in the way of playing in a BCS-level bowl, which obviously is not saying a whole hell of a lot. Florida State is one school that undoubtedly propelled itself from "non-BCS" status to BCS-level status as an Independent, and without much argument it can be asserted that the ACC began to operate at the level of Big Ten, Pac-10, SEC, etc., by virtue of Florida State's membership. I don't necessarily know that the same can be said of Miami in regards to the (current) BIG EAST (save me the drama Clemson fans). Alas, FSU is defintely a rare exception (as is Miami), and its rise took place during a period when non-Notre Dame Independents were not persona non grata.

Nevertheless, it must be conceded that Louisville, BYU, Tulane, etal can make more of a tangible argument that they now are able to compete at the "highest level" than before, which as I said earlier, is not saying a whole hell of lot, considering notoriously overlapping and contradictory BCS rules, most notably the "Top Six," "Notre Dame," and "3/4" provisions in place under the BCS framework.

It will again be stated that Louisville's appearance in the Fiesta Bowl took place under the irreplaceable set of circumstances and that, after foregoing an automatic bid to the Holiday Bowl for its champion in 1985 (the year following BYU's undefeated season), the WAC returned to the Holiday Bowl in 1986 after it realized that no one (at least not at the then-Big Five bowls) was going to be recognizing a national power status for Air Force or BYU anytime soon. For the record, Air Force finished with one loss that year (1985), and wound up going to the moribund Bluebonnet Bowl as opposed to say the Cotton or the Fiesta (the Cotton Bowl took an 8-3 Auburn team by virtue of the fact that if featured Heisman Trophy winner Bo Jackson).

The only real record that I can think of where "non-BCS" teams advanced to "BCS-level" bowls (post-1960s/early 70s) are three instances involving ACC teams, prior to the addition of Florida State, namely Clemson (1981, Orange Bowl, undefeated season), Maryland (1976, Cotton Bowl, undefeated regular season) and Virginia (1990, Sugar Bowl, 8-1 record at time invitation was accepted, lost final two games; 1990 was a bizarre season on many levels in college football perhaps epitomized by the fact that the recognized AP champion, Colorado, finished 11-1-1, and featured an infamous "victory" at Missouri; also note that UVA didn't wind up becoming ACC champion that year, UPI champ Georgia Tech did--however, at the time the Sugar Bowl issued its invitation, the ACC Championship was still up for grabs, with GT holding the tie-breaker over UVA but only leading by a half-game(?) in ACC standings: GT had defeated UVA, but tied UNC). While those teams (Clemson, Maryland, Virginia) are all BCS teams now, it is arguable that they were not "BCS-level" at the time of their bowl appearances, but then again, the lines were not drawn as distinctly then as they are now in that regard. This was an era where nothing was guaranteed for the ACC, case in point that in 1979, the ACC champion (NC State) did not go to a bowl, the 1980 champion (one-loss North Carolina) went to the Bluebonnet Bowl, and the 1981 champion (Clemson) went to the Orange Bowl (could this have happened if Clemson had not defeated consensus #2 Georgia??) and undoubtedly this was predicated on its status as being the only undefeated at the end of the regular season...if say, Penn State and Alabama were also undefeated, Clemson would have been SOL (also see BYU, 1984). d**n that post was long, but I hope it is informative and provides context.

Let's face, the non-BCS conference that made the most relative noise in non-conference I-A games over the weekend was the A-10 Football Conference, which actually competes in I-AA. Villanova beat Temple, New Hampshire lost at Central Michigan by a touchdown, and William & Mary did not get as destroyed at Western Michigan as they could have (hear me out on this). Note also the further degrading effect of EMU, as the Eagles nee Hurons lost at home to a I-AA opponent for the second consecutive year (2002-SEMO, 2003-Western Illinois).

While C-USA had Memphis' win over Ole Miss, it also had Tulane's 27-24 OT thriller over NORTHWESTERN STATE!

Okay, fine I issue a slight retraction, the Mountain West was impressive over the weekend (AFA won at Northwestern, CSU won at Cal, Utah and SDSU played A&M and Ohio State, respectively, down to the wire on the road).

The performance by the Sun Belt was just plain embarassing. Sure UNT blowing out Baylor looks good, but the the SBC went 1-2 against I-AA schools! Arkansas State did beat Tennessee-Martin (aren't they eyeing non-scholarship I-AA?) and New Mexico State did beat D-II Western New Mexico, but the "weak sisters" (the term is very, very relative) of Idaho and ULM went down to Eastern Washington and Nicholls State, respectively in games that still should be played as the conference match-ups they once were.

Sorry Fresno State fans, but that win over Oregon State (again) is far overshadowed by UTEP's home blowout loss to Cal Poly. Ten years ago, UTEP was in a WAC that featured the core of the current Mountain West and Cal Poly was in D-II. Even three years ago, UTEP somehow managed to become a WAC tri-champ along with Fresno State and TCU. I hope that the proponents of "UTEP to the Big XII" remain silent on the issue for a long, long time after Saturday's performance.

All apologies to the Mountain West faithful...it was a nice weekend. Keep up the good work, and stay firm on the issue of expansion for expansion's sake.

Oh, I should have also offered to kudos to the emaciated Southland (Nicholls State, Northwestern State).

What exactly were we supposed to get from those last three posts Publius? ???

Non-BCS schools have more actual guarantees in the way of obtaining a major bowl bid now than they ever did before (which still isn't saying a whole hell of a lot, considering). In light of Congressional hearings on the BCS, all non-BCS conferences (with the exception of the Mountain West) didn't exactly put forth their best effort over the weekend, to justify any inclusion (esp. Sour-Grapes University, aka Tulane). Before the BCS, teams that would now be considered "non-BCS" had no actual guarantees what so ever in the way of obtainining a berth in one of the four (then five) major bowls; now the non-BCS schools have the recourse of the "Top 6" provision of the BCS (look that one up for yourself if you have any questions). If the 2001 Fresno State team had not lost conference games to Boise State and Hawaii, and the 1998 Tulane team had not played non-conference opponents such as Navy and SMU (not sure who else they played that year), we could have arguably seen "non-BCS" schools in BCS bowls (esp. Tulane in the Sugar Bowl). Oh, and before 1992, conference affiliation wasn't the big deal that it now is. In the two decades preceding the onset of the Bowl Coalition/Bowl Alliance/BCS, independents like Boston College, Florida State, Louisville, Miami, Penn State, Pittsburgh, and Syracuse went to Cotton, Fiesta, Orange, Sugar bowls on the merits of their records without conference affiliation having any impact. This is not a system that just developed overnight (1998), it is the further "progression" (consolidation) of events that have been taking place for thirty years that has been expedited by certain parties (e.g. Big Ten/Pac-10/SEC) making concessions towards the "greater good." If the non-BCS conferences are so angry about this system, then they should stop perpetuating it by annually scheduling "body bag" games on the road every year to prop up their entire athletic budget, but how likely is that?

Essentially, that the MWC was the only non-BCS conference to prove their mettle on the field last weekend.

As echoed on other threads, the disparity between the haves and have nots is growing larger. But this is less a feature of the BCS schools growing stronger by virtue of their hoarding most of the BCS money. Instead, it has more to do with the growing volume of programs that are not receiving the investment/attention to properly compete at this level. By this right, the BCS schools are truly justified in wanting to upgrade the requirements for 1-A status.

Yes, every program can have a down year, or even a couple of years, but the concept of a La-Lafayette or Idaho failing to compete against 1-AA or DII schools has become a recurring trend, one that dilutes 1-A ball and should eliminate any claims by those schools of feeling "left out" by the BCS big boys. I'm all for more inclusion in the BCS for other schools and conferences, but this should be partnered with a housecleaning effort to ensure that any school participating at the 1-A level understands and accepts the committments required.

Also, UCF's failure to dominate in the MAC last year was very disappointing, and I am sure I am not the only one who feels that way. I simply assumed it would be Marshall, UCF, and everyone else, but it didn't really turn out that way...

Gunnerfan,
You seem to have it right. The problem is that there is no way to give the BYU's and FSU of the FB world their chance to become a BCS team. While FSU make it, and brought along the ACC, BYU did not. The BE was going to give BCS status to UConn while snubbing Marshall. Marshall and BYU, IMHO, deserve membership in a BCS conference. UConn MAY in the future deserve it, but they need to PROVE it first!

I have suggest several ways that will not work, it the hope that it might inspire someone to come out with an idea that could. So far, noone seems willing to express an opinion that is "out of the box." I still hope that you, CyberCat or someone reading this will do so. The dream thread was started to give people a place to put "out of the box" ideas without people thinking that they are crazy.

FBfan

So you're saying there's LESS parity between BCS ball and non-BCS ball? I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you, just it seems rare to hear that argument IMO. (This is in reference to quality of play, not $$$)

There's more parity in the MAC than you think. You'd be surprised. I know I was.

FWIW, UCF lost to Marshall by 5pts and Toledo by 3pts. Both schools of course went on to the MACC and to a bowl. We took care of the remaining teams on our MAC schedule. To come so close and leave with nothing WAS disappointing though.