(07-10-2012 09:44 PM)bronconick Wrote:  

(07-10-2012 09:10 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-10-2012 08:51 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  Schools like Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Baylor, and Texas Christian are not very strong historically. Expecting them to maintain the level of the most recent past is a fool's errand.

True for all but Oklahoma St. They seem a lot like Oregon who used to be awful, but with what Phil Knight did- he built that program.

Except the Oklahoma Sooners already exist in that state. OSU didn't even sell out Bedlam in a year where they finished #3 and won their first conference title in decades. That state simply doesn't have the population to support two elite football programs and one has a 50 year head start.

Well, Oklahoma St has had 1 losing year in 10 years. With the infrastructure that Pickens has built, I really don't see a going back to where they used to be. Also, I think before they were in the Big 8- so now, they're able to tap into Texas a lot more....

(07-10-2012 09:36 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-10-2012 09:32 PM)Orangemen Wrote:  

(07-10-2012 12:15 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Terry replied in the thread that I created that was closed abrubtly.
Everyone has to win enough to make it matter.......

ND may be able to play in other big bowls than the Orange Bowl, but that will not be a bad bowl to have a tie in with.

Finally, you fail to factor in that keeping football independence, by itself and for itself, was the second biggest goal (other than playoff access) for Notre Dame.

Mission accomplished.


I'm sorry- but to me it's much ado about nothing. Unless the big 5 conferences are going to lock up all the at large spots- which I suppose is possible with how corrupt they are- whenever ND has been good enough just about- 3/4 times(with the one time not because there were only 4 BCS bowls instead of 5)- they've gone to the BCS. I don't think politically they could go to having all the spots in the bowls filled by conferences- so their independence was never really in question.

Now, they would be assigned to the Orange Bowl to play what has been on record the worst conference in the BCS, when they don't make the playoff.

That's why I gave ND not a plus or a minus, but rather a wait and see. Because until we see things in practice- we really don't have any idea how this will be good/bad for Notre Dame. It's not the easy plus that it is for the Big 12 and Pac 12- just great chances for them to almost always have 2 teams with no questions in the BCS. It's not the easy minus that the Big East is of course, and frankly the ACC- either getting a ND team in the 5-14 range(depending on ratings threshold) or a typical 3rd place team from one of the Big 4 conferences or a non-AQ conference champ. Outisde of ND- none are really good options for the ACC at all.

If you look at all the conferences-
P12- much better than before
B10- better than before- but has to get teams into the playoff
B12- much better than before- situation like last year doesn't happen again.
SEC- depends on if they can get 2 into playoffs most years.
ACC- depends. If they can get ND most years- better. If not- same or even worse.
BE- worse

I think Pac 12 and Big 12 are clear winners in this system. Big Ten winner ACC, if ND is good(but not too good)- better, but when they're not, it's at best equal to what they've had. BE worse.

Wow...just wow.

B12-much better than before...without Nebraska, Texas A&M, Colorado........

For the love of God. It's not the conferenece as a whole. It's the conference in reference to their post season situation. You can not deny that their post-season situation has improved quite a lot. Last year #2 Kansas St didn't make the BCS. Now in this system, they would be in and #3 Baylor or Oklahoma would have had a very good chance to make a BCS bowl.

LOL...you pick and choose the standards and apply them in a vacuum across different/multiple seasons in order to determine a winner. So many issues with your "logek" I don't know where to begin..

And by the way, great narcissistic title for your thread.

(07-10-2012 09:54 PM)Orangemen Wrote:  

(07-10-2012 09:36 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-10-2012 09:32 PM)Orangemen Wrote:  

(07-10-2012 12:15 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Terry replied in the thread that I created that was closed abrubtly.
Everyone has to win enough to make it matter.......

ND may be able to play in other big bowls than the Orange Bowl, but that will not be a bad bowl to have a tie in with.

Finally, you fail to factor in that keeping football independence, by itself and for itself, was the second biggest goal (other than playoff access) for Notre Dame.

Mission accomplished.


I'm sorry- but to me it's much ado about nothing. Unless the big 5 conferences are going to lock up all the at large spots- which I suppose is possible with how corrupt they are- whenever ND has been good enough just about- 3/4 times(with the one time not because there were only 4 BCS bowls instead of 5)- they've gone to the BCS. I don't think politically they could go to having all the spots in the bowls filled by conferences- so their independence was never really in question.

Now, they would be assigned to the Orange Bowl to play what has been on record the worst conference in the BCS, when they don't make the playoff.

That's why I gave ND not a plus or a minus, but rather a wait and see. Because until we see things in practice- we really don't have any idea how this will be good/bad for Notre Dame. It's not the easy plus that it is for the Big 12 and Pac 12- just great chances for them to almost always have 2 teams with no questions in the BCS. It's not the easy minus that the Big East is of course, and frankly the ACC- either getting a ND team in the 5-14 range(depending on ratings threshold) or a typical 3rd place team from one of the Big 4 conferences or a non-AQ conference champ. Outisde of ND- none are really good options for the ACC at all.

If you look at all the conferences-
P12- much better than before
B10- better than before- but has to get teams into the playoff
B12- much better than before- situation like last year doesn't happen again.
SEC- depends on if they can get 2 into playoffs most years.
ACC- depends. If they can get ND most years- better. If not- same or even worse.
BE- worse

I think Pac 12 and Big 12 are clear winners in this system. Big Ten winner ACC, if ND is good(but not too good)- better, but when they're not, it's at best equal to what they've had. BE worse.

Wow...just wow.

B12-much better than before...without Nebraska, Texas A&M, Colorado........

For the love of God. It's not the conferenece as a whole. It's the conference in reference to their post season situation. You can not deny that their post-season situation has improved quite a lot. Last year #2 Kansas St didn't make the BCS. Now in this system, they would be in and #3 Baylor or Oklahoma would have had a very good chance to make a BCS bowl.

LOL...you pick and choose the standards and apply them in a vacuum across different/multiple seasons in order to determine a winner. So many issues with your "logek" I don't know where to begin..

How is the Big 12 postseason situation the same even or worse than it is now? Just straight up answer that one question. Any of you ACC folks....

(07-10-2012 09:47 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-10-2012 09:44 PM)bronconick Wrote:  

(07-10-2012 09:10 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-10-2012 08:51 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  Schools like Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Baylor, and Texas Christian are not very strong historically. Expecting them to maintain the level of the most recent past is a fool's errand.

True for all but Oklahoma St. They seem a lot like Oregon who used to be awful, but with what Phil Knight did- he built that program.

Except the Oklahoma Sooners already exist in that state. OSU didn't even sell out Bedlam in a year where they finished #3 and won their first conference title in decades. That state simply doesn't have the population to support two elite football programs and one has a 50 year head start.

Well, Oklahoma St has had 1 losing year in 10 years. With the infrastructure that Pickens has built, I really don't see a going back to where they used to be. Also, I think before they were in the Big 8- so now, they're able to tap into Texas a lot more....

So they move from 4-5 wins to 7-8 wins? Big whoop. Not elite. Not worth mentioning when discussions of playoff and major bowl teams come up. We're talking about a school that has literally been shut out by Oklahoma more times (28) then they've defeated the Sooners in any variety (17). Pickens has brought them to being a mid-tier BCS program, not some sort of elite challenger.

(07-10-2012 10:05 PM)bronconick Wrote:  

(07-10-2012 09:47 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-10-2012 09:44 PM)bronconick Wrote:  

(07-10-2012 09:10 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-10-2012 08:51 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  Schools like Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Baylor, and Texas Christian are not very strong historically. Expecting them to maintain the level of the most recent past is a fool's errand.

True for all but Oklahoma St. They seem a lot like Oregon who used to be awful, but with what Phil Knight did- he built that program.

Except the Oklahoma Sooners already exist in that state. OSU didn't even sell out Bedlam in a year where they finished #3 and won their first conference title in decades. That state simply doesn't have the population to support two elite football programs and one has a 50 year head start.

Well, Oklahoma St has had 1 losing year in 10 years. With the infrastructure that Pickens has built, I really don't see a going back to where they used to be. Also, I think before they were in the Big 8- so now, they're able to tap into Texas a lot more....

So they move from 4-5 wins to 7-8 wins? Big whoop. Not elite. Not worth mentioning when discussions of playoff and major bowl teams come up. We're talking about a school that has literally been shut out by Oklahoma more times (28) then they've defeated the Sooners in any variety (17). Pickens has brought them to being a mid-tier BCS program, not some sort of elite challenger.

It's been more the 9-10 win range, which is not playoff level consistently but occationally, but it is major bowl level. In their 9 winning years, they've averaged 8.7 wins per season. 5 9+ win seasons.

They're basically Iowa. Iowa has 2 11, 2 10 and 1 9 win season since 2002, and one losing season. 8.5 wins per season, with Iowa playing tougher bowls because the Big Ten ALWAYS sends two teams to the BCS, so their 6-7-8 win teams are playing up in competition.

No one, not even Heinous if he reads this, really talks about the Hawkeyes as "Elite level team that is brought up when people talk about the Big Ten and a playoff/BCS."

(07-10-2012 10:21 PM)bronconick Wrote:  They're basically Iowa. Iowa has 2 11, 2 10 and 1 9 win season since 2002, and one losing season. 8.5 wins per season, with Iowa playing tougher bowls because the Big Ten ALWAYS sends two teams to the BCS, so their 6-7-8 win teams are playing up in competition.

No one, not even Heinous if he reads this, really talks about the Hawkeyes as "Elite level team that is brought up when people talk about the Big Ten and a playoff/BCS."

I'd say that in those 10 years, Iowa made BCS games twice. Also finished in the BCS top 14 4 times. Probably makes new BCS 3 times in the last 10 years. Iowa's 85 wins 3rd in the Big Ten to only Ohio St and Wisconsin in that time frame.

I'll put Oklahoma State's 2 best RBs against Oklahoma's 2 best any day. Thurman Thomas and Barry Sanders were pretty good...

I remember WVU playing OSU in a snowstorm in the Sun Bowl, and OSU had both of those guys on the bench. That was The Major's freshman year. The Mountaineers lost that game 35-33, although Major almost pulled it out to spite the Cowboys run game...