Same game that took Hawaii...probably thought it would be an SEC blowout.

_________________


@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.

IMO we are not going to see any conference realignments initiated by the PAC-10 or Big 12 anytime soon. I look forward to seeing more realignment changes and think Utah would make a fine addition to either of these conferences.

Either there needs to be an existing win/win situation (e.g., financial, academic and athletic fit, etc.) between the conference and the expansion/replacement school(s) or some catalyst needs to occur to force change.

The TV viewership in Utah is not high enough to interest the PAC-10. Splitting marginally increased TV revenues 12-ways will decrease PAC-10 revenues/school. For the Big 12, the TV viewership might go up marginally, but I doubt enough to warrant a change.

With the economy in bad shape, any additional travel costs will impede realignment. I suspect travel expenses at best would be a wash for either conference.

It would take some strong motivation by the decision makers to kick an existing school out of a conference and replace them with another school. This isn’t something you do on a whim, so there better be some real strong reasons for the changes. ISU has a long history with the former Big 8 schools and I can’t imagine the state of Texas allowing Baylor to be replaced by an out of state school.

Interesting snippet from a Reilly article about Utah deserving the national championship.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3815656

"...Call Myles Brand, president of the asleep-at-the-wheel NCAA, and ask him if he and his greedy presidents are going to stand in defiance of president-elect Barack Obama, who said again this week he wants a playoff and wants it yesterday.

Call Atlantic Coast Conference commissioner and BCS bully John Swofford and ask him what he's going to do if Obama starts asking the Justice Department to look into anti-trust violations against the BCS. The Utah attorney general has already launched an investigation into that very thing.

Ask him what he'll do if Obama asks the Department of Education to consider withholding federal funds from these schools that have entered into his secret club. You don't think playing in the title game means millions in general-fund donations for a school? That's as unfair as anything Title IX fought against...."

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3814472

"Utah AG: BCS may violate antitrust laws
Updated: January 7, 2009, 12:55 PM ET
SALT LAKE CITY -- Utah's attorney general is investigating the Bowl Championship Series for a possible violation of federal antitrust laws after an undefeated Utes team was left out of the national title game for the second time in five years.

Attorney General Mark Shurtleff contends the BCS unfairly puts schools like Utah, which is a member of a conference without an automatic bid to the lucrative bowl games, at a competitive and financial disadvantage.

"We've established that from the very first day, from the very first kickoff in the college season, more than half of the schools are put on an unlevel playing field," Shurtleff said Tuesday. "They will never be allowed to play for a national championship."

BCS administrator Bill Hancock said he couldn't comment on the investigation until he had seen something in writing from the Utah attorney general's office.

"We just don't think it's appropriate to comment until we've seen something to comment on," Hancock said.

The BCS is designed to pit the top two teams against each other in a national championship game each year. It uses a complicated formula based on human polls and computer rankings to determine who plays in that game, which Shurtleff contends is biased.

No. 1 Florida and No. 2 Oklahoma have one loss each but will play for the BCS national championship Thursday night in Miami.

The Associated Press crowns its own national champion based on a poll of sports writers who are not bound to vote for the winner of the BCS title game. Many fans are clamoring for voters to put Utah -- the nation's only undefeated team -- in the No. 1 spot in the final poll.

On Friday, Utah became the first team from a non-BCS conference to win two BCS bowls after it upset No. 4 Alabama 31-17 in the Sugar Bowl. Utah also beat Pittsburgh in the 2004 Fiesta Bowl to complete an undefeated season.

Shurtleff said his office is still in the initial stages of reviewing the Sherman Antitrust Act to see if a lawsuit can be filed. To succeed in a lawsuit, he would have to prove a conspiracy exists that creates a monopoly.

Shurtleff said he prefers that BCS officials and university presidents solve the problem of excluding some schools from a national title game by creating a playoff system, but added he's committed to doing whatever it takes to produce change.

If a lawsuit is filed against the BCS, though, Shurtleff could end up suing the state he represents. Utah is a member of the Mountain West Conference and Utah State belongs to the Western Athletic Conference; both leagues are members of the BCS.

"We have to determine the answer to those questions," said Shurtleff, whose planned investigation was reported by the Deseret News on Tuesday. "You determine who it is you're bringing action against."

The BCS is comprised of the 11 Football Bowl Subdivision conferences, the director of athletics at the University of Notre Dame, and representatives of the bowl organizations.

Under the BCS, about $9.5 million is distributed among Conference USA, the Mid-American, Mountain West, Sun Belt and Western Athletic conferences for making their teams available to play in BCS games.

If a school from any of those conferences receives an at-large invitation to play in a BCS bowl or championship game, those conferences get an additional 9 percent of BCS revenues among them, which come from television rights and the bowls themselves.

If more than one school from those conferences make the BCS bowls or championship game, those conferences get an extra $4.5 million for each additional team.

By comparison, the share to each conference with an automatic berth in the BCS -- the ACC, Big East, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-10 and SEC -- is about $18 million each. When a second team from one of those conferences qualifies to play in a BCS game, as the SEC accomplished this year with Alabama and Florida, that conference gets an additional $4.5 million.

"It's not about bragging rights. It's a multimillion dollar -- hundreds of millions -- business where the BCS schools get richer and non-BCS get poorer," Shurtleff said."

You wrote ACC, but I thought BCS doormat conference BE, so I'd like to address the ACC arguement. The ACC is a much better BB conference, a much, Much better academic conference, and has schools that are at least as high profile as Utah or BYU in Miami, FSU, VT, and Duke (based on BB). In addition, schools like UNC and Virginia appear to be emerging powers. If you look at the endowments of all of these schools it is pretty clear where the conference stands in the pecking order.

The only people who still think the BE is the doormat and not the ACC are ACC fans and SEC fans who still have nightmares of Pat White and Steve Slaton running all over their champion back in '05. It's been proven on the field and in the polls that the BE has nothing to worry about with BCS membership, while the ACC does.

First, basketball means nothing to the BCS, especially since they're the last people who want anything to do with an actual tournament. Secondly, what matters is on the field, and the fact is that the MWC has more BCS wins in four years than the ACC does in nine, and the ACC continually runs aground of the rule where you have to have a team in the top 14 or 15 for a certain number of years, and the irony is their move to shore up football has absolutely backfired. The fact is the MWC has the power to force their hand to get into the BCS, which means the BCS either has to divvy up smaller pieces of the pie to give the MWC their piece, or they just trim off the weakest member and give the MWC their slice, and by the rules set forth, the ACC would be the ones losing their place at the table.

Tarkiokid,agree with those that believe Utah should be in a BCS Autobid conference.Perhaps they will be in 2012 and 2013 if the MWC is awarded the 7th BCS autobid at that time.
As we have discussed before,the ACC has an advantage over the BE by virtue of it's contractual spot in the Orange Bowl whereas the BE lost theirs following the 2003 ACC raid.Here is link to BCS autobid eligibility requirements at http://www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfb/eligibility



Thanks
Freaked

Relatively few people (including their alumni and communities) are interested in the MAC, SB and CUSA.

Utah, Boise State, Ball State, etc... are all getting good players because of scholarship limitations. The big-time programs can't stockpile like they used to be able to. It has nothing to do with how easy the schools are to get into.

I am definitely not an ACC fan.

I'll concede that the BE has surpassed the ACC when we start hearing talk of BC and Maryland looking to jump from the ACC to the BE. It isn't happening. Regardless of fhe BE's recent success. I mean do you really think Miami will stay down? FSU? ( I watched the emerald bowl and was really impressed with Miami's freshman QB and WR. Those guys will have miami back at the top of the ACC and national polls very soon. Miami Coach Shannon may not be able to run a 2 minute offense, but the guy can recruit and runs a disciplined squad. They will be back in the top 10 soon. Additionally, UNC and Virginia are emerging as conference powers.)

Regarding basketball not meaning anything, again, I disagree. The BCS is a coalition of major bowls, TV interests, and power schools. From a bowl perspective, the goal is to get participants who can fill 60K+ stadiums in far away regions. From a TV perspective it is about getting the champions of the most watched conferences --- and hopefully the most followed teams. From a power school perspective it is about keeping the lion share of the TV revenue in their conferences, and hopefully within the grasps of their schools. Additionally, there is an esteem and and academic component that is undeniable.

When you look at the BCS schools you'll see that most of them are either tier 1 or tier 2 schools. When you look at the non-BCS FBS schools, you'll find that only 6-8 of them are rated as tier 1 or 2 schools. When you look at endowments, most of the non-BCS schools, beyond BYU, UTAH, and the CUSA privates, have tiny endowments.

The BE totally benefits from it's affiliation with the BB BE. Schools like Gtown, St. John's, ND, Villanova, Marquette, and DePaul definitely carry their load in BB delivering big TV audiences. There may not be a better BB conference out there---in no small part because of the size of the conference. They routinely put more teams into the tourney than any other conference. That helps the conference esteem and is a big reason why they stayed in over the MWC---IMO. Why would the BCS want to take argueably the #1 BB conference OUT of the BCS for essentially a football peer? BB gives the BE a perception as a major power conference, not football.

I was having an interesting talk with a friend of mine about the situation facing Utah, BYU, TCU, and Boise and some real out of the box thinking came up. What if those schools played as football independents with a loose scheduling affiliation with the remaining MWC schools? What legal gounds would the BCS have to deny those schools the same deal as ND? I am not a lawyer, but it seems like if the schools essentially cannot get into the national title equations because they share a confernece affiliation with a school like Wyoming who cannot draw 20K to a game, the independent route may bizarrely be another avenue in.

Finally, there is a big variable that isn't being looked at here. The BCS criteria talk about the scenarios for future membership. If you read those closely, they are written so the criteria can change if they decide to change it. I have no doubt the bowls would love to have Utah and BYU in the BCS mix. I have no doubt TV would love to have BYU and TCU in the mix. But I also have no doubt TV annd the bowls would never trade miami, FSU for the the MWC. Never. They will simply rewrite the rules, perhaps setting minimum conference attendance averages to participate in a BCS bowl or somesuch.

I can see the MWC getting in, just not at the expense of the ACC, and probably not at the expense of the BE unless there is a BE split.. I could see the BCS insisting the MWC expand to 12 adding say Fresno Boise, and dunno---Hawaii to eliminate most of the BCS arguement. Throwing all of those schools into one conference would likely mean that the resulting confence only got 1 bid---they came close to getting 2 in this year. It probably helps the other BCS schools to do this. It might help them evn more if they could get the MWC to dump say Wyoming football and airforce and go with 10---no title game bump....

I could also see them requireing the BE to expand with at least a few more football only teams. (Addtionally, the idea that the BE football members take home a larger share per team than the SEC or B12 is just too galling to leave be, and forcing the MWC to an expensive expansion to 12 opens the door to require a similar expansion from the BE.) I can see the BCS doing as little as they have to to kill lawsuits, but not so much as to change their view on the pecking order in college football.

Finiteman,good, well thought out post.

Thanks
Freaked

I'm not sure where this notion is coming from that the BE is BETTER than the ACC. That may happen for one year or a couple of years but as freaked has pointed out in this thread, the ACC - by the virtue of having the Orange Bowl tie in - is in a stronger position than the BE. In addition, also by the fact that the ACC makes more money from their TV contracts, bowl games, is in a better position to have long term sustained success than the BE.

That does not mean the BE cannot have sustained success nor does that mean that the BE is not a BCS conference. The BE certainly has exceed many expectations since the raid and has 'probably' met the expectations of the BCS.

Certainly, the ACC has not hit 'expectations on the field' that many thought they would reach when they first expanded. They've certainly disappointed. I will say that while the ACC this year didn't not have ONE great team, they did have many good ones. Remember, the Big 10 had the worst Bowl record of BCS conferences at 1-6! OUCH!

I'm not sure what BC and Maryland staying or leaving have to do with the BE is better than the ACC argument. BC and Maryland are going to stay where their bottom line (ie revenue vs. expenses) stays the highest and that's in the ACC. It doesn't matter if the BE is higher in the BCS rankings for one year or for 5 years or even 10 years. It's a simple fact of the makeup (institutions) of both leagues.


Those schools WOULD have access to the BCS as long as they met the criteria. Remember that ND only gets and automatic bid if they reach a final BCS ranking of #8. The requirements for a non-BCS conference are less strict (#12) but they only get ONE automatic bid.

Being independents, my guess is that they would be lumped into the BCS eligible pool of candidates and would essentially be in the same situation they are in now - ie they would have to be selected over a Georgia, Ohio State, etc. AT least within a conference, they only have to be #12. Of course, they would have to negotiate with the BCS to see exactly what their qualification criteria would be as independents, I honestly don't see them getting a better deal than they have now. It's better to try and negotiate with the other non-BCS conferences to try and get a 2nd BCS team get automatic qualification if they are say at least #10.


There is no conference in danger of losing the BCS bid at the present time - I think until the Jan 2014 games (although I could be incorrect) when the next 'round' of BCS games end after the switch to ESPN. The only conference that can 'potentially' lose their bid is the BE because they do not have an affiliated BCS bowl game like the other 5 auto-bid BCS conferences. As long as the BE continues to meet the eligibility criteria, I expect they will continue to have a BCS autobid.

I don't know but I disagree with you here. I agree with freaked here in that if the MWC continues to perform like this past year, they will get a BCS bid. There are criteria that all of the commishs are aware of and agreed to. I think the earliest date the MWC *could* get an autobid is 2011 or 2012?

But I'm also guessing that the BCS did NOT expect or anticipate the MWC or another conference to be able or get close to getting an autobid.



The BE does make slightly MORE money than the other conferences because their size is only 8 (~ 800k more per school). However, remember that the Pac 10 also has 2 schools less than the SEC and Big 12 and not too many seem to mention this fact either (~ 300k difference compared to 12 school conferences). This amount of money is usually small when compared against $40 million, $50 million, $60 or even higher athletic budgets that most schools in BCS conferences have. In addition, since the Big East makes MUCH less TV, bowl, etc in revenue from their conference distribution, it probably isn't a big deal. I mean, if the BE was close to the SEC, Big 12 in revenue distributed back to schools by conferences, I think it would be a big issue.

I agree with freaked....Good post!