wvucrazed
Heisman
Posts: 6,363
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 179
I Root For: West Virginia
Location: Fairfax, VA
|
It's hard to makes sense out of all the swirling rumours and scenarios, but I think if you put everything together, this is what we are going to end up with:
7 BCS bids. The Big East will split and add a couple C-USA programs (possibly Memphis and ECU), and probaby Navy, with Notre Dame figuring into the BCS mix as a part of the BE, playing a partial schedule. This will not only solidify the NBE, but also remove NCUSA from the table as a possible BCS candidate, as they will be gutted with literally all of their BCS potential caliber programs gone.
The Mountain West will get the 7th bid, upon expanding to 12 teams - add Fresno, Boise and UTEP. That should do the trick of getting them BCS caliber, and also dumping the WAC to Sun Belt level.
You'll have 4 non-BCS leagues - WAC/Sun Belt/ MAC/ NCUSA. Criteria will exist as it does now for one of those teams to make a BCS game, but the likelihood is nil that it would actually happen.
In this scenario, you really have no argument as to who the 7 superior conference would be, and as long as you give the other 4 the possibility of getting in a BCS game, then all bases are covered.
I really think this is the way it will shake out by 2010, and be the end result of all the shuffling.
Thoughts?
|
|
11-22-2004 06:13 PM |
|
Cat's_Claw
All American
Posts: 4,606
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
|
As much as people try to stat otherwise, the Big East will never lose their BCS bid. To many factors their relationship, both personally and geographically and academically with the Big Ten, their tradition, the media market, the balance of power in the BCS/non-BCS situation, and the fact that the Big East would be a VERY powerful non-BCS entity if stripped of their bid. So the 6 current conferences will remain BCS conferences. I agree, I see the Mountain West being given either a 7th BCS bid, or a partial bid.
|
|
11-22-2004 07:49 PM |
|
SO#1
1st String
Posts: 2,008
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 18
I Root For: Connecticut
Location:
|
Current BCS (4 bowls): <span style='color:blue'>8 slots</span> = 6 automatic bids + 2 at-large bids, contract end 2006.
Automatics bids => conference championship (ACC, BE, B10, B12, PAC-10, SEC) with team from same conference rank top 4 BCS poll. Only one non-BCS conference teams rank top 6 BCS because need the 8th slot open for ND, if they have 9 wins and rank top 10 BCS
At-large bids=> top 5 to 12 BCS poll ranking qualified
Future BCS (4 + 1 bowls): <span style='color:blue'>10 slots </span>= unknown automatic bids + unknown at-large bids
Championship game (BCS#1 vs. BCS#2) at
<span style='color:Red'>Rose bowl</span> (B10 vs. PAC-10): ABC
or
<span style='color:orange'>Orange bowl </span>(ACC): FOX
or
<span style='color:blue'>Fiesta bowl </span>(B12): FOX
or
<span style='color:gray'>Sugar bowl </span>(SEC): FOX
Consider current listing /w BE champ not BCS#1 or BCS#2, we have 7 automatic bids taken.
BE champ made 8 automatic bids and if ND qualified, that made it 9 BCS slot. You only have one at-large bid. Only one non-BCS conferences champ with top 12 BCS ranking take final BCS (10) bowl slot. More at-large bid slot will be open if ND not qualified.
|
|
11-24-2004 10:41 PM |
|
99Tiger
I got tiger blood, man.
Posts: 15,392
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 312
I Root For: football wins
Location: Orange County, CA
|
Cat's_Claw Wrote:As much as people try to stat otherwise, the Big East will never lose their BCS bid. To many factors their relationship, both personally and geographically and academically with the Big Ten, their tradition, the media market, the balance of power in the BCS/non-BCS situation, and the fact that the Big East would be a VERY powerful non-BCS entity if stripped of their bid. So the 6 current conferences will remain BCS conferences. I agree, I see the Mountain West being given either a 7th BCS bid, or a partial bid.
I would append that to say that the only way the Big East loses their bid is if they have a tough time meeting the criteria and someone else (MWC, CUSA) is consistently stronger. the "haves" are not going to let themselves be outnumbered by the "have-nots."
I'm not holding my breath (literally or figuratively) on that one.
|
|
11-25-2004 01:09 AM |
|