Warning From Aq Conferences

forevereagle · December 10, 2010

Is it fair now? I don’t know, but it is definitely closer than it was prior to the BCS.

I will answer that, not even close. With the current system, 6 conferences each get 1 guaranteed spot with another attainable. 5 conferences share 1 spot (2 if extremely lucky) that they may or may not be able to attain if the cards fall right. 6 conferences have a high likelihood of sending a team to the MNC if their team can be highly ranked. 5 conferences have no chance of sending a team to the MNC no matter how good they are.

Let's use this year as an example. Boise is going to miss a BCS bowl with one loss to a ranked team. Meanwhile Virginia Tech, a team that BSU beat, goes to the Orange Bowl with a loss to a AA team. Yep, sounds fair.

Edited December 10, 2010 by forevereagle

cwb · December 10, 2010

I don't think it's what we, as a fanbase, have done. Really, it shouldn't even be about fanbase or butts in seats at stadiums. It should just be about players, and when our players get to the point where they can face down a BCS team (and they're close based on the KState performance), we want to be ready and the field to be leveled out. Plus, it's not just talking on behalf of UNT, it's also talking on behalf of TCU, Utah, Nevada, Boise and the rest of the teams whose players are performing and should be rewarded with an opportunity to prove how good they are.

I don't think anyone wants a donation from anyone. What they want is a level field of play when it comes to rankings, or they want the AQ confs to just be up-front about it and say, "look, we don't want you here" so the rest of the NCAA can split off and do it's own thing or the politicians can slam the AQ confs with serious oversight for abusing the hell out of their tax status.

When we're choosing the best team in NCAA football, it should come to two sets of numbers. Win and loss record, and score at the end of a game. If these AQ conferences think they're so bloody tough, then they should be able to take on all challengers and win at any time instead of spouting trash talk that they're unwilling to, and probably unable to back up.

Once again, why do you care who the national champion is?

cwb · December 10, 2010

Then in that case they should lose all NCAA status in all other sports - plain and simple.

The scary thing is that they could afford this. And if not, who will enforce title IX if they are not in the NCAA?

UNTflyer · December 10, 2010

Once again, why do you care who the national champion is?

It's not about caring who the national champion is, it's about how the national champion is determined.

If half the NFL had to no chance of playing in the Super Bowl because they were once AFL teams, wouldn't that make you as a football fan a bit upset?

FireFightnJoey · December 10, 2010

We've Jerry-rigged the free market system to the benefit of those institutions and a lot are institutions that don't even fill their stadiums."

Free market system? Not if you don't have access. Closer to a monopoly.

cwb · December 10, 2010

It's not about caring who the national champion is, it's about how the national champion is determined.

If half the NFL had to no chance of playing in the Super Bowl because they were once AFL teams, wouldn't that make you as a football fan a bit upset?

If it was a league that included the Des Moines Demons with an average attendance of 18,000, no.

UNTflyer · December 10, 2010

The scary thing is that they could afford this. And if not, who will enforce title IX if they are not in the NCAA?

No, they couldn't - most college football programs lose money. They would lose their tax-exempt status if they are no longer associated with the NCAA, which means they would lose about 1/4 of their revenues off the top. They need that money to fund their non-revenue sports and could not afford this at all.

cwb · December 10, 2010

No, they couldn't - most college football programs lose money. They would lose their tax-exempt status if they are no longer associated with the NCAA, which means they would lose about 1/4 of their revenues off the top. They need that money to fund their non-revenue sports and could not afford this at all.

Are you considering the billions of dollars they would be making off of the playoffs? Plus, the schools that lose money will not have to pay taxes.

UNTflyer · December 10, 2010

If it was a league that included the Des Moines Demons with an average attendance of 18,000, no.

Clearly you have the same mentality as the Big Six. What the hell does attendance have to do with determining who the best team is? Nothing.

meangreendork · December 10, 2010

Once again, why do you care who the national champion is?

It's a sport I'm interested in. And I'd rather the best team in said competition be crowned the champion. I don't care how many fans they have or how big their stadium is or what conference they're from. I do care that the team that walks away with the crystal football and the #1 ranking is without doubt, the best team in the league.

Do you hear people complain about the brackets in the race for the NCAA basketball crown? No. That competition is probably more exciting because you don't exactly know who will be on it short of a handful of names. And at the end of the basketball season, you know that the team with the crown earned it and wasn't excused from playing an upstart due to some sort of bureaucracy or other needless obstacle.

So in short - sport. That's why. It's why anyone should care. It's the heart of competition - you put two opponents on the playing field together and let them answer the question of who is better than whom. Not computers, not coaches, not news rankings, not fans.

Maybe you've forgotten what sports are all about. But maybe you're alright with a popularity contest.

cwb · December 10, 2010

No, they couldn't - most college football programs lose money. They would lose their tax-exempt status if they are no longer associated with the NCAA, which means they would lose about 1/4 of their revenues off the top. They need that money to fund their non-revenue sports and could not afford this at all.

What non revenue sports. No title IX. Team does not pay it's way, drop it.

UNTflyer · December 10, 2010

Are you considering the billions of dollars they would be making off of the playoffs? Plus, the schools that lose money will not have to pay taxes.

Donations would drop because they would no longer be tax deductible. Schools would have to cut programs completely for the sake of floating the football programs. Believe me, the tax-exempt status of college athletics has a much bigger impact than merely taking TV revenues from football teams.

UNTflyer · December 10, 2010

What non revenue sports. No title IX. Team does not pay it's way, drop it.

That doesn't even make sense.

meangreendork · December 10, 2010

That doesn't even make sense.

It really doesn't. Though, many sports programs that aren't football or basketball run at a deficit. And that's okay, that happens.

But I still stand by this:

When I'm 45 and my kids are playing whatever sport they choose, I want my kids to be able to play as high up the ladder as their team's abilities allow. If they can fight up the bracket to the local championship, then so be it. If they lose, they lose. If they win, they win. However, I do not believe my kid's team shouldn't be allowed at the championship game because they don't get as many people in the stands.

But too many have lost sight of the real heart of any sport - and that's competition on the field. And that makes me rather sad.

UNTflyer · December 10, 2010

It really doesn't. Though, many sports programs that aren't football or basketball run at a deficit. And that's okay, that happens.

But I still stand by this:

When I'm 45 and my kids are playing whatever sport they choose, I want my kids to be able to play as high up the ladder as their team's abilities allow. If they can fight up the bracket to the local championship, then so be it. If they lose, they lose. If they win, they win. However, I do not believe my kid's team shouldn't be allowed at the championship game because they don't get as many people in the stands.

But too many have lost sight of the real heart of any sport - and that's competition on the field. And that makes me rather sad.

I meant that his sentence fragment didn't make sense. I failed to see the point of the random words thrown together.

cwb · December 10, 2010

Clearly you have the same mentality as the Big Six. What the hell does attendance have to do with determining who the best team is? Nothing.

I hate the big six as much as anyone. The point I am trying to make is that if the lower half keeps whining about this, there will be a split. The warning shot has been fired.

The problem that I have is that I am one of the last 14 people in the world who likes the bowl system. I cringe every time I hear someone bicth about there being too many, or making fun of FIU being in a bowl. There are about 70 chances for teams to make it to the post season now. With playoffs, not so much. There are 70 chances for alumni and students to get together in some random city and have at two or three day party.

I am finished arguing this point as I feel like I am on the pie forum looking like a fool for thinking I could change someone's mind.

Anyway, VIVA EL BOWL SYSTEM!

UNTflyer · December 10, 2010

Let's acknowledge the real issue here... TCU and Boise and have been getting too close for too long, and then there's the Utahs and BYUs and Hawaii's that threaten the BCS Cartel. Now the Big Six are running scared. They fear the parity that is occurring in college football so now they want to circle the wagons once again.

meangreendork · December 10, 2010

Let's acknowledge the real issue here... TCU and Boise and have been getting too close for too long, and then there's the Utahs and BYUs and Hawaii's that threaten the BCS Cartel. Now the Big Six are running scared. They fear the parity that is occurring in college football so now they want to circle the wagons once again.

Pretty much. It's not about the bowls, just about competition. I can live with the bowl system, but I think that the competitions need to be wide open and that the AQs need to put up or shut up about their teams being too good.

UNTflyer · December 10, 2010

I hate the big six as much as anyone. The point I am trying to make is that if the lower half keeps whining about this, there will be a split. The warning shot has been fired.
The problem that I have is that I am one of the last 14 people in the world who likes the bowl system. I cringe every time I hear someone bicth about there being too many, or making fun of FIU being in a bowl. There are about 70 chances for teams to make it to the post season now. With playoffs, not so much. There are 70 chances for alumni and students to get together in some random city and have at two or three day party.
I am finished arguing this point as I feel like I am on the pie forum looking like a fool for thinking I could change someone's mind.
Anyway, VIVA EL BOWL SYSTEM!

And my point is that there will never be a split - they can't afford to not have the NCAA tax-exempt status and they can't afford to not stage championships for the other sports such as baseball, soccer, track, etc.

Yellow Snow · December 10, 2010

The greed is there. If the larger conferences really gave a damn about a fair system in which the best team in the NCAA gets to walk away with the crystal football, then they won't care about teams that don't fill stadium seats. They won't care about TCU not selling as many tickets as an AQ conference team.

But since the major conferences like to keep the bowl money for themselves, there's no real motivation to let a non-AQ team into their set of bowl games. Why would I risk millions of dollars of revenue AND my precious record to play Boise or TCU or Utah or Nevada? If I play them in the regular season as part of my OOC schedule and I happen to lose, then my record is shot, fans don't show up, I might lose my bowl berth for a less-popular bowl. So what I will do is get together with other people who are too scared to lose to "Sisters of the Poor" and lock them out.

And in order to do that, our ranking system won't be based on a series of brackets where anyone can topple my team. It'll be based on polls and computer calculations of some sort or another with pretty much no transparency into how those logarithms work. I see what happens with the NCAA basketball tournament where any school with enough guys to fill the roster can trash what are considered to be the best teams in the NCAA. I don't want that.

So why risk my status in real competition when I can win in a popularity contest where my peers vote in my favor because I'll vote in their favor?

An aside: The arrogance that these BCS guys are spewing gets more and more vile everyday. I mean, I like free enterprise and controlling your revenue stream, but this, as a sport, should be about competition on the field. And as they're getting a huge tax shelter here, they should also be watched for how they do it.

The old way… voters crowned a national champion after watching all of the teams all year. Then they voted how ever they wanted. Nothing was stopping them from voting for UTEP or Eastern Michigan if they thought those teams were any good. The whole thing was never anything more than a guided popularity contest. Nobody ever said it was fair, or that it was supposed to be. That was how it was. The larger conferences don't give a damn about a fair system. That's my point. Popular teams get the votes. Be pissed at the voters and not the teams or conferences.

The BCS/Bowl system isn't supposed to be fair. It wasn't set up to be fair in the first place. The ONLY thing the BCS system was set up to do was to guarantee a 1 vs 2 matchup. As a result of non-AQ conferences griping (and having very good teams I might add), the bowls (and AQ conferences) agreed on adding criteria that allowed non-AQ teams into the BCS bowls in certain situations. To me this seems like a good thing for the smaller conferences. Boise, Utah, TCU or any other smaller conference team wasn’t going to get invited to any of the major bowls any time soon under the old plan anyway (BYU in 1984 not withstanding).

I understand your argument that the system we have now isn’t a true championship and I agree with that argument. The system we have now is not fair. I agree.

What I don’t agree with is the “greedy evil big conference argument”. Say you have twenty dollars. I have four dollars. You give me five bucks… does that make you greedy? After all, you only gave me five... eight dollars would have put us even…

In reality the ONLY way to crown a legitimate champion would be to have a playoff (For the record, I am all for a playoff if they go that route). However, this wouldn’t fix the fair or not-fair dispute either. Arguments would then erupt over the ratings of the teams at 8/9 (or whatever the cutoff for the playoffs is). Smaller conference teams would get shafted in the 8th or 9th position in the polls instead of 1 or 2. We’d argue about what teams shouldn’t have been left out, strength of schedule, etc. just like we do now.

CMJ · December 10, 2010

But, if you let in all the conference champs - I don't care as much about who the last team in/out is. Yeah, in March there are debates about the last at-large in in the 11 or 12 seed slot. I've heard it argued by some on ESPN (Bilas comes to mind) that they should do away with auto bids and just have the "best" 65(or 68 now I guess) invited. Well, that ruins what makes the Dance so great?

Really, it's not that big of a deal if a VA Tech at 22-11 doesn't get in (and a North Dakota with the same record but weaker competition does for instance), because if they were good enough they would've won their league. Winning your league is THE most important thing...after that you just have to HOPE to be good enough(I mean obviously it's easier to make it in with 30+ at larges, but there also more than 200 more teams vying for those spots).

By the same token after giving slots to 11 league champs in a hypothetical CFB playoff - the next 5 would probably be ranked in the 3-10 range. Now a 9th ranked LSU (for example) might get squeezed out and a .500 Belt team might get in. Oh well - LSU had their shot to win the league....their only sure way in.

Edited December 10, 2010 by CMJ

GrayEagle · December 10, 2010

The old way… voters crowned a national champion after watching all of the teams all year. Then they voted how ever they wanted. Nothing was stopping them from voting for UTEP or Eastern Michigan if they thought those teams were any good. The whole thing was never anything more than a guided popularity contest. Nobody ever said it was fair, or that it was supposed to be. That was how it was. The larger conferences don't give a damn about a fair system. That's my point. Popular teams get the votes. Be pissed at the voters and not the teams or conferences.

The BCS/Bowl system isn't supposed to be fair. It wasn't set up to be fair in the first place. The ONLY thing the BCS system was set up to do was to guarantee a 1 vs 2 matchup. As a result of non-AQ conferences griping (and having very good teams I might add), the bowls (and AQ conferences) agreed on adding criteria that allowed non-AQ teams into the BCS bowls in certain situations. To me this seems like a good thing for the smaller conferences. Boise, Utah, TCU or any other smaller conference team wasn’t going to get invited to any of the major bowls any time soon under the old plan anyway (BYU in 1984 not withstanding).

I understand your argument that the system we have now isn’t a true championship and I agree with that argument. The system we have now is not fair. I agree.

What I don’t agree with is the “greedy evil big conference argument”. Say you have twenty dollars. I have four dollars. You give me five bucks… does that make you greedy? After all, you only gave me five... eight dollars would have put us even…

In reality the ONLY way to crown a legitimate champion would be to have a playoff (For the record, I am all for a playoff if they go that route). However, this wouldn’t fix the fair or not-fair dispute either. Arguments would then erupt over the ratings of the teams at 8/9 (or whatever the cutoff for the playoffs is). Smaller conference teams would get shafted in the 8th or 9th position in the polls instead of 1 or 2. We’d argue about what teams shouldn’t have been left out, strength of schedule, etc. just like we do now.

A playoff system, as occurs in EVERY other sport (and even in football below the FBS level) is the fair way to decide a championship. Everyone of the 120 FBS teams has a chance to vie for the national championship. Each conference champion receives a slot with the remaining going to a selection committee. Or, for the time being, I wouldn't mind the AQ champion and runner-up of each conference to get 12 of the slots and the non-AQ get the other four (the MWC, CUSA, SBC and MAC champions). You could hold the playoffs at existing bowl sites although the logistics of doing that might be difficult.

There could also be perhaps another dozen or so bowls for the best of the rest. It could provide even more revenue than in the current bowl system and be far more fair and equitable. It's not primarily about attendance it's about who is the best.

PlummMeanGreen · December 10, 2010

What a power grabbing jerk!

Hey North Texas! According to a UH acquaintance, a prime reason the Coog's are building their new football palace to seat 40,000 is they think the upcoming criteria for a new Super Conference (and it will happen one day because of all the Delaney types) will begin their crusade by using seating capacity just like they did in the early 1980's to start culling out schools with far less seats. Hmmmm? And TCU's re-do of Amon Carter will also stay a mininum of 40,000? Hmmmm?

We once built an "olympic sized" swimming pool at the Peb that was one foot shy of olympic size that for competition sake (which was its original intent) made it an embarrassing pink elephant for UNT & virtually un-usable for varsity type competition. Lets not allow our new, football palace that we are to the person extremely proud of do the same thing to us at North Texas. :huh:

10,000 more seats, Prez' Nowlin--whether sooner or later (and sooner would be far less expensive)...we'll need the extra 10K to keep up with the schools we say we want to keep up with and to remove ourselves from the schools we say we are not wanting to be part of.

All this is just never-ending but lets still do all the things that take care of North Texas and eliminate any potential obstacles that would cause the Big Boys to eliminate us. Sometimes its just a matter of thinking ahead & planning ahead on these things with what can be obvious possible trends of the upper-echelon (and many times greedy) NCAA power brokers, right?

GMG!

Edited December 10, 2010 by PlummMeanGreen

UNTflyer · December 10, 2010

And I guarantee you... if there were a playoff system, attendance at the so-called "non-AQ" schools would go up. Look at the MAC Championship game, a bust in terms of attendance. Why? Because it is pretty much meaningless. But, make it a shot to go the the NCAA Div I-A football playoffs and that place would have had twice the attendance.

It's a chicken-egg argument from the Big Six. "You are not worthy to play for a title because you have poor attendance." Well how can we raise our attendance and be more like you? "Start winning titles."

FirefightnRick · December 10, 2010

This arrogance for the big four power conferences is exactly why TCU is spinning their wheels. Thankfully for them money isn't an issue as they are about to blow so much of it for nothing.

Rick