[NotAJerry]

The majority of bowl teams lose a large amount of money on the bowl games.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/ ... 50582512/1

[Liberty4Life]

I don't know why a playoff and a bowl system cannot coincide with each other.

If you have a four-team playoff -- how does that impact the Meineke Car Care Bowl or any of the other 164 bowl games?

This year, you'd have LSU vs. Oregon / Stanford and Alabama vs. OSU, with the winners of both playing each other for the national championship.

You can say that it destroys the traditionally-held bowl tie in games (I'm looking at you, Jim Delaney), but in this case you could still have the Big 10 champion playing someone from the Pac 12. Sure, it's not the Big 10 Champ playing the Pac 12 champ -- but that doesn't happen even with the system we have now (see last year with Wisconsin playing TCU).

[Sly Fox]

For the record, the FCS playoffs is a money loser as well. So avoiding the FBS scene because most bowls don't make money isn't valid. Bowls are meant to be a celebration for schools and their fans. Parties cost money but create plenty of memories.

And yes, a playoff/bowl mix is where we most likely are eventually headed. That is the best of both worlds. It allows a ton of teams to end the season on a high note and moves us closer to having a real national championship instead of winners chosen by math and membership in an annointed league.

You could go to an 8-team playoff using the locations of the current BCS games and solve the problems fairly easily. Of course the haves are very much concerned about the "slippery slope" as Delaney references that would allow the have nots access to the playoff. The current BCS leagues want to have their cake and eat it too.

[Sly Fox]

From the WAC front ...

Benson expresses optimism with Boise State back in the fold
Posted on 12/07/2011 by Dan McCarney

Western Athletic Conference commissioner Karl Benson held court Wednesday for more than an hour Wednesday, not just announcing the re-admission of Boise State as a non-football member but almost gloating that, for once, his league got better while others (Conference USA and Mountain West, which were both raided by the Big East) got worse.

“This is a very positive day for the WAC,” he said. “CUSA today took a hit. The Mountain West took a hit. The WAC added to its value. So in terms of who is keeping score today, the WAC has benefited from this latest change. The WAC claims victory today.”

First things first: Today’s announcement doesn’t change the fact that the WAC is still in danger as a football entity. Should CUSA and the Mountain West go searching for more members, the logical poaching ground would likely include the WAC.

Indeed, multiple outlets have reported multiple models including multiple members, including Utah State, San Jose State and this year’s champion, Louisiana Tech — the loss of even one of which would deal a crushing blow.

Click Here for Full Story

In a nutshell, the WAC is trying to get some of its defectors to the MWC to reconsider before they actually make their announced moves. Obviously the Mountain West is nowhere near as attractive today as it was when the better WAC schools all announced they would be moving. Very interesting developments. This is probably bad from our LU perspective if it were to happen. We need desperation at the low-levels of FBS to spur expansion.

[alabama24]

I don't know why a playoff and a bowl system cannot coincide with each other.

It depends upon what you mean by "playoff." When a school gets into one of the big bowls, there is a lot of money to be made. I am not just thinking of the schools (which may lose money), but think about the restaurants, hotels, travel industry, etc. Some have suggested an 8 or 16 team "playoff" system. There is no way for those to be as lucrative as the traditional bowls. Fans can't "fly across the country next saturday" because their team made it another round.

FWIW - Mike Slive, the SEC commissioner, had previously proposed a "plus 1" (in other words, a 4 team playoff), but the other commissioners were opposed. I think that a "plus 1" might be doable, but there would still be many logistical issues to work out.

[Sly Fox]

I agree, BYD. And it is looking more & more like a +1 is inevitable beginning 2014. While a 4-team playoff is nice, an 8-team playoff would be much better.

As for logistics for fans, if the semifinals and championship game were at predetermined sites then fans could made refundable reservations like they already do for key bowls.

This could all work if the SEC/B1G/Big XII/Pac 12 boys agree to play ball. But it is those same conferences who figure to lose the most by swaying from the status quo. Quite simply, they don't want to share the loot.

[4everfsu]

Conference dominos still may fall

By Andy Katz
ESPN.com

The fallout from the Big East's shakeup in football and basketball this week will continue for weeks, if not months or years, according to multiple sources at the conference commissioner level.

The Mountain West and Conference USA merger, which appears imminent, can't be consummated until both conferences learn what the Big East will do. It is attempting to get to 12 schools that play football. The Big East is awaiting a decision from Navy, which it wants as a football-only member.

That could lead the Big East to poach C-USA members Memphis or East Carolina. Temple of the Atlantic 10 (in all sports) and the MAC (for football) is a viable candidate as well.

The MWC-C-USA merger would create a solid basketball league -- if the membership were to stay as it is right now. It would feature headline teams Memphis, UNLV, New Mexico, Tulsa, UTEP and UAB.

Click Here for Full Story

[NotAJerry]

I'm a fan of a FBS playoff, preferably 16 teams, with autobids for the conferences with one caveat. If the schedule is going to be 12 games for the regular season, then you must have at least 8 FBS wins during the season or you don't get to go to the playoffs. That way you don't have a 6-6 Sun Belt team wasting everyone's time.

[BJWilliams]

I came up with something like that for fun a couple years ago. If we went with the FCS system (8 auto, 8 at large, minimum 8 FBS wins for at large) your AQs would be:

ACC: Clemson
Big East: West Virginia
Big 10: Wisconsin
Big 12: Oklahoma
C-USA: Southern Miss
Mountain West: TCU
Pac-12: Oregon
SEC: LSU

At-Large Pool (based on NaJ's requirements):

ACC: Virginia Tech
Big 12: Kansas State, Oklahoma, Baylor
Big 10: Nebraska, Michigan, Penn State, Michigan State
Big East: Cincinnati
C-USA: Houston, Tulsa
Independents: BYU, Notre Dame
MAC: Northern Illinois, Ohio
Pac-12: Stanford
SEC: South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas
Sun Belt: Arkansas State

[NotAJerry]

Don't forget the WAC, MAC, and Sun Belt all had legit conference winners this year with at least 8 FBS wins, so they should get into that mix.

[BJWilliams]

Agreed on that. Naturally to create an even split (as in the FCS) you had to cut three conferences from AQ consideration. Louisiana Tech only had 7 FBS wins (they beat Central Arkansas for their 8th win)

[jwmann2]

The realignment is perhaps the biggest joke I've ever seen. The NCAA wants you to think they're trying to benefit everyone but they're really realigning to help make the organization more money. Rivalries are being ruined, it's pretty disgusting. Missouri and Texas A&M in the SEC? Are they in the Southeastern united states?

[NotAJerry]

The realignment is perhaps the biggest joke I've ever seen. The NCAA wants you to think they're trying to benefit everyone but they're really realigning to help make the organization more money. Rivalries are being ruined, it's pretty disgusting. Missouri and Texas A&M in the SEC? Are they in the Southeastern united states?

The NCAA isn't realigning. Individual teams, chasing what they think is the best combo of revenue and opportunity to play for a "championship," are jumping whenever they think they can improve their lot. That's been going on my entire life. I still remember the SWC and Big8. It's nonsensical to be bothered by any of what is happening.

[ATrain]

The realignment is perhaps the biggest joke I've ever seen. The NCAA wants you to think they're trying to benefit everyone but they're really realigning to help make the organization more money. Rivalries are being ruined, it's pretty disgusting. Missouri and Texas A&M in the SEC? Are they in the Southeastern united states?

Hey, Texas fought for the South, and Missouri was bitterly divided even though they stayed in the Union. They're both on the border of what can be considered the Southeast today, but they work. A better question is whether or not San Jose State is in the east at all.

[Purple Haize]

The realignment is perhaps the biggest joke I've ever seen. The NCAA wants you to think they're trying to benefit everyone but they're really realigning to help make the organization more money. Rivalries are being ruined, it's pretty disgusting. Missouri and Texas A&M in the SEC? Are they in the Southeastern united states?

Hey, Texas fought for the South, and Missouri was bitterly divided even though they stayed in the Union. They're both on the border of what can be considered the Southeast today, but they work. A better question is whether or not San Jose State is in the east at all.

Compared to Hawaii

[bradyfan]

The realignment is perhaps the biggest joke I've ever seen. The NCAA wants you to think they're trying to benefit everyone but they're really realigning to help make the organization more money. Rivalries are being ruined, it's pretty disgusting. Missouri and Texas A&M in the SEC? Are they in the Southeastern united states?

And what's wrong with an organization making decisions to make more money? People act like it's such a crime. Any Big 12 fan, except maybe a UT fan, would tell you that Texas A&M isn't like any other Big 12 schools. They're rivalry with Arkansas and LSU will be much more intense than UT and Oklahoma. Furthermore, who cares if old rivalries are being ruined? New ones are forming and it's going to be exciting. There isn't anything that you can say or do to the current circumstances, so why not just embrace the change?

[Liberty4Life]

And what's wrong with an organization making decisions to make more money? People act like it's such a crime. Any Big 12 fan, except maybe a UT fan, would tell you that Texas A&M isn't like any other Big 12 schools. They're rivalry with Arkansas and LSU will be much more intense than UT and Oklahoma. Furthermore, who cares if old rivalries are being ruined? New ones are forming and it's going to be exciting. There isn't anything that you can say or do to the current circumstances, so why not just embrace the change?

Thre is certainly nothing wrong with wanting to make more money -- but I think the NCAA created the climate that has made the realignment discussion such a fiasco.

Because the NCAA* said that A) You need to have 12 teams in order to schedule a lucrative championship game and B) only certain conferences get the right to compete in lucrative bowl games, everything went to heck. Go back a few years -- would the ACC have added Miami, VT & Boston College if they didn't need to get to 12 for a championship game? They only wanted Miami (and only a few schools did -- not the entire conference). Would the Big East have raided Conference USA and try to set themselves up as a basketball superconference? Would they still be strong enough to be a halfway decent conference? And if they didn't have one of the coveted automatic bids, would they be remotely attractive to someone like San Diego State & Boise State?

Would the Pac-10 / Big-10 be compelled to expand in 2010 if they could host a championship game with 10 or 11? What would have happened if the Big 12 remained at 12? Would Texas have been searching for a new conference (no really -- would they have)? Would Missouri and Texas A&M tried to seek SEC membership if the Big 12 wasn't on the verge of falling apart?

*NCAA / BCS, same thing. The NCAA enabled the BCS to happen.

[NotAJerry]

The NCAA is scared to death of the BCS as it's just another step towards the top football programs telling the NCAA where to stick it as they go off on their own. The NCAA has literally nothing to do with the BCS and would get rid of it if they could.

[bradyfan]

And what's wrong with an organization making decisions to make more money? People act like it's such a crime. Any Big 12 fan, except maybe a UT fan, would tell you that Texas A&M isn't like any other Big 12 schools. They're rivalry with Arkansas and LSU will be much more intense than UT and Oklahoma. Furthermore, who cares if old rivalries are being ruined? New ones are forming and it's going to be exciting. There isn't anything that you can say or do to the current circumstances, so why not just embrace the change?

Thre is certainly nothing wrong with wanting to make more money -- but I think the NCAA created the climate that has made the realignment discussion such a fiasco.

Because the NCAA* said that A) You need to have 12 teams in order to schedule a lucrative championship game and B) only certain conferences get the right to compete in lucrative bowl games, everything went to heck. Go back a few years -- would the ACC have added Miami, VT & Boston College if they didn't need to get to 12 for a championship game? They only wanted Miami (and only a few schools did -- not the entire conference). Would the Big East have raided Conference USA and try to set themselves up as a basketball superconference? Would they still be strong enough to be a halfway decent conference? And if they didn't have one of the coveted automatic bids, would they be remotely attractive to someone like San Diego State & Boise State?

Would the Pac-10 / Big-10 be compelled to expand in 2010 if they could host a championship game with 10 or 11? What would have happened if the Big 12 remained at 12? Would Texas have been searching for a new conference (no really -- would they have)? Would Missouri and Texas A&M tried to seek SEC membership if the Big 12 wasn't on the verge of falling apart?

*NCAA / BCS, same thing. The NCAA enabled the BCS to happen.

But what's the problem with it? I still don't get what's so wrong with the BCS. The BCS is supposed to put #1 vs #2 in the championship, while having 4 other entertaining games. I still don't get what is so wrong with that. Only once in about the last eight years has it failed. I actually love the BCS system unlike most people. Why is it a problem that conferences have 12 or more teams to have a conference championship game? If anything, this has helped small schools by giving conferences a reason to want them.

[Liberty4Life]

But what's the problem with it? I still don't get what's so wrong with the BCS. The BCS is supposed to put #1 vs #2 in the championship, while having 4 other entertaining games. I still don't get what is so wrong with that. Only once in about the last eight years has it failed. I actually love the BCS system unlike most people. Why is it a problem that conferences have 12 or more teams to have a conference championship game? If anything, this has helped small schools by giving conferences a reason to want them.

The problem is that the BCS has necessarily divided schools into "haves" and "have nots". And the "haves" are given a MAJOR financial advantage. Second, I reject the notion that the BCS has always matched up the #1 and #2 teams in the country. Sure, the teams may have been ranked #1 and #2 -- but were they really the best two? The BCS uses the coaches poll to determine its rankings. The coaches have a vested interest in seeing teams from their conference in the BCS games -- look at Alabama and Oklahoma State this year -- the second and third ranked teams -- don't you think it's a little fishy that Alabama's coach said that OSU wasn't 2nd or 3rd? Stanford -- who was looking for a place in a BCS bowl -- said that OSU was 5th? A few years ago, TCU and Boise State had legitimate cases for being one of the top teams in the country. Did they get to play in the championship game? No... probably because one Big 10 President says that you SHOULDN'T be allowed to play for the National Championship unless you're from a BCS conference.

Haves. Have nots.

Why is it a problem to mandate 12 schools for a conference championship? Maybe some conferences like having ten.

[NotAJerry]

But what's the problem with it? I still don't get what's so wrong with the BCS. The BCS is supposed to put #1 vs #2 in the championship, while having 4 other entertaining games. I still don't get what is so wrong with that. Only once in about the last eight years has it failed. I actually love the BCS system unlike most people. Why is it a problem that conferences have 12 or more teams to have a conference championship game? If anything, this has helped small schools by giving conferences a reason to want them.

The BCS 1 vs 2 has been legitimately debatable 8 of 13 times prior to this year where it is debatable again.

[bradyfan]

But what's the problem with it? I still don't get what's so wrong with the BCS. The BCS is supposed to put #1 vs #2 in the championship, while having 4 other entertaining games. I still don't get what is so wrong with that. Only once in about the last eight years has it failed. I actually love the BCS system unlike most people. Why is it a problem that conferences have 12 or more teams to have a conference championship game? If anything, this has helped small schools by giving conferences a reason to want them.

The problem is that the BCS has necessarily divided schools into "haves" and "have nots". And the "haves" are given a MAJOR financial advantage. Second, I reject the notion that the BCS has always matched up the #1 and #2 teams in the country. Sure, the teams may have been ranked #1 and #2 -- but were they really the best two? The BCS uses the coaches poll to determine its rankings. The coaches have a vested interest in seeing teams from their conference in the BCS games -- look at Alabama and Oklahoma State this year -- the second and third ranked teams -- don't you think it's a little fishy that Alabama's coach said that OSU wasn't 2nd or 3rd? Stanford -- who was looking for a place in a BCS bowl -- said that OSU was 5th? A few years ago, TCU and Boise State had legitimate cases for being one of the top teams in the country. Did they get to play in the championship game? No... probably because one Big 10 President says that you SHOULDN'T be allowed to play for the National Championship unless you're from a BCS conference.

Haves. Have nots.

Why is it a problem to mandate 12 schools for a conference championship? Maybe some conferences like having ten.

Yes, they were #1 vs. #2. Alabama's best win vs. #6 Arkansas 38-14. Oklahoma St.'s best win vs #8 Kansas St. 52-45. Alabama's loss vs #1 LSU 9-6. Oklahoma St.'s loss vs Iowa St. 37-31. Alabama also had a better strength of schedule. The only argument for the Cowboys is that they won their conference and that's not even a real argument since LSU won Alabama's. Plus, since when has winning a conference/division mattered in any other sport? I almost wish Oklahoma St. would have got into the championship game, just so we could watch LSU destroy them. The Big 10 President is right btw, you shouldn't be allowed to play in the National Championship unless you're from a BCS conference. If some conferences like having ten, that's fine but they don't get a national championship game. It's like if your kid wants desert but won't eat dinner, do you give him desert just because he wants it? Or would you make him eat his desert first? If he doesn't eat dinner, that's fine but you probably wouldn't reward him for that right? Why should a ten team conference be able to have a conference championship? Just because they want to? It's also odd that someone who supports mid-major programs would be against a mandate of 12 teams for a conference championship. That rule is allowing teams like Utah, Boise State, Houston, TCU and many other programs to enter AQ conferences.

But what's the problem with it? I still don't get what's so wrong with the BCS. The BCS is supposed to put #1 vs #2 in the championship, while having 4 other entertaining games. I still don't get what is so wrong with that. Only once in about the last eight years has it failed. I actually love the BCS system unlike most people. Why is it a problem that conferences have 12 or more teams to have a conference championship game? If anything, this has helped small schools by giving conferences a reason to want them.

The BCS 1 vs 2 has been legitimately debatable 8 of 13 times prior to this year where it is debatable again.

Outside of the year Auburn didn't get in (because I would agree with you on that one), provide one example of where the BCS didn't pair up 1 vs 2.

[thepostman]

Oklahoma st has the better strength of schedule. Which has been their main argument, but I don't really care. The BCS is crap and I wouldn't of watched either way

[bradyfan]

Oklahoma st has the better strength of schedule. Which has been their main argument, but I don't really care. The BCS is crap and I wouldn't of watched either way

No they don't. Alabama has the 2nd best SOS, Oklahoma St. has the 9th.

http://www.teamrankings.com/college-foo ... le-by-team

[flamehunter]

Oklahoma st has the better strength of schedule. Which has been their main argument, but I don't really care. The BCS is crap and I wouldn't of watched either way

No they don't. Alabama has the 2nd best SOS, Oklahoma St. has the 9th.

http://www.teamrankings.com/college-foo ... le-by-team

It's debatable. Here's one (which is one of the computer rankings used by the BCS) that rates Ok St's as higher than Alabama's.
http://www.andersonsports.com/football/ACF_frnk.html

So does Sagarin. So does Colley's. Only one of the BCS computer rankings lists Alabama's SOS as higher than OK St.
Check for yourself here: http://www.bcsknowhow.com/final-bcs-ran ... son-on-top
This just shows it isn't an exact science and this is why it should be determined on the field and not by "experts" opinions or scientific formulas.