Arkstfan

There is no dispute who won the tournament, doesn't mean there still isn't talk about who was better. Villanova was 1-3 vs. Georgetown the season they won the NCAA Tournament over Georgetown. Most would contend that Houston was the better team and would have taken a best of series against NC State.

That was a weird circumstance. The win over Michigan was BYU's 24th consecutive win. They beat a terrible Pitt team that had gone to three straight major bowls (Cotton, Sugar, Fiesta). How did BYU get the title? 1. Bad candidates Only two contenders made it through with less than 2 losses. In the AP the number #2 team was Washington who lost to USC which gave three loss USC the Rose. #3 was Florida who lost to Miami and tied LSU to start the season and was on probation. In the coaches poll #2 was the same #3 was two loss Nebraska who lost to Syracuse and OU, giving OU the Orange Bowl. So the only serious contenders were three teams who had failed to take their conference (Washington losing to USC, Nebraska losing to OU, Florida being declared ineligible). 2. The era Part of the problem was the era. 1982, 1983, 1984, & 1985 only one team finished a season unbeaten and untied, the 1984 BYU team. That was the era immediately after I-A membership was slashed from around 130-140 to 105. Having the patsies shipped off to I-AA increased losses. How bad was it? Florida State at 7-3-2 was 19th in the coaches final poll (17 in AP), 8-5 yes 8-5 Miami was 18th in the AP. 3. Bowl cowardice. BYU was contractually bound to the Holiday Bowl. Florida was bowl ineligible and Washington declined a Holiday invite to go to the Orange. Washington had a choice to play the #1 ranked team and turned it down. Nebraska could have gone to the Holiday and turned it down to go the Sugar to play LSU. Boston College turned down an invite to go to the Cotton. 9-2 Oklahoma State turned it down to go to Gator and so on. I think the poll voters were turned off by teams that supposedly wanted to be national champion who refused to go to San Diego to face BYU. Michigan finally took the challenge and they had beaten ranked Miami and had only lost to #2 Washington by 9.

College football made it from 1869 through 1997 without a mechanism to pit the purported #1 and #2 against each other and had a dang good product. Right now pretty much nothing is determined on the field in post-season. The pairings are based on the weird voodoo of polls and computer rankings. Then we have this freaky month plus break between games. It is rare for a college team to take two consecutive weeks off in season and now they pause for five weeks or more? Florida went 36 days between their final game and the BCS game, Ohio State went 50 days. All that is determined is who wins the game between the top two teams according to the voodoo. So what that there were undefeated teams in Cotton not facing an undefeated team in the Rose? Since the BCS has started I can think of six teams that finished undefeated who didn't get a chance to play in the 1-2 game. I'd rather see the polls split on the champion than have a #3 or #4 rated team that is undefeated be totally shut out of claiming a mythical championship.

I don't like the current system, dislike a playoff even more but don't think a playoff ruins college football. The game is more about the Thursday before Labor Day to the first Saturday in December no matter what happens. Personally I liked the old system. Big 10 vs. Pac-10 in the Rose, SEC in Sugar, Big 8/12 in the Orange, SWC in the Cotton and the remainder of the bowl scrambling for the best match-ups. Going into New Year's Day with 3 or more teams capable of crowing that they were national champs was fun. It wasn't uncommon for 1, 2, 3 not be playing each other. Normally you figured 1 just needs to win but other schools still had a shot. I loved it. Eventually dollars will trump tradition (can you say MLB wild-card) but when it happens I want a fair shot.

And if you do like Auburn and end up undefeated with several others, playing a weak schedule to stay home and print money will cost you a shot.

Why doesn't the NCAA step in and replace the BCS? Two bodies set the policy for FBS post-season. Management Council 18 votes for the BCS auto berth Conferences 8 votes for the other five conferences. Board of Directors (final say) comprised of 6 presidents from the BCS auto berth conferences, 5 from the other conferences. In the event of an override, one school, one vote BCS auto berth 65 votes, rest 54. Plus 1 requires authorizing an extension of the season and Board approval. Unless there is a massive share of the money trickling to the five non-auto members they've no incentive to vote for it and with lobbying from the Pac-10 can likely block it. If there is a massive share of money flowing down, it probably doesn't generate enough interest among those other five leagues to support it either. The University president or chancellor is the most powerful element of the NCAA. Remember Florida's president publicly advocated a playoff. He went to the SEC presidents meeting and became a fan of the bowls. Remember that the conference commissioners and athletic directors on the Management Council adopted new FBS membership criteria that required 15,000 BIS every season and required 5 FBS home games. Once the presidents and chancellors saw what was happening they weakened those rules giving schools time to adapt, changing butts in seats to paid attendance and making attendance a once every two years element. If the commissioners and AD's ran the show, we'd likely have a playoff already and probably 75 to 100 schools in FBS, but the presidents run the show.

The Pac-10 and Big 10 don't need the BCS http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=2749584

Glad to amuse you. Sad that it took Tech letting their program play in facilities ULM would sniff at to ever get around to doing something.

Not really have you seen the web site that details their problems? Bleachers at the track that are roped off because they are condemned. Grass growing in the cracks at the tennis "facility", rusted chain link fences, etc, etc.

And you think the folks at ASU are going to listen to us? They are already talking about hiring a marketing consultant.

Wanting to make sure someone has worse facilities?

Unless the Big 10 starts having some better luck getting cable systems signed up, they may be the only conference with a channel. As I mentioned to someone else, why you want to start from scratch? In the Little Rock area we get Fox SW and CSS with most packages and then can add more Fox Channels. In Louisiana many cable customers already get Fox South and either Cox Louisiana or CSS. In Florida you could potentially have Sun Sports, Fox Florida, and CSS. I know in Colorado they get Fox Rocky Mountain and Alititude. Why try to break into these deals where many cable customers already have 2 regional sports nets, plus the demand for ESPN, ESPN2 and the whole mess over ESPN U and CSTV. It used to be that one regional would have one or more MLB team, NBA and NHL. Now its pretty common for the local pros to be split among at least two channels. If I were commissioner of the SEC, why would I want to start my own channel from scratch? With an NBA team you will have maybe 60 games available that are of interest in that local market. But if you are the SEC during league play you have six games each weekend. One is going to CBS, one maybe two is going to ESPN. You are going to build a channel around three games that CBS and ESPN have already said thanks but no thanks to AND give up my lucrative one or two syndicated games shown on TV stations all across the market over the air, no cable needed? In the SEC's shoes I'd come closer to buying an interest in a channel like CSS than trying to start from scratch with a channel that has zero live SEC games in any sport in May, June, July, and August.

The Big 10 is taking us a new direction. They own their own sports channel and have dumped the ESPN agreement that had several morning games running on the various regional sports nets. They may still sell some games that way but may hold some back to increase demand for the Big 10 Channel. If an expansion team can increase the profitability of the B10 Channel they may rethink expansion, but its still way too early to make decisions based on the channel.

I think Big 10 is a couple years at least from thinking seriously about expansion but Syracuse and Rutgers would be logical choices, I'd expect Syracuse because of longer record of success in football and basketball. I'm not sure though that there aren't a few schools that the Big 10 could lure away. There had been noise about Nebraska. They don't bring much media market but a crazed fan base spread across several states that will pay any price to see them on TV. Missouri has the academic fit and in theory two television markets of note (St. Louis and KC). Kentucky or Louisville could be in the mix though I don't think Louisville would get Big 10 attention, UK might because they two have a dispersed fan base that will pay any price to watch UK basketball. Maryland would be a school that could get a look they have a decent following in DC and Baltimore. Virginia not quite as attractive in market but if they had a chance to bail after having Va.Tech forced down their throat. Something on those lines could create an interesting situation. If the ACC were lose a team they would almost certainly focus on Syracuse or Louisville. If the SEC lost a team I think they would look hard at Louisville or Virginia Tech. The Big 12 would probably call Arkansas first but I don't know that they would be receptive. After that pickings get slim. Utah doesn't have the following that BYU has but BYU's schedule policy isn't compatible with the Big 12. Then you are looking at a TCU or Houston. My head hurts.

Shot? How is voting UNT 7th a shot at UNT? You've got a ton back on defense but the offense isn't just going with a new look but an entirely difference approach to the game, but with most everyone on offense recruited to be part of a ball control time chewing offense. UNT could be very good this year but you don't pick a team high when there is that much of a change in store especially when there are so many other teams with so many returning starters who are in the same system as last year.

I doubt Roberts voted ASU first, but I wouldn't be shocked to learn that Blakeney voted ASU first. We return a bunch of starters and he hasn't beaten us in the three tries in league play.

And when you look at bowls, it shakes out nicely. West could have Fort Worth, Texas, and New Orleans without the need for the creation of a new bowl, that would be one bowl for every three members. East could have Liberty, New Orleans, Mobile and Birmingham without the need for the creation of a new bowl, that would be one bowl for every three members.

Interesting prediction given that ASU beat Memphis at Memphis last year and gets the Tigers at Indian Stadium this year.

Technically if you fall below the core numbers there is but in such an unusual circumstance a waiver would be almost automatic.

As long as the two "new" conferences are recognized as the legal successors of the Sun Belt and Conference (we overpaid the consultants for this name) USA by the NCAA and the BCS it doesn't matter what they are called. The Summit League is just the old Mid-Con, the Atlantic Sun the TAAC, the Horizon the old MCC, the Big 10's official name was Intercollegiate Conference of Faculty Representatives until 1987 even though it had been called the Big 10 (or Big 9) for 70 some odd years.

Sagarin agrees with you saying the 01 team was about 9 points better.

Ha you should have been here before the 2005 season kicked off. Lot tougher crowd then. USM either due to financial contraints or preference hasn't invested in basketball like its conference peers over the years, though USM should be more in line now because SMU, Rice, and Tulane are not throwing heavy resources at hoops, they do not have the mindset that Memphis, UAB, and UTEP have. Today's CUSA ain't the old CUSA when it comes to basketball, its not even the old Metro. USM hasn't made the dance since Turk was there. SMU was in the SWC last trip Rice hasn't been in 37 years. Tulane hasn't been since the final Metro season. Marshall's last trip was 20 years ago in the Southern Conference. Houston's last trip was in the SWC. East Carolina's last trip was nine years before joining CUSA in hoops. UCF made four trips as A-Sun tournament champ, which is better than not being able to win the A-Sun but not exactly an endorsement either. They went from doormat in the Sun Belt / American South to contender in the TAAC /ASUN so that says something. Main reason they built a new arena was because they wasted millions on a building that was what 15 years old and obstructed view seating. I've no doubt UTEP is giving full effort but UAB made their first NCAA trip 30 years after UTEP made their first and UAB is only one appearance behind UTEP. Tulsa is an amazing story. If I remember right they made six consecutive coaching hires that took them to the NCAA Tournament. The thing is if you are Memphis or UAB or Tulsa, except for name value of UTEP and Houston in basketball there is fundamentally little difference in basketball being affiliated with SMU rather than UNT there is little difference (except for travel time) in being affiliated with Arkansas State or Marshall. Maybe everyone or most every gets their show together and the investments payoff, but by the same token Rice is recruiting kids who have parents who weren't alive or are too young to remember their last NCAA trip. Marshall is recruiting kids who weren't born at the time of their last trip. Houston is recruiting kids who were toddlers last trip. That's not an impossible obstacle (see Rice football this year, see Rice football immediately lose that coach) but it is a real obstacle in addition to the normal competitive pressures of the game.

Troy and ULL ain't going no where unless CUSA falls below 12 members. East Carolina's AD has the bizarre 16 member idea, which would get one vote (his) if presented to the CUSA ADs. His dissatisfaction though just backs up what I've been thinking all along. CUSA as it stands today was a shotgun marriage. It stretches from El Paso to Hunting, WV. The Sun Belt is a shotgun marriage that in football stretches from Denton to Miami. Both alignments were made quickly to calm down the members and avoid having the leagues collapse. If you are Marshall fan a bowl game in Houston is a bad bad drive or you fly. If you are a Tulsa fan a bowl game in Birmingham is a very long hard drive. We now have this added evidence of dissatisfaction but the off-the-wall solution of a 16 team league with no inter-divisional play isn't a solution its more gasoline on the embers. There is only one solution and it is win-win all the way around. Either through a sane sit down meeting or by way of a group attempting to defect the two conferences shuffle their membership roughly east/west. Look at the natural groupings. All Texas schools and all privates. That gets you UTEP, UNT, Tulsa, Tulane, Rice, SMU, Houston. That's seven schools right there and you need to add between two and five to get your conference going. Next natural grouping. FIU/FAU/UCF/ECU/Marshall and arguably UAB and Troy. That's seven and again you need 2 to 5 more. Most logical next two are MTSU and WKU. Now you are at 9. That nine stick at 9 or they can try to court Memphis, USM, ASU, and the Louisiana schools to get to 10 or 12. So you fill in those extra slots with ASU, Memphis, USM, MTSU, WKU, La.Tech, ULL, ULM.

There has been speculation that if the dollars don't look right that the Big East football schools would split and form a new league. There have been reports that it very nearly happened after the ACC raid and that the commissioner calmed them down enough to stay.

If bowl and television contracts never expired and were never renegotiated you would have a point. But they do. The Sun Belt and CUSA are two far flung collections that have little in common with the entire group. The two can realign east/west lower travel costs, cut regional bowl deals, and regional tv deals. Think Fort Worth wants to ever be stuck with Marshall again? Imagine the horror in New Orleans if stuck with FAU playing UCF. Realigning geographically allows for better bowl contracts for both because it reduces the risk of sending teams from far outside the region.