(03-13-2011 08:10 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  UCF is added soon. Villanova moves up in 2014. The final piece of the puzzle is Notre Dame joins in 2014 along with Villanova. The conference is a 12/18 hybrid with three 6 team divisions for BB. This is just me speculating, but that would definitely surprise a lot of people.

I agree. Notre Dame would be the absolute best addition to BE football. Adding Villanova and Notre Dame as football members, however, brings the total to 11/17. To bring the BE to 12/18, the best addition would be Navy (which already has an annual game with Notre Dame).

(03-30-2011 03:00 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(03-30-2011 02:18 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-30-2011 11:21 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(03-29-2011 02:35 PM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(03-29-2011 12:29 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  What it basically boils down to is this...

Life ain't fair. Get used to it - or fight to change it...

Well, in a perfect world that is what would happen and all injustice would be resolved in favor of the ones being treated unfairly. Otherwise, that is just BS as a solution. One side undoubtably has far more resources to fight the attack (even though they are the minority) and also has more leverage to shut people out if they threaten to make changes. I believe there was once a real threat for some to leave the NCAA if things were pushed to change from they way they are now. Yes, life ain't fair. Everyone participating in a way to fix it is the right way. Saying get used to it or fight to change it is just a juvenile dare (with serious bite to the dare).

Change comes in small doses, and it's a fight to get any kind of change in anything - at any point in time. People fear change, even change for the better. I saw it first hand in the 1950s and 1960s. People like it best when everything remains the same as its always been...

Saying the fight for change is a juvenile dare is ludicrous, and shows a distinct lack of gumption or imagination. That indicates you haven't a clue. The role call of names of those who fought for change is legendary: Jesus, Mohammed, Sukyamuni (also called Buddha), Confucious, Darwin, DaVinci, Gallileo, Gandhi, Malcolm X, and Rosa Parks are just a few...

I don't think the fight for change is juvenile, I just don't know what would be the best avenue for us in the non-AQ world to get some change. Is it going to take judges and lawyers, or congress? It's never going to happen without someone forcing the B©S to do it kicking and screaming.

Be careful what you wish for. As much as people rail against the BCS, I would opine that the BCS has actually made the bowls more inclusive. In the old system, the bowls were more restricted to even the existing BCS schools than it is today. Let's use the ACC for an example. Under the old system, the big bowls would only care about FSU, Miami, UNC and VT. Schools like BC would have occasionally gotten in if it had a monster season and the rest of the ACC schools would be essentially shut out. With the BCS in place, schools like NCSU, Wake Forest, Duke, etc can get a shot at the big bowls provided it wins the ACC conference.

In theory, the concept of this huge injustice sounds great until you dig a little deeper and realize that what you call injustice is not merely a few schools colluding to shut out other equally successful schools from the bowl system. The root of the problems you are railing against are structural and based on the brand name, finances and athletic skill cultivated by the "more established" institutions over decades and decades of hard work. Even if the rules are changed to benefit the non-BCS schools, you would not see any significant changes where ECU, UCF, etc are suddenly playing for big time bowl money. What is the primary goal of CBS, ABC (ESPN), NBC and FOX? To make money, of course. To maximize their revenues, these networks will want to put on those game/schools that the public want to see. I'm sorry to break it to you, but the vast majority of the CFB TV viewing public would rather see UNC, Miami, FSU, NCSU, Texas and TAMU playing on the networks than schools like ECU, UCF and Houston. If this is true during the regular season, then it will also be true when bowl season comes around. Sure, the networks will gin up stories about a school or 2 that are on the outside looking in and rail against a handful of BCS schools that may not be worthy of the exposure they have received during a given season, but realize that this is again nothing more than a ratings ploy. When the "have nots" have played lights out during the regular season, they have been rewarded for their efforts. BYU, Utah, BSU and TCU have all participated in the big bowls - some a number of times - when their on field performance and ratings have been there.

At what point will you want to stop until these "injustices" are remedied? Since the disparity within the CFB world is based on the assets and brand name that schools can bring to the table, how do you solve this? Do you tell Ohio St and Penn St that they must limit the number of fans in the stands to 50K in order to better align with the smaller schools and their fan bases? Do you have the federal gov't force the networks to split the games 50/50 between the BCS conferences and non-BCS conferences (like a "fairness doctrine")? Or do you take a percentage of the "excess profits" from the BCS schools and distribute these monies to non-BCS schools to level the playing field? What do you do? Because as long as there a diversity of schools in the CFB playing world where some have a lot more assets than other schools or a lot more alumni than other schools, there will always be inequalities merely due to supply and demand forces. We all know that the schools with the biggest alumni bases and/or who put a high quality product on the field will reap the benefits while those schools who don't have either will always be pushed to the background.

I don't think anyone including me is saying that ECU would rise up to the top of the college football world, but ECU is being held back by the system while schools that on their own merit have not acomplished anything in football are being artifically propped up. I'd prefer to go back to the old system. ECU was better off before there was an official breakdown of 2 classes of FBS teams, AQ's and non-AQ's. We were on more even footing with the local teams in our area before the BCS came into existance, and were beating them with a lot more regularity at that point. The BCS came around and basically made it where if you go to a non-AQ school you are considered a lesser player going to a second class program. Lets compare Duke football to ECU football. If you threw out conference affiliation and just looked at the programs on their own merit, looking at fan support, facilities, and records you would think they were the second class program, and yet just because of this system they can say "hey come to Duke instead of ECU because we are a BCS team and they are a lowly C-USA team." I don't want ECU to get a handout, because if the field was level we would be far ahead of teams like Duke, Wake, Vandy, Indiana, Iowa State, and numerous other AQ's who do nothing in football but cash checks.

(03-30-2011 02:46 PM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(03-30-2011 11:21 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(03-29-2011 02:35 PM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(03-29-2011 12:29 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  What it basically boils down to is this...

Life ain't fair. Get used to it - or fight to change it...

Well, in a perfect world that is what would happen and all injustice would be resolved in favor of the ones being treated unfairly. Otherwise, that is just BS as a solution. One side undoubtably has far more resources to fight the attack (even though they are the minority) and also has more leverage to shut people out if they threaten to make changes. I believe there was once a real threat for some to leave the NCAA if things were pushed to change from they way they are now. Yes, life ain't fair. Everyone participating in a way to fix it is the right way. Saying get used to it or fight to change it is just a juvenile dare (with serious bite to the dare).

Change comes in small doses, and it's a fight to get any kind of change in anything - at any point in time. People fear change, even change for the better. I saw it first hand in the 1950s and 1960s. People like it best when everything remains the same as its always been...

Saying the fight for change is a juvenile dare is ludicrous, and shows a distinct lack of gumption or imagination. That indicates you haven't a clue. The role call of names of those who fought for change is legendary: Jesus, Mohammed, Sukyamuni (also called Buddha), Confucious, Darwin, DaVinci, Gallileo, Gandhi, Malcolm X, and Rosa Parks are just a few...

Give me a break bit. I have no lack of gumption or imagination but saying that fighting is the only way to make it happen is just that...lack of imagination. I very much have a clue, thank you. No doubt just as much as you do. There are many ways to solve an issue. Not sure why fighting something is the only way to make it happen. Sure there are folks who have done it and succeeded. Their efforts should be commended. They also had basically no choice. Many have failed as well and plenty of those because they choose fighting (verbally, physically or through the courts) as their solution rather than through basic negotiation. I think we are still at a point where things can be changed without fighting....but in today's world of sue your neighbor I may be naive there. Getting together and doing something about it isn't synonymous with fighting. Now, if the greed is so bad that there is no chance of getting one half to work with the other...then yes, fighting it out may be the only option. I think many see real threats of program killing changes if they dare...a dare that does have huge bite. Pick you battles is the saying I'm used to hearing.

The way you presented the comment was arrogant, condescending and basically flippant to the issue.

You're wrong. Any change that comes, comes through fighting for said changes. The fight doesn't have to be with weapons, but it is a fight none the less. Gandhi fought for freedom in India, and won it, without violence of any kind. But he still had to fight for his beliefs...

Court battles are fights. Ask anyone who went through a civil rights hearing in the 1950s or 1960s. Changing the perception of the casual sports fan about The BEast is a fight. Try to tell me it's not, and you will have just confirmed the fact that you're a moron. There are fights, and there are fights. The fact that you don't yet realize this isn't surprising. It's not the kind of thing teachers like to point out...