BCS Source: AQs are "gone" in new agreement

[Cleveland_Bearcat]

Not exactly.

Remember when 1 didn't play 2 in bowls? Everybody wanted to insure 1 played 2 to get rid of disputed champions. Well they created a thing called the BCS and now every body hates it because it isn't a playoff. I tend to think fans complain and have very short-sighted views on a playoff system. It's no panacea.

Personally, I would:
Keep Bowls bound to tie-ins. For example, Big-10 v. Pac-10 would always play in the grandaddy-of-them-all. I could see Big East v. ACC as an automatic for the Orange Bowl, maybe SEC plays Sugar v. at-large or Big 12. These would be fixed so that fans knew their conference was playing for a fixed destination.

Them I think an "and-1" or "and-2" could come into play. So, basically the bowls would serve as the first round of the playoffs. Let's say Stanford has one loss and plays and undefeated Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl. Wisconsin loses in an ugly game and neither team makes the 'playoff'. By keeping some of the spots 'at-large' it compensates for Notre Dame and non-AQ schools. So undefeated Boise or TCU could play an SEC team in the Sugar, for example. This would really be a test of both schools ability to play in an "and-2" format that could be decided by the polls and/or computer.

I would also weigh road victories highly, whether it was computerized or human polling. Road wins are A) hard to come by and B) would encourage bigger schools to play more home-and-homes v. quality opponents.

That's my thought. I think big schools would go for it because they have their precious bowls and more games, which equals more revenue. I think smaller schools would appreciate it due to the automatic-tie-ins and the fact they aren't excluded from system. They would just have to play a really good team to get into the and-2 playoffs.
I think a system like this would be very good for mid-tier schools like UC.

[Cleveland_Bearcat]

The biggest advantage to that sort of system is that the regular season would be very important and not be diluted.

Oh and I would get rid of the stupid rule where you need 12 teams to have a conference championship. I think the search for those extra teams and a single game is what started this conference feeding to begin with.

[Binturong05]

Originally Posted by Cleveland_Bearcat

The biggest advantage to that sort of system is that the regular season would be very important and not be diluted.

Oh and I would get rid of the stupid rule where you need 12 teams to have a conference championship. I think the search for those extra teams and a single game is what started this conference feeding to begin with.

But the tie-ins to certain conferences while excluding others does nothing to address the monopolistic nature of the BCS. As long as there are favored conferences and favored programs it's an uphill climb for anyone not deemed a traditional power that is trying to get their share of the cash pie.

[Cleveland_Bearcat]

Originally Posted by Binturong05

But the tie-ins to certain conferences while excluding others does nothing to address the monopolistic nature of the BCS. As long as there are favored conferences and favored programs it's an uphill climb for anyone not deemed a traditional power that is trying to get their share of the cash pie.

That's why the playoffs don't have automatic tie-ins, only the bowls. And by giving conference winners a guaranteed destination, you should be guaranteeing a quality opponent for all conference winners. Plus, since there are at-large spots in the bowls, teams like Boise should get a seat at the table.

And so far, I'm hearing the only alternative is to put the winner of the Sun Belt in a 16-team playoff system while the Big East #2 would, most-likely, be on the outside looking in. That doesn't sound like exciting football. I like Cinderellas as much as the next guy, but that hardly seems fair. You shouldn't be penalized for being in a major conference.

I think maybe more opportunity could be given to smaller conferences by better bowl tie-ins. Let's say the Fiesta had SEC #2 and had to pull it's second team from either the SWAC, WAC, or Mountain West. That would insure a seat at the table for smaller conferences while not putting them on equal ground in a playoff system.

A playoff works in college basketball because by-and-large the top 40 teams are in the field. A college football playoff could possibly exclude a top 5 or 6 team.

[Carin's Dad]

I think we'll soon be in the situation Boise St and TCU were in. If you want to be in one of the major bowls, you'll have to win them all. Ala., tOSU, Fla and like teams can lose 1 or 2 and still make the major bowl - or playoffs. Why? Because their losses will be against another top team. Our losses may be against a top team (if we're able to schedule one) but we won't have any big wins to offset them - because we play in a second tier conference. I see few Orange's or Sugar's in our future - back to pre Big East days.

I think we all better start thinking about a new definition of success for our program. Win them all or settle for a 2nd tier bowl.

[Binturong05]

Originally Posted by Carin's Dad

I think we'll soon be in the situation Boise St and TCU were in. If you want to be in one of the major bowls, you'll have to win them all. Ala., tOSU, Fla and like teams can lose 1 or 2 and still make the major bowl - or playoffs. Why? Because their losses will be against another top team. Our losses may be against a top team (if we're able to schedule one) but we won't have any big wins to offset them - because we play in a second tier conference. I see few Orange's or Sugar's in our future - back to pre Big East days.

I think we all better start thinking about a new definition of success for our program. Win them all or settle for a 2nd tier bowl.

I'd argue the preseason rankings are more of a contributing factor than the team delivering the loss. In 2008 Ohio State was preseason #2. They lost two games in the regular season to USC and Penn State. No question these were highly ranked opponents but replace Ohio State with UC who did not crack the top-25 until week 11. Do you think UC would have any shot at an at-large bid to a BCS bowl that year with two regular season losses even if it were to USC and Penn State? I highly doubt it, but when you start at the top in the preseason you don't suffer a near-season ending plummet from the top-25 after a loss or two.

For the record, UC did have two losses on its record that same year though their bowl berth was not an at-large bid, it was due to the conference AQ specifically.

Another example would be Tennessee (10-4) in 2007 which was ranked #15 preseason. They lost to a Cal team to open the season that would be unranked by week 9, third ranked Florida in week 3, unranked Alabama in week 7, and fifth ranked LSU to close the regular season. Tennessee finished the season five spots ahead of UC (10-3) in the final polls where UC's three losses were all to teams in the top 25.

Or take the 2010 Alabama Crimson Tide who were preseaon #1. They finished the regular season going in to bowl week #15. Any chance a team not ranked so highly would be sitting in the 15 spot with three losses even if those losses were to 19th ranked S Carolina, 10th ranked LSU, and 2nd ranked Auburn? I doubt it.

In closing, even the cases examined above are inherently flawed because the losses are to opponents who were likely the beneficiaries of unwarranted preseason rankings minimizing their impact. My proposition in an earlier post in this thread is to eliminate preseason rankings as a whole. In its place rankings should be withheld until at least after the conclusion of the fourth week of play when most teams have wrapped up their non-conference schedule and are at that time playing at least one conference game. The pollsters can then look at the body of evidence and sort the teams appropriately. This method gives all teams an equal shot at those coveted and valuable top rankings - based on merit and performance on the field rather than offseason appraisals and recruiting class and popularity - that shield a team from a precipitous decline if they stumble along the way to the season's end.

[Cleveland_Bearcat]

Originally Posted by Binturong05

...My proposition in an earlier post in this thread is to eliminate preseason rankings as a whole. In its place rankings should be withheld until at least after the conclusion of the fourth week of play when most teams have wrapped up their non-conference schedule and are at that time playing at least one conference game. The pollsters can then look at the body of evidence and sort the teams appropriately. This method gives all teams an equal shot at those coveted and valuable top rankings - based on merit and performance on the field rather than offseason appraisals and recruiting class and popularity - that shield a team from a precipitous decline if they stumble along the way to the season's end.

But realistically, limiting preseason rankings is like limiting free speech. People can put together rankings whenever they want. Heck, you could put together a way-too-early list for 2014 if you wanted. And, I think, the reason that the teams you sighted moved back up in the polls is based on who they beat and how convincingly they beat them.

That's really why a team like UC needs to play good teams and I think keeping a competitive structure where teams are required to play mid-tier teams like UC would be best for everybody. Everybody is skeptical until you have a quality win or two under your belt.

UC's caught in-between where they're;
not big enough to get home-and-homes with top teams
not big enough to pay MAC schools to play UC
aspirations that need to be fueled by quality teams and home football games

[CatsClaw]

Originally Posted by red_n_black_attack

UC is stuck hoping the Big 12 expands and adds us and the 'Ville.

On another note, perhaps the NCAA institues a Tourney as they did in basketball to fight similar corruption it faced with the more prestigious NIT....

If Notre Dame has a voice that means the Big East has a voice.

[Bearcat Otto]

ND could care less about Big East football.

[Binturong05]

Originally Posted by Cleveland_Bearcat

But realistically, limiting preseason rankings is like limiting free speech. People can put together rankings whenever they want. Heck, you could put together a way-too-early list for 2014 if you wanted. And, I think, the reason that the teams you sighted moved back up in the polls is based on who they beat and how convincingly they beat them.

That's really why a team like UC needs to play good teams and I think keeping a competitive structure where teams are required to play mid-tier teams like UC would be best for everybody. Everybody is skeptical until you have a quality win or two under your belt.

UC's caught in-between where they're;
not big enough to get home-and-homes with top teams
not big enough to pay MAC schools to play UC
aspirations that need to be fueled by quality teams and home football games

Good point about the free speech and one I've not heard in a counterargument so how about this for a modification - whatever formulaic model or equation is used to rank teams should only include polls that start after the fourth week has concluded. This way you're not banning early polls per se, but if a polling organization wants to be eligible for inclusion in the system they can comply or choose not to comply.

[Cleveland_Bearcat]

Originally Posted by Binturong05

Good point about the free speech and one I've not heard in a counterargument so how about this for a modification - whatever formulaic model or equation is used to rank teams should only include polls that start after the fourth week has concluded. This way you're not banning early polls per se, but if a polling organization wants to be eligible for inclusion in the system they can comply or choose not to comply.

Well, there is still an issue of 'perception'. Where a team with more history/tradition or more preseason hype may be perceived to be better despite actual on-field performance.

Can we just let the computers decide who the best teams are mathematically?

[richard k.]

Originally Posted by CatsClaw

If Notre Dame has a voice that means the Big East has a voice.

You're not "ronbcat" on another forum by any chance? 'Cause he made the same claim, and it was met with even more incredulity over there.

[Chips]

Originally Posted by richard k.

You're not "ronbcat" on another forum by any chance? 'Cause he made the same claim, and it was met with even more incredulity over there.

I'm not sure what you're talking about richard, but one thing i know for sure is that UC is 100% committed to the Big East and has zero interest in joining the Big 12. WVU will soon find out it was the biggest mistake they ever made

[richard k.]

Originally Posted by Chips

I'm not sure what you're talking about richard, but one thing i know for sure is that UC is 100% committed to the Big East and has zero interest in joining the Big 12. WVU will soon find out it was the biggest mistake they ever made

This is exactly what he said - I'm not going to go through ALL the commentary on the other side, but if you add UC and UofL to WVa you have a very interesting eastern pod for the Big12 - as matters continue to evolve, if we continue not to look beyond the BEast, there is a good chance we will end up in a basketball centric conference and our football may well slip back into the mediocrity we have been struggling to escape. Time will certainly tell, but I find it hard to believe that our current AD isn't making plans.

[Chips]

I thought the smiley face would show my sarcasm...I was just parroting 95% of ron's posts. I think the lion's share of is agree the Big 12 would be a boon.

[richard k.]

Originally Posted by Chips

I thought the smiley face would show my sarcasm...I was just parroting 95% of ron's posts. I think the lion's share of is agree the Big 12 would be a boon.

You're absolutely right, sorry, should have caught it with the smiley face.

[Binturong05]

Note how many times Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany is quoted in the following article. That should be a clear sign as to who is steering these discussions.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/delany-...7G_STC7IscvrYF

I find it maddening that the Big Ten is intransigent with respect to the Rose Bowl and that the Big Ten is pushing for what amounts to special treatment. All this from a conference 3/4 of the nation frankly couldn't care less about.

[Binturong05]

Texas AD suggests letting the Big Ten and PAC12 "do their own deal" and for the rest of the conferences to form a playoff system:

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...n-pacific-12/1

Gotta love the flagrant nature of a Texas tongue. The guy flat doesn't give a damn

[richard k.]

Originally Posted by Binturong05

Texas AD suggests letting the Big Ten and PAC12 "do their own deal" and for the rest of the conferences to form a playoff system:

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...n-pacific-12/1

Gotta love the flagrant nature of a Texas tongue. The guy flat doesn't give a damn

I'm with him - you can almost understand the attachment to the rose bowl after all these years, especially since without it the Big Whatever might just become that - whatever, and who cares. However, I agree with Dodds; if that is really what they want -let those 2 conferences go their own way and let the national championship be determined without them.

[Binturong05]

Evidently the AQ status has been removed for all conferences:

http://espn.go.com/college-football/...off-proposals?

Not sure how to feel about this. While I am certainly in favor of a merit-based system where in theory any team can play its way into title contention I recognize UC has been a beneficiary of being in an AQ conference the last 5 years or so.

I also question if removing the AQ status doesn't disproportionately hinder Big East teams. We all know the preseason coaches poll is going to be chock full of about half the SEC and a quarter of the Big Ten, Big 12, and PAC12. It'll be the good ol' boy network in effect.

Based purely on principal I am in favor of doing away with the monopolistic nature of the BCS, however, the pragmatic part of me is sceptical and thinks Jim Delany et al will simply find a new way to shut out teams like UC, Boise State, and TCU. My prediction is that the discrimination against smaller programs and the coddling of the "big boys" will manifest itself in the form of preseason rankings where even if programs like LSU, Texas, and Ohio State stumble along the way their high rankings early on keep them in the title hunt.

As mentioned elsewhere on these forums, until preseason rankings are abolished in the polls officially employed by the championship formula and replaced with rankings not formulated until at least week four when the conference schedule starts for most teams I think the protectionism for the banner schools will remain in effect.

My suggestion for UC would be to schedule a brutal non-conference schedule where it will make it very difficult for the pollsters to ignore the Bearcats should they be victorious. And should the Bearcats find themselves snubbed after non-conference wins over FSU, Penn State, and Oklahoma for example, then we'd all have a damn good argument that the system is rigged.