http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...nouncement

I don't really follow the examples.

Beginning in 2014, a human committee will rank the top 20 teams. Those ranked 5 through 12 (top four will be in the playoff), will have the “best opportunity” to be in a quality bowl according to a source. Let's decode: Despite the fact 20 teams will be ranked, that doesn't mean that they will all be in major bowls. The committee will advise on placement.

Leagues involved in the Rose, Champions and Orange, will get to pick the replacement teams if one their teams is involved in the playoff. At least four times in the BCS era, a second (or third) team from a major conference would have gotten into the new six-bowl rotation based on this latest information. Example: In 2007, Virginia Tech finished No. 3 and would go to the Orange Bowl. In the new structure, the ACC would be allowed to replace Tech with No. 14 Boston College. In 2009, the Champions Bowl would have been allowed to replace No. 2 Texas with No. 19 Oklahoma State.

Yuck. Humans choosing teams to go to bowl games.

The replacement team should not be allowed to go to the bowl unless they are ranked in the top 12. It should go to, a more worthy top 12 team.

Otherwise, it is an AQ.

(07-05-2012 04:23 PM)Borncoog74 Wrote:  The replacement team should not be allowed to go to the bowl unless they are ranked in the top 12. It should go to, a more worthy top 12 team.

Otherwise, it is an AQ. [/u]

Thats what I find most amazing. The non-Aq's war cry was get rid of AQ. Supposedly both CUSA and the MW supported this plan that doesnt remove AQ, it just renamed it. I find that amazing.

(07-05-2012 04:00 PM)3601 Wrote:  Newer info on how the 12 "major" bowl spots will be filled

Even newer?

(07-05-2012 04:27 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  

(07-05-2012 04:23 PM)Borncoog74 Wrote:  The replacement team should not be allowed to go to the bowl unless they are ranked in the top 12. It should go to, a more worthy top 12 team.

Otherwise, it is an AQ. [/u]

Thats what I find most amazing. The non-Aq's war cry was get rid of AQ. Supposedly both CUSA and the MW supported this plan that doesnt remove AQ, it just renamed it. I find that amazing.

What bugs me is that Big East lost two programs ,Syracuse and Pitt, that were basically useless to Big East football and one good program, WVU. The Big East added Boise State who has been at least close to WVU's equal plus a handful of other programs that have done a heck of lot more than Pitt and Syracuse.

Yet, the Big East isn't a major conference anymore? Were they a major conference with those schools. Lets say Syracuse and Pitt never left would the Big East still be left on the outside looking in?

At the end of day what I care about more than the bowl games is how much money will the Big East get in the new system and from the TV deal.

Read this http://www.gobearcats.com/blog/2012/07/b...-7512.html

Remember bowl games are just exhibition. The key for the Big East in the future will be winning games and expanding the playoff. I believe you will get support down the line from the old non aq conferences, the ACC or whichever major conference finds their champion playing exhibtions instead of tournament games.

(07-05-2012 04:27 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  

(07-05-2012 04:23 PM)Borncoog74 Wrote:  The replacement team should not be allowed to go to the bowl unless they are ranked in the top 12. It should go to, a more worthy top 12 team.

Otherwise, it is an AQ. [/u]

Thats what I find most amazing. The non-Aq's war cry was get rid of AQ. Supposedly both CUSA and the MW supported this plan that doesnt remove AQ, it just renamed it. I find that amazing.

Well that is the problem with the way this all unfolded. They were clearly duped.

The 4 team playoff, and 12 team event were agreed upon and voted on before the "specifics" of how it was going to be handled were clear.

I think general conversations on how it "might" be were discussed just to get the format passed, but now the "real" plan is unfolding the way the Cartel 5 planned all along.

All within a week of the format being passed by the presidential oversight committee.

How convenient.

Its crazy that it happened this way so fast.......

How do you think everyone outside of the Cartel 5 would have voted if they knew this BS about AQ still existing under the name "contract bowl"

This whole thing is just disgusting.

I would like to see an investigative reporter with Yahoo dig up all the dirt on this conspiracy and corruption that has created this travesty and expose it and ESPN for the Cartel that they have all become.

They think that if they just keep preaching it in a different way, we'll all of a sudden just all agree. If the playoff selects teams correctly it will still be a better format than before though. Ultimately it just needs to be a bigger playoff.

it seems the urge for revenge among the CUSA and MWC was greater than the desire to create a better system. how to explain their complicity in creating this BCS2.0?

what all the non-BIG, non-PAC, non-SEC, and non-BIGXII conferences should have been pushing for is that SF are played in the host bowls of top two semi-finalists, not this rotating crud among the six historical BCS bowls. that was the only way to do away with the AQ label. the darned BE negotiators were foolishly attempting to maintain the BE's privilege and couldn't see the back stab coming?

(07-05-2012 04:38 PM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  

(07-05-2012 04:27 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  

(07-05-2012 04:23 PM)Borncoog74 Wrote:  The replacement team should not be allowed to go to the bowl unless they are ranked in the top 12. It should go to, a more worthy top 12 team.

Otherwise, it is an AQ. [/u]

Thats what I find most amazing. The non-Aq's war cry was get rid of AQ. Supposedly both CUSA and the MW supported this plan that doesnt remove AQ, it just renamed it. I find that amazing.

What bugs me is that Big East lost two programs ,Syracuse and Pitt, that were basically useless to Big East football and one good program, WVU. The Big East added Boise State who has been at least close to WVU's equal plus a handful of other programs that have done a heck of lot more than Pitt and Syracuse.

Yet, the Big East isn't a major conference anymore? Were they a major conference with those schools. Lets say Syracuse and Pitt never left would the Big East still be left on the outside looking in?

At the end of day what I care about more than the bowl games is how much money will the Big East get in the new system and from the TV deal.

Read this http://www.gobearcats.com/blog/2012/07/b...-7512.html

Remember bowl games are just exhibition. The key for the Big East in the future will be winning games and expanding the playoff. I believe you will get support down the line from the old non aq conferences, the ACC or whichever major conference finds their champion playing exhibtions instead of tournament games.

Look, we all know that the BE is stronger than it was before on almost every imaginable measurable.

The problem isn't that the BE is no longer a major conference.

The problem is that the Cartel 5 and ESPN no longer want them to be a major conference. So, everyone and their mother from those two groups have been attacking the validity and credibility of the Big East for the last 9 months. If they say it enough, and ESPN states it enough then it doesn't matter what on the field performance states, Joe Blow sitting in his Lazy Boy recliner has it wash all over him from his plasma screen TV each and every day.

Why?

Because the Cartel 5 have one less conference to split their new Jackpot with. Like a group of Bank robbers rubbing out the get away driver so they have to share one less cut.
Meanwhile, ESPiN benefits by not allowing an arch rival and future nemesis in the Sports Entertainment/News niche from gaining a strong conference like the BE to broadcast and compete with.
ESPN has not been damaging and devaluing the Big East to save themselves some money come negotiation time. They have been devaluing the Big East to devalue their stiffest competitions (NBC) product before it gets a chance to produce it.

They all need to be exposed for what they are, what they have done, and what they have created.

(07-05-2012 04:46 PM)TeleCoog Wrote:  it seems the urge for revenge among the CUSA and MWC was greater than the desire to create a better system. how to explain their complicity in creating this BCS2.0?

what all the non-BIG, non-PAC, non-SEC, and non-BIGXII conferences should have been pushing for is that SF are played in the host bowls of top two semi-finalists, not this rotating crud among the six historical BCS bowls. that was the only way to do away with the AQ label. the darned BE negotiators were foolishly attempting to maintain the BE's privilege and couldn't see the back stab coming?

Lots more money with the same access they had before which was slim to none. How many CUSA teams have ever made a BCS bowl?

(07-05-2012 04:54 PM)Borncoog74 Wrote:  

(07-05-2012 04:38 PM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  

(07-05-2012 04:27 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  

(07-05-2012 04:23 PM)Borncoog74 Wrote:  The replacement team should not be allowed to go to the bowl unless they are ranked in the top 12. It should go to, a more worthy top 12 team.

Otherwise, it is an AQ. [/u]

Thats what I find most amazing. The non-Aq's war cry was get rid of AQ. Supposedly both CUSA and the MW supported this plan that doesnt remove AQ, it just renamed it. I find that amazing.

What bugs me is that Big East lost two programs ,Syracuse and Pitt, that were basically useless to Big East football and one good program, WVU. The Big East added Boise State who has been at least close to WVU's equal plus a handful of other programs that have done a heck of lot more than Pitt and Syracuse.

Yet, the Big East isn't a major conference anymore? Were they a major conference with those schools. Lets say Syracuse and Pitt never left would the Big East still be left on the outside looking in?

At the end of day what I care about more than the bowl games is how much money will the Big East get in the new system and from the TV deal.

Read this http://www.gobearcats.com/blog/2012/07/b...-7512.html

Remember bowl games are just exhibition. The key for the Big East in the future will be winning games and expanding the playoff. I believe you will get support down the line from the old non aq conferences, the ACC or whichever major conference finds their champion playing exhibtions instead of tournament games.

Look, we all know that the BE is stronger than it was before on almost every imaginable measurable.

The problem isn't that the BE is no longer a major conference.

The problem is that the Cartel 5 and ESPN no longer want them to be a major conference. So, everyone and their mother from those two groups have been attacking the validity and credibility of the Big East for the last 9 months. If they say it enough, and ESPN states it enough then it doesn't matter what on the field performance states, Joe Blow sitting in his Lazy Boy recliner has it wash all over him from his plasma screen TV each and every day.

Why?

Because the Cartel 5 have one less conference to split their new Jackpot with. Like a group of Bank robbers rubbing out the get away driver so they have to share one less cut.
Meanwhile, ESPiN benefits by not allowing an arch rival and future nemesis in the Sports Entertainment/News niche from gaining a strong conference like the BE to broadcast and compete with.
ESPN has not been damaging and devaluing the Big East to save themselves some money come negotiation time. They have been devaluing the Big East to devalue their stiffest competitions (NBC) product before it gets a chance to produce it.

They all need to be exposed for what they are, what they have done, and what they have created.

Ding!

As noted above as well, ESPN knows that NBC will most likely secure either ALL or the largest share of the new Big East TV deal...so no doubt ESPN has gone WAY AND ABOVE the call of duty to slam the conf at every point and turn...all to "damage" NBC's new property.

(07-05-2012 04:58 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(07-05-2012 04:46 PM)TeleCoog Wrote:  it seems the urge for revenge among the CUSA and MWC was greater than the desire to create a better system. how to explain their complicity in creating this BCS2.0?

what all the non-BIG, non-PAC, non-SEC, and non-BIGXII conferences should have been pushing for is that SF are played in the host bowls of top two semi-finalists, not this rotating crud among the six historical BCS bowls. that was the only way to do away with the AQ label. the darned BE negotiators were foolishly attempting to maintain the BE's privilege and couldn't see the back stab coming?

Lots more money with the same access they had before which was slim to none. How many CUSA teams have ever made a BCS bowl?

Exactly the point, and it's not exactly like the Big East wanted to work with C-USA or the MWC any other time in history. What goes around comes around. Maybe if Marinara hadn't stood up the MWC and C-USA leaders when they wanted to meet something could have been worked out that would have been mutually beneficial to all, but instead the Big East wanted to just maintain separation and gut both leagues. If you do that don't expect those 2 leagues to then later come to your aid to help you keep your status as a big boy league.

(07-05-2012 06:29 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(07-05-2012 04:58 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(07-05-2012 04:46 PM)TeleCoog Wrote:  it seems the urge for revenge among the CUSA and MWC was greater than the desire to create a better system. how to explain their complicity in creating this BCS2.0?

what all the non-BIG, non-PAC, non-SEC, and non-BIGXII conferences should have been pushing for is that SF are played in the host bowls of top two semi-finalists, not this rotating crud among the six historical BCS bowls. that was the only way to do away with the AQ label. the darned BE negotiators were foolishly attempting to maintain the BE's privilege and couldn't see the back stab coming?

Lots more money with the same access they had before which was slim to none. How many CUSA teams have ever made a BCS bowl?

Exactly the point, and it's not exactly like the Big East wanted to work with C-USA or the MWC any other time in history. What goes around comes around. Maybe if Marinara hadn't stood up the MWC and C-USA leaders when they wanted to meet something could have been worked out that would have been mutually beneficial to all, but instead the Big East wanted to just maintain separation and gut both leagues. If you do that don't expect those 2 leagues to then later come to your aid to help you keep your status as a big boy league.

Seriously? The Alliance wouldnt have had a BCS seat either. It would have just been a bunch of extra travel, no BCS bid, and a crappy 1.5 million a team TV contract. That would be a pay cut from the OLD Big East contract. Nobody in thier right mind would have ageed to that. Would CUSA merge with the Sunbelt if it meant the CUSA schools would make half as much as do currently?

At least this way the Big East teams will earn far more money and the Big East schools can continue to fund facilties, increase staffs, increase thier athletic budgets, and strengthen thier recruiting. The New Big East will have 14 schools and will need more bowl slots than they did when they only had 8 schools. After CUSA's vote in the BCS, I think I have a pretty good idea where most of those bowl slots will be coming from.

The difference between the BE and The Alliance is like the difference between Chateaubriand and pickled duck testicles.

(07-05-2012 07:04 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  

(07-05-2012 06:29 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(07-05-2012 04:58 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(07-05-2012 04:46 PM)TeleCoog Wrote:  it seems the urge for revenge among the CUSA and MWC was greater than the desire to create a better system. how to explain their complicity in creating this BCS2.0?

what all the non-BIG, non-PAC, non-SEC, and non-BIGXII conferences should have been pushing for is that SF are played in the host bowls of top two semi-finalists, not this rotating crud among the six historical BCS bowls. that was the only way to do away with the AQ label. the darned BE negotiators were foolishly attempting to maintain the BE's privilege and couldn't see the back stab coming?

Lots more money with the same access they had before which was slim to none. How many CUSA teams have ever made a BCS bowl?

Exactly the point, and it's not exactly like the Big East wanted to work with C-USA or the MWC any other time in history. What goes around comes around. Maybe if Marinara hadn't stood up the MWC and C-USA leaders when they wanted to meet something could have been worked out that would have been mutually beneficial to all, but instead the Big East wanted to just maintain separation and gut both leagues. If you do that don't expect those 2 leagues to then later come to your aid to help you keep your status as a big boy league.

Seriously? The Alliance wouldnt have had a BCS seat either. It would have just been a bunch of extra travel, no BCS bid, and a crappy 1.5 million a team TV contract. That would be a pay cut from thier OLD contract. At least this way the Big East teams will earn far more money and the Big East schools can continue to fund facilties, increase staffs, increase thier athletic budgets, and strengthen thier recruiting.

Yeah seriously. Whether or not the full 3 conference alliance would have resulted in anything better isn't the main point I was making. The main point I was making is you can't essentially disrespect 2 commissioners, try to destroy both their leagues, and then expect those leagues to try to do anything to help you. You can call it spite all you want, and in some ways it may have been, but in the end C-USA and the MWC are going to make a little more money than we were making and while access won't be real good it wasn't real good to begin with. Probably as good as we were going to get no matter what so really no incentive to work with the Big East. What goes around comes around.

all the details aren't final.
But it seems the pool is just going from the current bcs top 16 to this committee top 20.
so, yeah, basically nothing's changed so far.

(07-05-2012 07:12 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(07-05-2012 07:04 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  

(07-05-2012 06:29 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(07-05-2012 04:58 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(07-05-2012 04:46 PM)TeleCoog Wrote:  it seems the urge for revenge among the CUSA and MWC was greater than the desire to create a better system. how to explain their complicity in creating this BCS2.0?

what all the non-BIG, non-PAC, non-SEC, and non-BIGXII conferences should have been pushing for is that SF are played in the host bowls of top two semi-finalists, not this rotating crud among the six historical BCS bowls. that was the only way to do away with the AQ label. the darned BE negotiators were foolishly attempting to maintain the BE's privilege and couldn't see the back stab coming?

Lots more money with the same access they had before which was slim to none. How many CUSA teams have ever made a BCS bowl?

Exactly the point, and it's not exactly like the Big East wanted to work with C-USA or the MWC any other time in history. What goes around comes around. Maybe if Marinara hadn't stood up the MWC and C-USA leaders when they wanted to meet something could have been worked out that would have been mutually beneficial to all, but instead the Big East wanted to just maintain separation and gut both leagues. If you do that don't expect those 2 leagues to then later come to your aid to help you keep your status as a big boy league.

Seriously? The Alliance wouldnt have had a BCS seat either. It would have just been a bunch of extra travel, no BCS bid, and a crappy 1.5 million a team TV contract. That would be a pay cut from thier OLD contract. At least this way the Big East teams will earn far more money and the Big East schools can continue to fund facilties, increase staffs, increase thier athletic budgets, and strengthen thier recruiting.

Yeah seriously. Whether or not the full 3 conference alliance would have resulted in anything better isn't the main point I was making. The main point I was making is you can't essentially disrespect 2 commissioners, try to destroy both their leagues, and then expect those leagues to try to do anything to help you. You can call it spite all you want, and in some ways it may have been, but in the end C-USA and the MWC are going to make a little more money than we were making and while access won't be real good it wasn't real good to begin with. Probably as good as we were going to get no matter what so really no incentive to work with the Big East. What goes around comes around.

Actually for the MWC access will be a lot less. You can or get it now about a MWC smelling a BCS bowl. Once the bowl tie ins get restructure you guys will see how much worse it just got for those two leagues.

(07-05-2012 07:15 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(07-05-2012 07:12 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(07-05-2012 07:04 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  

(07-05-2012 06:29 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(07-05-2012 04:58 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Lots more money with the same access they had before which was slim to none. How many CUSA teams have ever made a BCS bowl?

Exactly the point, and it's not exactly like the Big East wanted to work with C-USA or the MWC any other time in history. What goes around comes around. Maybe if Marinara hadn't stood up the MWC and C-USA leaders when they wanted to meet something could have been worked out that would have been mutually beneficial to all, but instead the Big East wanted to just maintain separation and gut both leagues. If you do that don't expect those 2 leagues to then later come to your aid to help you keep your status as a big boy league.

Seriously? The Alliance wouldnt have had a BCS seat either. It would have just been a bunch of extra travel, no BCS bid, and a crappy 1.5 million a team TV contract. That would be a pay cut from thier OLD contract. At least this way the Big East teams will earn far more money and the Big East schools can continue to fund facilties, increase staffs, increase thier athletic budgets, and strengthen thier recruiting.

Yeah seriously. Whether or not the full 3 conference alliance would have resulted in anything better isn't the main point I was making. The main point I was making is you can't essentially disrespect 2 commissioners, try to destroy both their leagues, and then expect those leagues to try to do anything to help you. You can call it spite all you want, and in some ways it may have been, but in the end C-USA and the MWC are going to make a little more money than we were making and while access won't be real good it wasn't real good to begin with. Probably as good as we were going to get no matter what so really no incentive to work with the Big East. What goes around comes around.

Actually for the MWC access will be a lot less. You can or get it now about a MWC smelling a BCS bowl. Once the bowl tie ins get restructure you guys will see how much worse it just got for those two leagues.

I couldn't care less about your idle threats about how much worse it got for us. Guess what, it sucks for us. It's always going to suck for us. It's already hit rock bottom for ECU. Our dreams of ever actually reaching a major conference are pretty much dead, and we are about to be in a football league with Charlotte. C-USA was losing the Liberty Bowl no matter what we did in the meetings, so yeah our champions bowl was getting worse no matter what. Every other bowl C-USA has outside of the Liberty Bowl is pretty much trash anyway so honestly who cares it's not like if we worked with you we were going to all of a sudden get much better bowl tie ins. So tell me what mythical benefit we were going to get if we worked with you for you guys to keep your spot with the big boys?

(07-05-2012 07:25 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(07-05-2012 07:15 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(07-05-2012 07:12 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(07-05-2012 07:04 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  

(07-05-2012 06:29 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Exactly the point, and it's not exactly like the Big East wanted to work with C-USA or the MWC any other time in history. What goes around comes around. Maybe if Marinara hadn't stood up the MWC and C-USA leaders when they wanted to meet something could have been worked out that would have been mutually beneficial to all, but instead the Big East wanted to just maintain separation and gut both leagues. If you do that don't expect those 2 leagues to then later come to your aid to help you keep your status as a big boy league.

Seriously? The Alliance wouldnt have had a BCS seat either. It would have just been a bunch of extra travel, no BCS bid, and a crappy 1.5 million a team TV contract. That would be a pay cut from thier OLD contract. At least this way the Big East teams will earn far more money and the Big East schools can continue to fund facilties, increase staffs, increase thier athletic budgets, and strengthen thier recruiting.

Yeah seriously. Whether or not the full 3 conference alliance would have resulted in anything better isn't the main point I was making. The main point I was making is you can't essentially disrespect 2 commissioners, try to destroy both their leagues, and then expect those leagues to try to do anything to help you. You can call it spite all you want, and in some ways it may have been, but in the end C-USA and the MWC are going to make a little more money than we were making and while access won't be real good it wasn't real good to begin with. Probably as good as we were going to get no matter what so really no incentive to work with the Big East. What goes around comes around.

Actually for the MWC access will be a lot less. You can or get it now about a MWC smelling a BCS bowl. Once the bowl tie ins get restructure you guys will see how much worse it just got for those two leagues.

I couldn't care less about your idle threats about how much worse it got for us. Guess what, it sucks for us. It's always going to suck for us. It's already hit rock bottom for ECU. Our dreams of ever actually reaching a major conference are pretty much dead, and we are about to be in a football league with Charlotte. C-USA was losing the Liberty Bowl no matter what we did in the meetings, so yeah our champions bowl was getting worse no matter what. Every other bowl C-USA has outside of the Liberty Bowl is pretty much trash anyway so honestly who cares it's not like if we worked with you we were going to all of a sudden get much better bowl tie ins. So tell me what mythical benefit we were going to get if we worked with you for you guys to keep your spot with the big boys?

Take a little pill and relax. I never suggested for the mwc or cusa to work in helping big east. My point was showing you that the current deal looks to be worse than what the arrangement was before for both those leagues. So with all their outcry at the AQ status guess what it's now 5 instead of 6 but the access for both those leagues just got even worse. The chances of anther Utah,Hawaii,TzcU or Boise crashing that party just got smaller for the mwc.