THE RICH GET RICHER.......AGAIN!

SilverEagle · July 24, 2006

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/sports/colleges/15109574.htm

Breaking even more suited for BCS teams

By WENDELL BARNHOUSE

Star-Telegram Staff Writer

College football's rich should get richer.

A fifth Bowl Championship Series game debuts this season designed to increase access to the five conferences whose champions are not guaranteed a BCS spot.

But if no team from those five leagues qualifies, the at-large bid will go to a team from the six conferences whose champions are guaranteed BCS bowls and lucrative paydays.

The 12-game schedule and 6-6 win-loss records to qualify for non-BCS bowls also should favor the six major conferences -- Big 12, Big Ten, Big East, Atlantic Coast, Southeastern and Pac-10.

"Yes, those six conferences have a bigger edge now," Mountain West commissioner Craig Thompson said. "It could hurt a team getting an at-large BCS bid because of schedule strength. But with the 12th game, I didn't think that the guaranteed conferences would play a bunch of games against the non-guaranteed leagues."

The six conferences control a majority of the available bowl slots. And those leagues' middle-of-the-pack teams will have a better chance of qualifying for the postseason thanks to scheduling. Of the 65 teams in BCS conferences, 47 have scheduled a I-AA opponent. That means those teams only have to go 5-6 against I-A opponents -- and, conceivably, win only two conference games -- in order to reach the 6-6 record needed for bowl games.

Most I-AA teams will play I-A opponents for a game guarantee between $200,000-$400,000. *With the six conferences controlling more than 80 percent of bowl revenue, there is money available to buy games against I-AA teams.

"The guarantee conferences have always had an advantage because they've got more bowl agreements," WAC commissioner Karl Benson said. "That's a result of the marketplace, and I don't think that's going to change."

On the other side of college football's scheduling issue, the five conferences without a BCS guarantee don't have as much revenue to spend on I-AA teams. Of the 50 teams in those five leagues, only 29 have scheduled a I-AA team.

That means the 50 teams from the non-guarantee conferences face a bigger challenge in qualifying for a bowl. Also, a team from one of those conferences could finish with a 9-3 or 8-4 record but wind up not playing in a bowl while a 6-6 team from a guarantee conference receives a bowl bid.

* And what was our price again?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited July 24, 2006 by SilverEagle

meangreendork · July 24, 2006

"We're the BCS, and we're gonna put out a chance for an at-large bid for a bowl game for you...smaller schools. Thing is, you gotta go at least 8-4 to qualify. But you can do that, right? If you're that good, you can do 8-4, right? However, if a...bigger, better school goes 5-6, then they get your spot. I mean, they're a BCS school, of course."

This basically means that NT can:

-sweep the Belt

-beat Akron, Tulsa, and SMU

...and still lose a spot in the bowl game to an Aggie team that only:

-beats Baylor and Colorado

-loses against every other BigXII team

-beats the Citadel, ULL, Army and LaTech

Simply because A&M's schedule is harder and the wins it does have count more than the wins NT would have under those circumstances. Well, that's what we'd be told.

Increased access to BCS bowls? Yeah, if you're a BCS team.

Edited July 24, 2006 by meangreendork

eulesseagle · July 24, 2006

Because of how bowl games and the subsequent payout occur to BCS schools with winning records it benefits these institutions to schedule and beat a combination of four D-1AA and Mid-Major programs. These BCS schools know they can not have a winning record against their conference mates and other BCS schools in other conferences.

MGDork....you think A&M will tolerate a blantently soft schedules year in and year out to go to bowls.... the Corps of Cadets and other A&M alum will sell out Kyle Field because they are fanatics on season tickets.....

IMHO, if Coach Fran loses one of these "soft" games and fails to go to a bowl then it is hasta luego amigo.

IMHO, again, the NCAA needs to change their rules on the number of games D-1A schools must win against other D-1A opponents to qualify for a post season bowl.

I can not stand a school like A & M who wins four games against D-1AA and Mid-Majors and wins two and maybe three against Big-12 opponents and make it to a bowl.

SilverEagle · July 24, 2006

Because of how bowl games and the subsequent payout occur to BCS schools with winning records it benefits these institutions to schedule and beat a combination of four D-1AA and Mid-Major programs. These BCS schools know they can not have a winning record against their conference mates and other BCS schools in other conferences.
MGDork....you think A&M will tolerate a blantently soft schedules year in and year out to go to bowls.... the Corps of Cadets and other A&M alum will sell out Kyle Field because they are fanatics on season tickets.....
IMHO, if Coach Fran loses one of these "soft" games and fails to go to a bowl then it is hasta luego amigo.
IMHO, again, the NCAA needs to change their rules on the number of games D-1A schools must win against other D-1A opponents to qualify for a post season bowl.
I can not stand a school like A & M who wins four games against D-1AA and Mid-Majors and wins two and maybe three against Big-12 opponents and make it to a bowl.
←

Well, sadly, that's probably how a lot of non-UNT people look at our recent bowl trips. We made it because of our SBC record. A conference which a lot of people regard as 1-AA........ or provisional D-1.

NT80 · July 24, 2006

Well, sadly, that's probably how a lot of non-UNT people look at our recent bowl trips. We made it because of our SBC record. A conference which a lot of people regard as 1-AA........ or provisional D-1.
←

Exactly. Judge DD's record by his games against other-than-SBC 1-A teams and you get the real picture how we stacked up against our so-called peers. 7-38.

eleazar · July 24, 2006

Exactly. Judge DD's record by his games against other-than-SBC 1-A teams and you get the real picture how we stacked up against our so-called peers. 7-38.
←

True, but we did win our conference those years. I don't like having a bad OOC record either, but I always think that conference winners should go to a bowl so that if you are in a situation like most teams in the Belt, you have something to play for.

I still pray for a conference winners seeded playoff system.

meangreendork · July 24, 2006

Because of how bowl games and the subsequent payout occur to BCS schools with winning records it benefits these institutions to schedule and beat a combination of four D-1AA and Mid-Major programs. These BCS schools know they can not have a winning record against their conference mates and other BCS schools in other conferences.
MGDork....you think A&M will tolerate a blantently soft schedules year in and year out to go to bowls.... the Corps of Cadets and other A&M alum will sell out Kyle Field because they are fanatics on season tickets.....
←

I needed an example school, really. Figured BigXII would be more relevant.

DallasGreen · July 25, 2006

Note the $200-$400K guarantee for 1AA to play 1A. Considering our UT guarantee is 285K, we are being paid as if we are in fact 1AA.

eulesseagle · July 25, 2006

http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_ia/mo...n_the_polls.php

MGDork--

look at the records of Tx a&M

2003.......4-8 with wins over LaLa and LaTech

2004.......7-5 with wins over utah and wyoming

2005.......5-6 with wins over smu and texas state

look at the record of okla state

2003.......9-4 with wins over wyoming, missouri state, smu and lala

2004.......7-5 with wins over tulsa and smu

2005.......4-7 with wins over montana state, FAU and arkansas state.

unfortunately for mid-majors and D-1AA according to a post earlier today the Big-12 is the conference that loads up more than any other conference on lesser teams.

please check the link for records and who they played.

MGDork----next time you are in Denton check out Metzers for great BBQ, german sausage, onion rings etc. (see the post) and the best beer selection in 100 miles.....best foriegn selection anywhere.

PHSCoach · July 25, 2006

Note the $200-$400K guarantee for 1AA to play 1A. Considering our UT guarantee is 285K, we are being paid as if we are in fact 1AA.
←

Where did the $285 guaratee for Texas come from??? In 2004 we played Texas and Colorado as the money games and received $1,124,900.

meangreendork · July 25, 2006

http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_ia/mo...n_the_polls.php
MGDork--
look at the records of Tx a&M
2003.......4-8 with wins over LaLa and LaTech
2004.......7-5 with wins over utah and wyoming
2005.......5-6 with wins over smu and texas state
look at the record of okla state
2003.......9-4 with wins over wyoming, missouri state, smu and lala
2004.......7-5 with wins over tulsa and smu
2005.......4-7 with wins over montana state, FAU and arkansas state.
unfortunately for mid-majors and D-1AA according to a post earlier today the Big-12 is the conference that loads up more than any other conference on lesser teams.
please check the link for records and who they played.
MGDork----next time you are in Denton check out Metzers for great BBQ, german sausage, onion rings etc. (see the post) and the best beer selection in 100 miles.....best foriegn selection anywhere.
←

Since I live there...I should drop by. But yeah, BigXII is really bad about padding their games with D-IAA. And even if we are playing for a bigger amount than the D-IAA teams that play UT, I'm betting that they'll play us like a D-IAA team.

Quoner · July 25, 2006

http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_ia/mo...n_the_polls.php
MGDork--
look at the records of Tx a&M
2003.......4-8 with wins over LaLa and LaTech
2004.......7-5 with wins over utah and wyoming
2005.......5-6 with wins over smu and texas state
←

This seemed a bit off to me so I checked - and the records were right, but the OOC wins were not for 2003 and 2004:

2003: Beat Utah and Ark St (lost to Pitt and VT)

2004: Beat Clemson and Wyoming (lost to Utah)

2005: Beat SMU and Tx St (lost to Clemson)

A&M at least made an effort for awhile, but now they are going the way of their Big 12 brethren. It wil b e interesting to see if Texas and OU keep up their history of (mostly) strong scheduling or if the Tech/KSU approach becomes the permanent norm. (although in TAMU's defense they scrambled this year to fill a spot left by Miami backing out of a home and home - Texas also had some scrambling to do I believe - and are playing OSU)

LongJim · July 25, 2006

Texas also had some scrambling to do I believe - and are playing OSU
←

I believe the UT scramble was a result of something that involved LSU, IIRC.

Edited July 25, 2006 by LongJim

GangGreen · July 25, 2006

I know this is will be very unpopular - so fire away.

If the mid-majors will never get a fair shake, then why don't the SBC, CUSA, WAC, MWC, and MAC cut ties with the BCS and form a new alliance?

Schools that are bordering on I-A (Montana, McNeese, Texas State) could be filtered into the leagues to shore up membership or create new conferences.

The mid-majors will never be able to garner the same attention or revenue under current or proposed plans, so why not re-invent the wheel.

People complain about the BCS system, but the new alliance could incorporate conference championships and a subsequent National Championship Tournament.

This wouldn't generate BCS money, but could be more beneficial than the system currently in place.

redallover · July 25, 2006

While UNT's OOC record is poor, you have to remember that the vast majority of those games are on the road. Beat SMU this year, like you did against TX Tech, and you're on your way again.