Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

BCS Deathmarch to a Playoff


118 replies to this topic

#1 Infield Infidel


  • teaching korea american


  • 8,584 posts

Posted 06 April 2012 - 02:50 AM

It is slowly crawling like a snail on a turtle in molasses, but here are the options that will be on the table at the next BCS meetings later this month (from USA today http://www.documentc...tus-4-3-12.html)

  • BCS With Adjustments – Maintains the current system but eliminates automatic qualification, eliminates limit on number of teams from each conference and play games closer to January 1. This option would also create a format that would “accommodate different conference champions participating in different bowl games.”
  • Original “Plus One” – After the completion of the bowl games, the committee would select two teams to play in the National Championship Game.
  • Four-team Event – This format would have seeded semifinals and a championship game with four options:
    1) All three games played in bowls.
    2) All three games played at neutral sites through a bid process. Games would not be branded as bowl games.
    3) Semifinal games played in bowls and the championship game site would be determined through a bid process. The championship game would not be branded as a bowl game.
    4) Semifinal games played at campus sites (presumably hosted by higher seeded team). Championship game site would be determined through a bid process.
  • Four Team Plus - the four highest-ranked teams at the end of the regular season would meet in semifinals unless the Big Ten or Pac-12 champion, or both, were among the top four. Those leagues’ teams still would meet in the Rose, and the next highest-ranked team or teams would slide into the semis. The national championship finalists would be selected after those three games.



I think the first, second and fourth are not what people are looking for. Anything that includes the final two teams being selected is more of the status quo.

Personally, I like Four-Team Event 1, 2, and 3, but I'd be fine with 4 as well. I would however not seed the teams, and just have de facto eastern and western regional finals at two of the current BCS bowls, so it's easier for fans to get to semis and then to the finals a couple saturdays later. I think seeding the teams would be like re-seeding the Final Four in basketball. Those are the four best teams, the best one will should be able to beat any two of the other three.


Secondarily, the are proposing larger 10/12 or 20 team bowl systems. Basically, this would expand the BCS. A committee would pick the 6-16 teams for 3-8 other bowls (outside the semis), trying to make "attractive" match-ups both competitively and geographically.

I kind of like it, seeing as teams like Boise St would have a chance against top ten teams from other conferences. But it would be strange to not know what bowl your conference has. But it's not that big a deal.

Edited by Infield Infidel, 06 April 2012 - 03:27 AM.


#2 bsj


  • Renegade Crazed Genius


  • 15,468 posts

Posted 06 April 2012 - 06:23 AM

I don't like option 1 at all.

#3 johnmd20


  • voice of soccer


  • 17,139 posts

Posted 06 April 2012 - 06:33 AM

I don't like option 1 at all.


The adjustments are certainly very minor. All of these ideas suck except for Number 3. The bowl games this year went virtually ignored because the college season gets way too dragged out and everything is watered down at the end. By the time the BCS championship is ready to be played, those teams have had 5 or 6 weeks off. If you're not a fan of either team, you watch the NFL playoffs on the weekend and skip the BCS Game and catch up on some sleep that Monday night.

#4 RingoOSU


  • okie misanthrope


  • 13,447 posts

Posted 06 April 2012 - 08:36 AM

I'm afraid Oklahoma State will go down in history as the team that was the last straw for the BCS, but never got a chance to participate in the new playoff system.

#5 Saturnian

  • 483 posts

Posted 06 April 2012 - 10:01 AM

Reminds me of the good ol' days when I thought Penn State would be remembered for the undefeated 1994 team that lost out to Nebraska because JoePa was a classy coach who did things the right way and didn't run up the score like Osborne would, which was the last straw for the old bowl system.

#6 Domer

  • 2,069 posts

Posted 07 April 2012 - 09:59 AM

I'm afraid Oklahoma State will go down in history as the team that was the last straw for the BCS, but never got a chance to participate in the new playoff system.

The weird thing about these talks is that the conference presidents don't seem all that disturbed by the fairness issue. The presidents, however, are worried about the dismal ratings the BCS bowls received and are taking steps to remedy this by moving the bowls closer to January 1. If the rematch had drawn more viewers than the first game back in October than I don't think there would be an impetus for a change, even if it appeared a team got screwed.

#7 Infield Infidel


  • teaching korea american


  • 8,584 posts

Posted 25 April 2012 - 01:10 AM

BCS exploring neutral site four-team format

If Football Bowl Subdivision conference commissioners and the sport's other power brokers approve a four-team playoff to determine college football's national champion, the semifinals and the national championship game will be played at neutral sites and the BCS bowl games will be played closer to New Year's Day, a source familiar with the negotiations told ESPN.com on Tuesday.
. . .
A proposal to play the semifinal games at the home stadiums of the higher-seeded teams is all but dead, according to the source. The semifinal games will either be hosted by the existing BCS bowl games or opened for bidding. The source said it seemed almost certain that the national championship game will be opened to bidding by the existing BCS bowl sites and other cities such as Atlanta, Dallas and Indianapolis.
. . .
The proposed changes wouldn't go into effect until the 2014 season. The current BCS system, in which the top two teams in the final BCS standings play in a national championship game at the site of one of the current BCS bowls (Fiesta, Orange, Rose and Sugar), will remain in place over the next two seasons.
. . .
The source said the commissioners would prefer to play the national semifinal games on New Year's Day and have the winning teams play in a championship game about a week later.



#8 Dehere

  • 2,444 posts

Posted 25 April 2012 - 11:42 AM

"A proposal to play the semifinal games at the home stadiums of the higher-seeded teams is all but dead, according to the source. The semifinal games will either be hosted by the existing BCS bowl games or opened for bidding."

Boy, I think that's a big, big mistake, particularly if the semi-final sites are existing BCS bowl sites. I think you're going to have a very hard time getting students and alumni to travel twice to sellout these games. And if the semis are played at current BCS sites it becomes a big ongoing advantage for SEC and Pac-12 schools. I thought the idea of playing the semis at home stadiums was a great one and I hope it's not as dead as this article suggests.

#9 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 13,021 posts

Posted 25 April 2012 - 02:07 PM

Boy, I think that's a big, big mistake, particularly if the semi-final sites are existing BCS bowl sites. I think you're going to have a very hard time getting students and alumni to travel twice to sellout these games. And if the semis are played at current BCS sites it becomes a big ongoing advantage for SEC and Pac-12 schools. I thought the idea of playing the semis at home stadiums was a great one and I hope it's not as dead as this article suggests.


Seems to me you'll have more interest from the students of the #3 and #4 schools than under the current system -- the possibility of a national championship will add to the lure of a major bowl berth. I agree that interest will wane for the #1 and #2 schools compared to the current system. If that's a wash, or even close to it, the higher TV ratings make this a big win money-wise.

So much for the supposed clout of the four big bowls, which would go from having a championship game, a third-place game, and two other-major games every four years to having two semifinals every four years, plus two games likely to be overshadowed by those semis.

#10 Infield Infidel


  • teaching korea american


  • 8,584 posts

Posted 25 April 2012 - 06:56 PM

So much for the supposed clout of the four big bowls, which would go from having a championship game, a third-place game, and two other-major games every four years to having two semifinals every four years, plus two games likely to be overshadowed by those semis.

I follow this pretty closely, but I hadn't heard about a third place game; where did you hear that?

Having two games overshadowed by semis is much better for the bowls than having four games overshadowed by the NCG. I really hope they bring other cities into the mix for the title game and make it a mini-Super Bowl. Bidding for these games would be a financial bonanza for the conferences and the schools involved, which would mitigate some of the worries about travel. Including places like Indianapolis, St. Louis, Dallas, etc, would be pretty interesting.

Looks like the Rose Bowl is backing down a bit finally. I would throw them the bone of getting Pac-12 or BigTen teams in the top 4 if they are a semifinal (If there are three eastern teams, one would have to go west, might as well be the BigTen), and also let them pick any 10-win team they want if they aren't a semifinal. But you can't let them pick non-top 4 teams if they are a semifinal. that's dumb.

#11 Dehere

  • 2,444 posts

Posted 26 April 2012 - 08:10 AM

Seems to me you'll have more interest from the students of the #3 and #4 schools than under the current system -- the possibility of a national championship will add to the lure of a major bowl berth. I agree that interest will wane for the #1 and #2 schools compared to the current system. If that's a wash, or even close to it, the higher TV ratings make this a big win money-wise.


You're going to get the ratings bump whether the semi-finals are in New Orleans and Miami or Eugene and Ann Arbor.

Maybe the ticket sales will be stronger than I think, but even if they are the first time the #1 seed has to travel to the Rose Bowl to play #4 USC or to the Sugar Bowl to play #4 LSU it's going to be a debacle.

#12 Infield Infidel


  • teaching korea american


  • 8,584 posts

Posted 26 April 2012 - 09:41 AM

Yeah, I'm hoping (perhaps stupidly) that they just scrap seeds and go with East and West regionals (Orange/Fiesta, Sugar/Orange). They are talking about having a committee and that's perhaps what they will address.

If this year Bama played OkSU after the bowls, I don't think anyone would have minded. The difference between the top four isn't usually that great, and it's hard to judge anyway since they play vastly different schedules.

Edited by Infield Infidel, 26 April 2012 - 09:45 AM.


#13 WayBackVazquez


  • white knight against high school nookie


  • 5,418 posts

Posted 27 April 2012 - 10:38 AM

The difference between the top four isn't usually that great, and it's hard to judge anyway since they play vastly different schedules.


While I agree that the difference in the quality of teams 1-4 isn't usually that great, there is always a clear distinction between teams 1 and 4. What we're now going to have is that instead of the controversy every 3 or 4 years over whether the right #2 was picked, we'll have controversy nearly every year over whether the right #4 got in. For example, if last year's playoff teams were selected by the current computers, Kansas State would have been in, despite being outside the top 10 in the AP poll. Much the same the year before, with Oklahoma getting in despite being 9th and 8th in the human polls. Even if they continue to use some combination of human voting and computers, there will be likely controversy every year. There just tends to be much less clarity in the distinction between 2 and 3 than 4 and 5.

I suspect that once this gets underway, it'll only be a few years until the clamor to expand to 8 is too much to overcome.

#14 Infield Infidel


  • teaching korea american


  • 8,584 posts

Posted 27 April 2012 - 10:18 PM

Yeah, I see 8 teams being a real possibility by 2020. But just getting to four two years from now is a huge sea-change

Also, I think the consideration of a selection committee means they are open to giving less power to computers and pollsters

Edited by Infield Infidel, 27 April 2012 - 10:37 PM.


#15 Infield Infidel


  • teaching korea american


  • 8,584 posts

Posted 27 April 2012 - 10:31 PM

So, first, BCS has recommended a change to four-team playoff, and should have a format before Independence day. Thank god

Here's where it gets interesting (perhaps only to me) http://espn.go.com/c...ences-bcs-bowls


Sources told ESPN.com that the commissioners are leaning toward incorporating the existing BCS bowls into a playoff. Instead of designating two BCS bowls as the host sites for two semifinal games before a particular season, the sites wouldn't be determined until the four participating teams were named.

In an effort to maintain a sense of tradition, conferences would keep their relationships with BCS bowl games -- the highest-ranked ACC team would play in the Orange Bowl, Big 12 in the Fiesta, Big Ten and Pac-12 in the Rose Bowl, and SEC in the Sugar Bowl. For instance, if Alabama finished No. 1 in the retooled BCS standings, the Crimson Tide would host the No. 4 seed in a national semifinal game at the Allstate Sugar Bowl in New Orleans. If Oregon finished No. 2, the Ducks would host the No. 3 seed in the Rose Bowl Game presented by VIZIO in Pasadena, Calif. A source familiar with the discussions said he preferred this particular plan because it "preserves tradition and the regional tie-ins."

The source said it also solved the "Rose Bowl problem" -- Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany and Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott have maintained their leagues' desire to play in the Rose Bowl every season.


I surprised, and elated, that they are showing this kind of flexibility. Choosing the semi-final venues after the teams are chosen is a huge step in the right direction as far as fan travel is concerned. Gets the Rose Bowl on the page, and basically gets all four bowls the kind of treatment the Rose got, while also maintaining tradition and helping give the top two seeds a little advantage. So many pluses on this one.

Conference commissioners and Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick are leaning heavily toward offering a national championship game to the highest bidder, which might include host cities of the current BCS bowls, or new hosts such as Atlanta, Dallas, Houston and Indianapolis, sources familiar with the discussions told ESPN.com.

$$$$$$$$$$$ You could also look at San Diego, Tampa, Charlotte and St. Louis

Additionally, sources told ESPN.com that BCS officials also would like to maintain the number of teams selected to play in BCS bowl games. Under current BCS rules, 10 teams are selected to play in BCS bowl games -- the ACC, Big East, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC champions are automatic qualifiers, along with four at-large selections. FBS conference commissioners have decided to eliminate designating conferences as "AQ" or "non-AQ" leagues, meaning any team in the top 10 of the final BCS standings would be eligible to play in a BCS bowl game, regardless of its conference affiliation. If BCS officials decide to maintain a pool of 10 teams playing in BCS bowl games, a fifth bowl game probably would be elevated to BCS status, possibly the Cotton Bowl in Dallas or Chick-fil-A Bowl in Atlanta.


Massive news all around. AQ is dead, BCS team limit per conference is dead, likely fifth BCS bowl.

#16 SumnerH


  • Malt Liquor Picker


  • 15,863 posts

Posted 27 April 2012 - 11:18 PM

A four team playoff is pointless. It's a last gasp at maintaining control. Eight is the minimum and really it needs to be the sixteen that D3 has shown to be completely workable.

#17 tims4wins


  • PN23's replacement


  • 7,173 posts

Posted 18 May 2012 - 12:09 PM

Big 12 and SEC Champs to play New Year's bowl beginning in 2014

The five-year agreement calls for the champions of each conference to be in the matchup "unless one or both are selected to play in the new four-team model to determine the national championship," the statement said.



#18 TomRicardo


  • rusty cohlebone


  • 18,374 posts

Posted 18 May 2012 - 12:41 PM

So this game is probably never going to happen.

#19 tims4wins


  • PN23's replacement


  • 7,173 posts

Posted 18 May 2012 - 02:34 PM

So this game is probably never going to happen.


Well, it'll work kind of like the Rose Bowl, where they will take the 2nd best team in the conference if the best team is playing for the national championship. Will be interesting when the SEC has 2 teams in the 4 team tournament and the 3rd best team ends up in this game.

#20 Clears Cleaver


  • SoSH Member


  • 8,478 posts

Posted 18 May 2012 - 03:16 PM

Well...this basically ends the relevence of the ACC and ND. And the orange and fiesta and sugar. Wow. This also sends message that you are either in big four or not. FSU, Miami, nd and vaTech either are going to run or they have to partner up. If the ACC doesn't get ND then they are toast.

I think ACC has to make godfather offer to ND and then ask RU, Uconn, and Louisville to join. You have a more marketable football conference with entire eastern seaboard and best basketball conference ever assembled. That will get them $20m per frOm espn.

#21 berniecarbo1

  • 1,106 posts

Posted 18 May 2012 - 05:17 PM

Well...this basically ends the relevence of the ACC and ND. And the orange and fiesta and sugar. Wow. This also sends message that you are either in big four or not. FSU, Miami, nd and vaTech either are going to run or they have to partner up. If the ACC doesn't get ND then they are toast.

I think ACC has to make godfather offer to ND and then ask RU, Uconn, and Louisville to join. You have a more marketable football conference with entire eastern seaboard and best basketball conference ever assembled. That will get them $20m per frOm espn.


ND is key, but the rest of this is wishful thinking. No one else on your list is relevant football wise and basketball is not a factor in any of this. Football drives the bus and fills up most of the seats on the damn bus. The ACC will give ND the keys to the kingdom to get them and let them set the schedule as they see fit. As to the other bowls being left out in the cold, not really. Don't bet on the Cotton Bowl being the one they pick for this game. It very well will be either the Orange Bowl or Sugar Bowl, and the one that doesn't get it will be the site of the BCS Championship say every 2-3 years. Plus if ND gets into the ACC, the Orange Bowl will keep the ACC as an anchor league with FSU, Miami, VT, Clemson and ND as one of the potential teams. The Orange will then go out and get the best opponenet in the country not playing in the Rose or this new bowl. The bowls will all take care of themsleves. I know you want UConn in a meaningful football conference but unless hoops all of a sudden gathers more traction in this whole conference changing thing, you are religated to a second tier football conference. I have said this before and you all think I am brain dead but this is payback for personally filing suit against the BC administration. Until Leahy and the little shit both leave, UConn will have all kinds of trouble getting into the ACC. Louisville and Rutgers will get in before UConn does, IMHO.

#22 SumnerH


  • Malt Liquor Picker


  • 15,863 posts

Posted 18 May 2012 - 05:30 PM

the Orange Bowl will keep the ACC as an anchor league with FSU, Miami, VT, Clemson and ND as one of the potential teams


Pitt's a bigger deal than Clemson, no? Market-wise, Pitt is the only game in town in Pittsburgh whereas Clemson's second fiddle in South Carolina. Eyeballing http://www.bcsfootba...tory?id=4819384 it looks Pitt also draws much higher TV ratings but it's tough to tell with varying opponents.

But, yeah, FSU/Miami/ND/VaTech plus a few solid teams at the B-level makes for a decent enough anchor league.

#23 berniecarbo1

  • 1,106 posts

Posted 18 May 2012 - 05:51 PM

Pitt's a bigger deal than Clemson, no? Market-wise, Pitt is the only game in town in Pittsburgh whereas Clemson's second fiddle in South Carolina. Eyeballing http://www.bcsfootba...tory?id=4819384 it looks Pitt also draws much higher TV ratings but it's tough to tell with varying opponents.

But, yeah, FSU/Miami/ND/VaTech plus a few solid teams at the B-level makes for a decent enough anchor league.


I'm not going to argue with you on the Pitt/Clemson thing. Bottom line I think we agree on the Top 4 in this "potential" ACC set up and if one of them made the BCS game, it still leaves an attractive team to play in the Orange Bowl representing the ACC. And as you say the league then goes about 8 deep with decent, not great by any stretch, teams, so the league would survive. Having said all that, UConn's only hope is that ND never joins the league and FSU and Clemson leave as is rumored. Then UConn might get in, but I truly think they would go after a Vandy and maybe a Louisville or some other southern school to get back to 14 teams. They have 3 northern schools plus Maryland if you want to throw them into the group. They don't need or want any more yankee schools, especially if 2 teams from Dixie...take a dixie. Also, bear in mind with the whole academic thing, Tulane is building an on campus 40,000 seat stadium, along with playing in the Superdome, so don't count out the possibility of them coming to the ACC. They could enter and play the Dukes, BC's UVA's at the campus site and play ND, VT, and Miami at the Dome. It gives them another southern school in a decent size southern city, with no real hoops threat to the Tobacco Road junta. I could see that scenario happening if FSU and Clemson left, before a UConn or otehr northern school got in.

Edited by berniecarbo1, 18 May 2012 - 05:57 PM.


#24 Clears Cleaver


  • SoSH Member


  • 8,478 posts

Posted 18 May 2012 - 07:02 PM

The ACC is dead if they don't get ND. Its pretty simple. no way the Boards at FSU/Clemson/VaTech get left out of being football relevent. UMiami maybe too, although its less clear what lengths they will go for football. right now, today, the ACC is barely relevent. Lose FSU/VaTech/or clemson an theya re not. You bring in ND you increase your chances of keeping FSU, etc. otherwise, its over.
I think ACC has advantage in getting ND over big 12 becasue of east coast presence for alumni and academics. of course, the big 10 could swoop in as well and that would be game over. Swofford better be on a plane to Bristol...

my wild idea: NBC sports should come in and offer ND/the big east and then a chunk of the ACC $25M per team to form a new conference. Basically let NBC sports create what they want centered around ND. since the ACC is tied to the ESPN deal, NBC really only has the Big east to bid on. so, why not go to ND and say, we will give you whatever you want $$-wise, you create a conference you want and we will invite them. Crazy? yes. but if you invited BC, Uconn, RU, Syracuse, VaTech, FSU, Miami, UNC, MAryland, duke, Lousiville, Penn St, etc who says no? I know its crazy, but NBC needs content and they can pay more than ESPN paying the ACC. its starts the inevitable weeding out of the less valuable schools like Vandy, Ole Miss, Wake forest, Kansas st, Iowa state, etc etc etc.

#25 SumnerH


  • Malt Liquor Picker


  • 15,863 posts

Posted 18 May 2012 - 07:51 PM

Question: why are conferences the same across sports? It seems like basketball, while second fiddle, should be able to drive conferences in the same way that hockey and lacrosse do. As it is now, the two biggest sports seem to work at cross purposes when it comes to conference alignment. There must be some significant benefit to unified conferences, I'm just missing it.

#26 berniecarbo1

  • 1,106 posts

Posted 18 May 2012 - 08:34 PM

Here's the rub with ND. How do you schedule this conference. Now don't laugh but here are some realities: ND plays the following schools every year or just about every year and they have long standing rivalries with them: USC,Stanford, Michigan, Mich State, Purdue and Navy. Add to that a 25 year history with BC, and a longstanding series with Pitt. So, you bring them into the ACC, they keep on playing BC and Pitt but what about the other 6 schools? When you look at ND since roughly 1990, they have about 4 "wildcard" games per year and those have been filled up with teams like Syracuse, FSU, Miami, Army, Duke, Ga Tech, Nevada, Air Force, Alabama, Texas, etc.

Point is they have 6-7 annual opponents. They don't have to do anything. They've got NBC and for all the bashing, everyone wants to play them. They would have to break longstanding rivalries. Which ones? There is an argument to be made for every one of them. The more you drill into it, the more unrealistic it is that ND would ever commit to the ACC. Their hockey team is heading into Hockey East, they can put the olympic sports in a catholic version of the Big East or something. ND, for all its failings and honestly mediocre product these days, still drives the bus.


#27 Infield Infidel


  • teaching korea american


  • 8,584 posts

Posted 19 May 2012 - 12:06 AM

Alternate Stanford and USC, Michigan and Mich St, Purdue and Navy. Or just get into the Big Ten, who would happily take them.

Also, for the SEC-Big12 bowl, they could rotate it, or they could certainly fill the JerryDome or SuperDome. It sounds to me like it's going to be a new thing, but the Cotton and Sugar make a ton of sense if they use an existing game. The NCG however will almost certainly be put up to a bid, with cities all over the country bidding on it like the Super Bowl. That will be a goldmine.

#28 Clears Cleaver


  • SoSH Member


  • 8,478 posts

Posted 19 May 2012 - 10:42 PM

Here's the rub with ND. How do you schedule this conference. Now don't laugh but here are some realities: ND plays the following schools every year or just about every year and they have long standing rivalries with them: USC,Stanford, Michigan, Mich State, Purdue and Navy. Add to that a 25 year history with BC, and a longstanding series with Pitt. So, you bring them into the ACC, they keep on playing BC and Pitt but what about the other 6 schools? When you look at ND since roughly 1990, they have about 4 "wildcard" games per year and those have been filled up with teams like Syracuse, FSU, Miami, Army, Duke, Ga Tech, Nevada, Air Force, Alabama, Texas, etc.

Point is they have 6-7 annual opponents. They don't have to do anything. They've got NBC and for all the bashing, everyone wants to play them. They would have to break longstanding rivalries. Which ones? There is an argument to be made for every one of them. The more you drill into it, the more unrealistic it is that ND would ever commit to the ACC. Their hockey team is heading into Hockey East, they can put the olympic sports in a catholic version of the Big East or something. ND, for all its failings and honestly mediocre product these days, still drives the bus.


Well, rumors are hot that Clemson is done to the Big 12 and FSU is close to follow. Not a shock, although the speed might be if true. The big 12 is back to 12, the ACC is toast and we all await on ND while VaTech, Maryland and UNC all scramble to see where they can go. I suspect the Big 10 would prefer ND and UNC, the SEC would like UNC and VaTech and the big 12 will invite ND and let them choose the 14th team. we are about 3 years from the 4 superconference model (although the Pac whatever can't really get to 16 unless they go BYU and crap). The big 10 can't sit around and lose out on ND or whomever else they want. and ND's hand is being pushed. they may need to make a decision as these large conference teams are not going to have the room to play ND anymore and they won't have a seat at any meaningful bowl, either, unless NBC ponies up and finds someone to play

#29 StuckOnYouk

  • 2,096 posts

Posted 20 May 2012 - 07:09 AM

I know you want UConn in a meaningful football conference but unless hoops all of a sudden gathers more traction in this whole conference changing thing, you are religated to a second tier football conference. I have said this before and you all think I am brain dead but this is payback for personally filing suit against the BC administration. Until Leahy and the little shit both leave, UConn will have all kinds of trouble getting into the ACC. Louisville and Rutgers will get in before UConn does, IMHO.

The ACC is a meaningful football conference? Did I miss something? In 2-3 years the Big East - or whatever you want to call the sea to shining sea conference - will likely be comparable to the ACC once all their additions are in place. Hell, they could even be better once the Big 12 is done carving up the ACC. As a fan of the conference that has been suckerpunched twice by the ACC, I'm enjoying seeing the Big 12 sharpen its knives. This could get good real fast.

and not to beat a dead horse but the lawsuit is far from the only reason BC wants to keep UConn out of the ACC.

#30 Clears Cleaver


  • SoSH Member


  • 8,478 posts

Posted 20 May 2012 - 09:32 AM

this is so not about uconn. if uconn drpped football it would suck becasue i like to bring my kids but whatever. ande i'd almost rather have them drop it than play in a glorified conf usa against houston, smu etc.

you all realize that this ahs marginalized the northeast for college sports? not that many around here care, but basically the superconference model will make the those 60+ schools a lot of money and make it difficult for anyone else to compete. the really intersting things that are going to happen IMO are where ND goes (independence = irrelevency in 5-1o years) and what happens with UNC (will they leave Duke?).

#31 berniecarbo1

  • 1,106 posts

Posted 21 May 2012 - 04:30 PM

The ACC is a meaningful football conference? Did I miss something? In 2-3 years the Big East - or whatever you want to call the sea to shining sea conference - will likely be comparable to the ACC once all their additions are in place. Hell, they could even be better once the Big 12 is done carving up the ACC. As a fan of the conference that has been suckerpunched twice by the ACC, I'm enjoying seeing the Big 12 sharpen its knives. This could get good real fast.

and not to beat a dead horse but the lawsuit is far from the only reason BC wants to keep UConn out of the ACC.


If The ACC is so bad, how come you guys want it so much???

#32 Trautwein's Degree


  • a Connecticut bicycle attorney in General Motor's Court


  • 10,096 posts

Posted 21 May 2012 - 07:01 PM

Here's the rub with ND. How do you schedule this conference. Now don't laugh but here are some realities: ND plays the following schools every year or just about every year and they have long standing rivalries with them: USC,Stanford, Michigan, Mich State, Purdue and Navy. Add to that a 25 year history with BC, and a longstanding series with Pitt. So, you bring them into the ACC, they keep on playing BC and Pitt but what about the other 6 teams?


Life goes on. Nebraska used to play Oklahoma every year. Then every other year. Now they don't play at all which at one point not too long ago would have been unthinkable. Notre Dame, like Nebraska and many other schools will simply find new rivals.

#33 Clears Cleaver


  • SoSH Member


  • 8,478 posts

Posted 21 May 2012 - 08:51 PM

If The ACC is so bad, how come you guys want it so much???


I think Uconn fans want anything but what the big East is supposed to become. given what's happened and happening (FSU, Clemson, Louisville and ND all likely going to the big12), ideally Uconn would be invited to the Big10. but that aint happening. After VaTech and NCState go to the SEC, the rest of the ACC would be completely irrelevent in football but pretty awesome in hoops and assuming Rutgers and Uconn are the 11th and 12th teams. Plus a lot of traditional rivalries would remain/be instituted. and no one thinks Uconn is going to be a national power, but at best a team that can break into the top 20 every few years and compete for the conference title. And beat BC regularly.

The risk to this of course is that the Big10 goes after Maryland, Syracuse, Pitt, UNC, etc as well.

#34 Clears Cleaver


  • SoSH Member


  • 8,478 posts

Posted 22 May 2012 - 10:02 AM

http://outkickthecov...match-nears.php

#35 TomRicardo


  • rusty cohlebone


  • 18,374 posts

Posted 22 May 2012 - 10:45 AM

Life goes on. Nebraska used to play Oklahoma every year. Then every other year. Now they don't play at all which at one point not too long ago would have been unthinkable. Notre Dame, like Nebraska and many other schools will simply find new rivals.


This makes any move for Notre Dame very unappealing especially the ACC.

#36 SumnerH


  • Malt Liquor Picker


  • 15,863 posts

Posted 22 May 2012 - 11:08 AM

http://outkickthecov...match-nears.php


I agree with the overall premise, but I think that Virginia and VaTech are likely to be tied at the hip the same way that the Texas state schools were--the VA legislature pulled out all the stops to get VaTech into the ACC with Virginia, after all. If that's true, obviously it complicates things--does the Big 10 take VaTech despite an imperfect culture/academics match? Does the SEC want VaTech enough to take UVA along with it despite UVA's academics football?

There hasn't been much noise about UNC/NC State being tied together, but there hasn't been any really likely noise about them moving before now so who knows.

#37 SumnerH


  • Malt Liquor Picker


  • 15,863 posts

Posted 22 May 2012 - 11:11 AM

This makes any move for Notre Dame very unappealing especially the ACC.


Well, people keep saying that the independent money is going to dry up for them (or be well less than what a strong conference with its own network could provide). But, yeah, them to the ACC was always a stretch. Really, if they do join a conference the Big 10 makes too much sense for them to go anywhere else, doesn't it? You have to believe that they'd find a way to work that out.

#38 Doug Beerabelli


  • Killer Threads


  • 7,465 posts

Posted 22 May 2012 - 11:30 AM

If The ACC is so bad, how come you guys want it so much???


The ACC as presently costituted would be great for UConn to be in. If there was proof BC helped that happen, I might start donating money to BC again. :P

For me, more for hoops than footie, but it's be great to play FSU and Miami and Clemson at home every once in awhile. The Duke game would be fun. BC game would be epic. MD if Edsall isn't canned already would be fun. They've played some other ACC schools recently, UNC and GTech come to mind. Certainly joining the ACC would solidify UConn's football situation, even if they merely are hitching their ride to the stars in the conference (much as BC currently is doing, and claiming "victory" for).

If FSU goes to Big 12, and the ACC crumbles as it's more attractive parts disperse to the Big 10 and Big 12, you might have BC and others asking to join the Big East. That, my friends, would be glorious. As would the idea of Duke and UNC losing their home court when the BET is held at MSG. But I doubt UNC would be part of that group joining up.

In the end in that scenario, however, both BC and UConn would be second class football citizens, which would be a little sad (the transformation from a little hope to no hope). As someone who would like to see something occur to revive intereste in big time college football in New England, however fleeting that wish might be, BC and UConn being forced to play every year due to conference requirements would be a good thing for both schools. I imagine the only thing left of GDF at BC if that was to occur would be his claw marks on the office door jamb he left as he was dragged from his office kicking and screaming.

Bernie and other BC fans, let's all come to grips with this: On the college football landscape, both BC and UConn are an afterthought. If you want to argue how many afterthoughts can fit on the head of a pin, I guess we can do that.

#39 TomRicardo


  • rusty cohlebone


  • 18,374 posts

Posted 22 May 2012 - 11:51 AM

Well, people keep saying that the independent money is going to dry up for them (or be well less than what a strong conference with its own network could provide). But, yeah, them to the ACC was always a stretch. Really, if they do join a conference the Big 10 makes too much sense for them to go anywhere else, doesn't it? You have to believe that they'd find a way to work that out.


I don't think Notre Dame will do anything but sit and listen. I don't think the Big 10 will make a pitch. It may just happen but as sure as I am that NBC will not give up on Whitney, they will continue to prop up Notre Dame Football. Unless they make a move for Big East Football.

#40 Clears Cleaver


  • SoSH Member


  • 8,478 posts

Posted 22 May 2012 - 12:41 PM

ND will join a conference. Why? becasue in the proposed system, they have little to no chance of competing for a national title or even playing in a high paying bowl game. Plus, they would have an increasingly hard time filling their schedule with interesting games. And, they would be getting a lot less $$ than schools in the Big 12, sEC, PAC12 and Big10. Basically, they would become irrelevent. Now, I know they are already irrelevent nationally on the field, but the media or EPSN or NBC continues to sell the ND-hype. not being in one of the big four conferences in a few years will severely disadvantage them. and it sounds like the Big 12 is where they will end up given the Big 12 will allow more flexibility for ND to keep tier3 rights, etc.

I am really interested to see if UNC decides to leave the ACC and Duke behind. If they got an invite to the SEC or Big10 (and I suspect they'd be as attractive as anyone left standing), they'd have to consider it. Plus, what is Duke going to be in a few years when Coach K leaves? not much. hard to play as a small private school. that's why Miami is not as attractive (that and chance the football program is severely injured by this shaipro thing) as others less traditional programs

#41 Clears Cleaver


  • SoSH Member


  • 8,478 posts

Posted 23 May 2012 - 03:16 PM

TCU AD went on the record today saying clemson, FSU and Miami have all approached the Big12 about possible admission. LOL that it was TCU, who has been in three different conferences in the last 12 months

#42 TomRicardo


  • rusty cohlebone


  • 18,374 posts

Posted 23 May 2012 - 04:27 PM

Clemson is out of the ACC as quickly as they find someone saying maybe. FSU as well. Bullshit the Big 12 won't kill the ACC. They plead solidarity with the Big East until TCU and West Virginia looked their way.

#43 TomRicardo


  • rusty cohlebone


  • 18,374 posts

Posted 23 May 2012 - 04:39 PM

I can see the Big 12 grabbing Clemson, Georgia Tech, FSU, and Miami all of which fit much better with the Big 12 culture than the ACC culture.

That would make:

East Division of Kansas, KSU, Iowa St., Clemson, Georgia Tech, FSU, and Miami
West: Texas, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Baylor, Texas Tech, Baylor

It would make them the only conference capable of realistically matching up against the SEC.

Virginia Tech could drag Virginia as well but that would effectively kill the ACC. I would imagine Duke and NC could plead to Big 10. BC, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, and NC State without a home. Maybe Conference USA?

Edit - forgot Maryland and Wake Forest.

Duke, UNC, NC St., Maryland, Wake Forest, Pitt, BC, Syracuse, Duke. Do they bother even playing football anymore?

Edited by TomRicardo, 23 May 2012 - 05:06 PM.


#44 Clears Cleaver


  • SoSH Member


  • 8,478 posts

Posted 23 May 2012 - 07:57 PM

If UNC wants to be a national player, they are going to have to leave Duke behind. no one will want Duke. Will they? There is no way the Big10 or SEC takes Duke and UNC doesn't have enough cache alone to force Duke on anyone. this is the same problemk VaTech would have with UVa. Although I can see the Big 10 possibly wanting UVa.

Whatever is left of the ACC will likely acquire what is left of the Big East, meaning it will look like the old big east except worse.

#45 SumnerH


  • Malt Liquor Picker


  • 15,863 posts

Posted 23 May 2012 - 11:04 PM

If UNC wants to be a national player, they are going to have to leave Duke behind. no one will want Duke. Will they? There is no way the Big10 or SEC takes Duke and UNC doesn't have enough cache alone to force Duke on anyone. this is the same problemk VaTech would have with UVa. Although I can see the Big 10 possibly wanting UVa.

Whatever is left of the ACC will likely acquire what is left of the Big East, meaning it will look like the old big east except worse.

As a huge fan of college basketball who couldn't give two shits about college football, I'm really hoping for a conference with Unc, Duke, and uconn that owns the sport. Barring that, i'd love to see basketball and football have different conferences. I doubt any of that happens, but it seems stupid and in the long term bad for everyone to have Clemson and FSU having more say in the future of college basketball then Uconn, unc, and Duke (or Kentucky, MSU, Arizona, and Louisville).

Forcing the two sports to be joined at the hips just seems bad for both.

#46 wonderland

  • 93 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 08:25 AM

I can see the Big 12 grabbing Clemson, Georgia Tech, FSU, and Miami all of which fit much better with the Big 12 culture than the ACC culture.

That would make:

East Division of Kansas, KSU, Iowa St., Clemson, Georgia Tech, FSU, and Miami
West: Texas, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Baylor, Texas Tech, Baylor

It would make them the only conference capable of realistically matching up against the SEC.


You have Baylor twice and no WVU. Would Kansas and Kansas St be split up.



#47 TomRicardo


  • rusty cohlebone


  • 18,374 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 08:45 AM

You have Baylor twice and no WVU. Would Kansas and Kansas St be split up.


No.

East Division of Kansas, KSU, WVU, Clemson, Georgia Tech, FSU, and Miami
West: Texas, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Baylor, Texas Tech, Iowa St.

Oh Iowa St. the once and future bitch of the Big 12.

That or FSU goes to the West

Edited by TomRicardo, 24 May 2012 - 08:46 AM.


#48 TomRicardo


  • rusty cohlebone


  • 18,374 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 08:48 AM

If UNC wants to be a national player, they are going to have to leave Duke behind. no one will want Duke. Will they? There is no way the Big10 or SEC takes Duke and UNC doesn't have enough cache alone to force Duke on anyone. this is the same problemk VaTech would have with UVa. Although I can see the Big 10 possibly wanting UVa.

Whatever is left of the ACC will likely acquire what is left of the Big East, meaning it will look like the old big east except worse.


Big 10 would take Duke with UNC. UNC offers nothing for football, nothing. So if you are taking UNC for basketball why not Duke as well. Both are AAU and both will turn a bunch of eyeballs towards Big 10 basketball.

#49 WestMassExpat

  • 419 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 10:01 AM

Clemson is out of the ACC as quickly as they find someone saying maybe. FSU as well. Bullshit the Big 12 won't kill the ACC. They plead solidarity with the Big East until TCU and West Virginia looked their way.

I don't remember the Big 12 pleading solidarity with the Big East. I remember the Big 12 almost blowing up three times, but not necessarily blasting the SEC or Big10 for poaching.

#50 TomRicardo


  • rusty cohlebone


  • 18,374 posts

Posted 24 May 2012 - 10:34 AM

I don't remember the Big 12 pleading solidarity with the Big East. I remember the Big 12 almost blowing up three times, but not necessarily blasting the SEC or Big10 for poaching.


It happened as they were in merger talks in September.



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users