Now THIS Would Be Bad News for the Big East

[GoMuskies]

Might even make them rethink the whole expansion bit.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7248953/bcs-proposes-only-handling-national-championship-game-sources-say

[xudash]

I'm glad I found your thread, because I was going to bring this exact thing up. I just haven't had much time to post the last few days.

The word last week, leading up to this weekend, was that the BE wanted to make a big announcement this weekend, with ESPN GameDay in Houston. You have to now believe that BYU and Boise State, in particular, will hold back now, waiting for these BCS meetings to run their course into next June, at which time they expect to have a definitive model to share.

As for the BE and football:

Conferences such as the Big East, which are in danger of losing their AQ status, are trying to recruit successful football programs -- Boise State, for example -- to improve their standing. But according to a conference official familiar with the content of the BCS meetings, the Big East would be affected by any model that forces the league to forfeit its AQ standing.

"It would hurt (it)," said the official. "They don't have the tradition and ticket sales reputation -- at least, a lot of their schools don't have -- to the major bowls."

Also debatable is the affect such a format would have on programs presently in non-AQ conferences, such as Boise State and Houston. Would those programs have more or fewer opportunities to play in a national championship game or a BCS bowl-level game?

The article was very clear about the BCS brass having the desire to quiet down realignment activity brought on by the existing BCS structure.

Bottom-line: the BE was trying to solve for its BCS positioning, and now the BCS appears to be close to taking that ability away from them.

[GoMuskies]

The article was very clear about the BCS brass having the desire to quiet down realignment activity brought on by the existing BCS structure.


Notice that they waited until everyone but the Big East was done before making the effort to quiet things down. Pretty ridiculous, really.

[Masterofreality]

Notice that they waited until everyone but the Big East was done before making the effort to quiet things down. Pretty ridiculous, really.

Not if they were thinking like some of us think- that the Big Least has been a poseur conference in football for many years and have decided they are sick of its ineptitude- both in on field performance and in its Commissioner's office.

I would guess that the big bowl games are very tired of getting stuck with a Big Least team that can't sell its tickets and wind up being blown out. They would make their feelings known.

It makes perfect sense. The powers that be want the Big Least gone from the BCS.

It's about damn time.

[GoMuskies]

As a fan of a basketball team in the A-10, I think you should be careful with that line of thinking.

BTW, based on actual on-field performance, the Big East has only been an inferior conference the last two years. Before that, there was always another BCS conference worse than it. And the ACC has been essentially just as inept, but no one is trying to kick them out of the BCS.

[Masterofreality]

As a fan of a basketball team in the A-10, I think you should be careful with that line of thinking.

Totally different deal. The NCAA has full control of the Basketball Championship- and a 10 year TV contract at huge dollars to put it on. There may be more teams put in the tournament, but the smaller schools will never be denied access.

The BCS is a whole 'nuther animal and is not NCAA controlled.

The fact that Mike Bobinski, an AD of a non- Big Six Conference school will be the Chairman of the Basketball Selection Committee, shows what the difference is.
You'd never see the AD of Boise State as the Head of the BCS.

[GoMuskies]

I think you'd have to be pretty naive to think the Big 6 (oops 5) leagues wouldn't just LOVE to do the same thing in basketball that they're doing in football and keep all the money to themselves. And avoid having to deal with the pesky VCUs and Butlers and George Masons of the world.

[xudash]

MOR's right though GM.

The BE had already received a special (football) exemption a few years ago, thanks in large part to Transgreasy's relationships with the other commissioners at the time, as the story goes.

Along comes UC's humiliation at the hands of UF and UConn's humiliation last year and it looks more like it all this should come as no surprise, in terms of where the BE now finds itself.

The article referred to more meetings in January, followed by June as the timing for when the BCS brass will reveal which direction they're headed with respect to their renewal deal in 2013.

Without question, if they eliminate conference AQ status, this whole thing becomes much more program-centric than conference-centric. In the abstract - but not by much - I'd guess the real winners in the modification game will be any program having an 80k+ facility which they pack for home games.

Everyone else will be pretenders to the throne.

And UC won't even make court jester.

[GoMuskies]

The last two BCS bowls for the Big East have been thumpings, but they've beaten the Big Twelve, ACC and SEC champs in BCS games in the last seven years. They've performed a helluva lot better than the ACC.

[xudash]

The last two BCS bowls for the Big East have been thumpings, but they've beaten the Big Twelve, ACC and SEC champs in BCS games in the last seven years. They've performed a helluva lot better than the ACC.

I agree with your point about the BE's performance against the ACC, but, given the nature of this discussion, unless those 7 BCS victories involve a BE school that isn't leaving for another conference, that argument is moot.

[GoMuskies]

Well, add in Boise State's two wins to replace WV's two wins. Even steven. Louisville's win is staying apparently.

[Masterofreality]

While the Big Least/ACC comparison may have some weight by the numbers, two things overrule.

-John Swofford is a lot more respected in College Administration circles than Marriniato.
-Big East schools have routinely wanted to move to the ACC- including the most recent two.

With the recent foibles/bad football performance and instability, the Big Zombie is on life support.

[X-band '01]

I think you'd have to be pretty naive to think the Big 6 (oops 5) leagues wouldn't just LOVE to do the same thing in basketball that they're doing in football and keep all the money to themselves. And avoid having to deal with the pesky VCUs and Butlers and George Masons of the world.

Yeah, people are really going to be going ga-ga when Colorado (instead of Valpo) upsets Kansas in an early-round game.

The dream bracket for the CBS/Turner cartel always involve 4 or 5 1st-round upsets (think 12 seeds and up) but ultimately wind up with a Sweet 16 that involves maybe 1 Cinderella team (again, Xavier or Butler usually fills this void). As long as they have 4 bigwigs in the Final 4, they'll be fine.

The NCAA never worries about a Final 4 not selling out. Regionals and early-round games can be tossups depending on location.

You can't compare it to the bowl system where tne Orange Bowls and Sugar Bowls worry more about selling tickets than who's ultimately playing there. If I'm not mistaken, didn't UC at least sell out their own allotment for their Sugar Bowl game? The Orange Bowl this year is going to likely have a matchup that will pit teams that are Gator Bowl-caliber (and that's being kind).

[xubrew]

The Big East used a waiver, but I believe the only condition of it was that it allowed the conference to count Louisville's 2004 season as if they were a Big East team even though they were still in Conference USA. The ACC used the same waiver when they acquired Miami. It's a non-issue and I don't know why it continues to be pointed out by the media.

Anyway, the BCS overseeing the championship game really isn't good news for anyone. It's either bad news, or it is irrelevant news. The BCS sucks, but it is still just a single component of the overall bowl system, which...as hard as it is to say this...sucks worse without the BCS.

Between 1936 and 2004 no teams from outside a major conference played in a major bowl. Prior to the BCS, the door wasn't open to them. Duquesne was the last team to play in a major bowl before Utah played in the Fiesta Bowl after the 2004 season. Without the BCS, Boise doesn't win the Fiesta Bowl, and probably doesn't build themselves up to the caliber that they are now. Same with Utah and TCU, and most likely this year's Houston team. No BCS bowl would have invited those teams if they had another option.

It will essentially be back to the way it was before, and that's hardly an improvement. The Sugar will align with the SEC, the Orange will align with the ACC, the Rose will align with the Big Ten and Pac Twelve, and the Fiesta will be with the Big Twelve. They can invite whoever they want for the other opponent, and if it is like the old days, they can extend the invite as soon as a team wins their sixth game.

I guess most people don't remember this, but before the BCS there was a virtual invitation war amongst the bowls. For instance, in order for the Sugar Bowl to get a compelling match-up for the SEC Champ, they felt it necessary to invite a team before another bowl stole them away. You would have teams at 6-0 and ranked really high getting invites, and then go on to lose four of their last five games. It happened several times. At least the BCS put a stop to that nonsense. At least now there is an agreed upon order of selection that rotates and does not take place until the end of the season.

Anyway, no bowl system is a good system. The BCS is better, but it still isn't good enough. The bowl system in general is what needs to go.

[MADXSTER]

Where is the NCAA in all of this?

Do they just not care? Do they realize they are out of their league? Is the BCS too big to take on? Did they never foresee the BCS coming about in the first place?

[xudash]

....The bowl system in general is what needs to go.

brew, first of all, excellent perspective on how things worked prior to the BCS coming along in 1998. I think you make a particularly good point about how the major bowls will once again realign themselves with their traditional conferences. I can't imagine the Rose Bowl moving away from the PacXX and B1G, as one example.

Knowing these meetings have taken place and that the dialogue comprising them is what it is, especially the part about taking AQ out of the process, I would think the BE's ability to form its western division (Boise State, Air Force, BYU, etc.) is diminished, if not at zero. Again, this makes all this more about program than about conference.

Otherwise, as far as the bowl system is concerned, good luck killing that. That won't happen for as long as American football is played at the collegiate level.

[GoMuskies]

Between 1936 and 2004 no teams from outside a major conference played in a major bowl.

Louisville beat Alabama in the 1991 Fiesta Bowl, but I guess Louisville was in the same class as Penn State, West Virgina, Miami and the like back then as a major independent (even though Louisville, of course, was nothing like those programs in reality).

[xubrew]

Where is the NCAA in all of this?

Do they just not care? Do they realize they are out of their league? Is the BCS too big to take on? Did they never foresee the BCS coming about in the first place?

The NCAA div1 board of directors is made up entirely of university presidents. And no, they don't care. As it stands now, they like the bowl system. I have no idea why.


Louisville beat Alabama in the 1991 Fiesta Bowl, but I guess Louisville was in the same class as Penn State, West Virgina, Miami and the like back then as a major independent (even though Louisville, of course, was nothing like those programs in reality).

Of course, I remember this. I know the Fiesta Bowl was considered a big time bowl, but was it one of the major ones?? I thought at the time the Cotton Bowl was actually bigger. That's certainly not the case anymore, but when Louisville played in it I thought it was still sort of second tier. Could be wrong. Any Louisville fan will tell you it was a major one.

[GoMuskies]

It was on New Years Day opposite the Rose Bowl. It had been the de facto national title game twice in the five years prior (Miami/Penn State and ND/WV).

[paulxu]

I guess I have no understanding of this stuff at all.
I keep thinking that the major bowls could still be played, the money be made, and just schedule them in a way that creates a playoff system to generate a "national champion."

Play 4 bowls one weekend, 2 the next...and then 1 for the finish.

[xubrew]

It was on New Years Day opposite the Rose Bowl. It had been the de facto national title game twice in the five years prior (Miami/Penn State and ND/WV).

Hmmm. I guess that counts then. I know it was originally slated to be Alabama v Penn State, but I think Penn State backed out to go to another bowl game, and Louisville went in their place.....or something like that.

Okay, so ONCE between 1936 and 2004, a team outside the major conferences made it to a major bowl. I still think the bowl system is a mess, and as big of a mess as the BCS is, it's still better than it was before.

[SM#24]

BTW, based on actual on-field performance, the Big East has only been an inferior conference the last two years. Before that, there was always another BCS conference worse than it. And the ACC has been essentially just as inept, but no one is trying to kick them out of the BCS.

This is true, but I think what we're seeing in the last two years was going to be a trend even if the defectors stayed. I was surprised that the BE was able to hang on as long as it did from a competitive standpoint. I was also surprised that the ACC wasn't able to improve itself over the same time frame. From a purely potential standpoint, I would think a conference with Miami, Fla St, Clemson, Va Tech would be better over the long haul than the current BE.

I'm sure the "title game only" BCS has a lot of support from the SEC, B1G and ND. Their schools travel well and would probably grab bowl berths that their record wouldn't necessarily support. It would also get Congress off their back as there wouldn't be a separate set of rules.