Here's a new idea regarding the BCS AQs...

The Fake Lonnie Finch · July 13, 2011

...grow some balls and tell them to go blow themselves. Form a new organization separate from them and quit scheduling them. Yes, it's radical. But, if they want to play with themselves, let them go play with themselves.

Let them have their bowl games, let the new organization have a playoff, then challenge the cowards to a "Super Bowl" type game between the champions of the two organizations.

Yeah, it's radical. But, on July 13th, who cares?

untjim1995 · July 14, 2011

...grow some balls and tell them to go blow themselves. Form a new organization separate from them and quit scheduling them. Yes, it's radical. But, if they want to play with themselves, let them go play with themselves.

Let them have their bowl games, let the new organization have a playoff, then challenge the cowards to a "Super Bowl" type game between the champions of the two organizations.

Yeah, it's radical. But, on July 13th, who cares?

I have a feeling that this will all probably happen anyway. Eventually, the AQs will be made up of about 70-80 teams and they will get their own playoff system then. If they don't creat their own playoff system and remian stuck in bowls, the rest of us will probably go the route of the current FCS Playoff system.

Actually, this scenario isn't horrible if it involves getting to play teams within the division that people know about (i.e., local Texas FBS teams, La Tech, Tulsa, NMSU, other CUSA/ MWC schools) because there is still interest there from the fanbases. The current FCS teams provide no interest, which is why it would be a killer to somehow get relegated back to that level again for us or any other SBC school. But a UNT fan will still show up for a game against UTEP or SMU, unlike the days of playing Nicholls State or Northwestern State.

Its not what I want to happen, but it very well may be that this is what ends up happening to most of the non-AQ schools in the future.

meangreendork · July 14, 2011

...grow some balls and tell them to go blow themselves. Form a new organization separate from them and quit scheduling them. Yes, it's radical. But, if they want to play with themselves, let them go play with themselves.

Let them have their bowl games, let the new organization have a playoff, then challenge the cowards to a "Super Bowl" type game between the champions of the two organizations.

Yeah, it's radical. But, on July 13th, who cares?

Sounds like (but not exactly similar) to a situation with the old AFL/NFL. It's not like the AQs want non-AQs around, besmirching their records, doing what TCU did, or what Boise did. Give them what they want and we'll take our games elsewhere.

UNTflyer · July 14, 2011

The best scenario would be for CUSA to step up and finally send a team to a BCS bowl. WAC has done it, MWC has done it. The AQs got sick of it and decided to defuse the argument by inviting TCU to a power conference. If Boise State had some history and was much better academically... who knows, they may have been invited to the PAC-12.

Sun Belt needs to consistently send 3 or 4 teams to a bowl game every year. We need multiple teams to pull off 10 win seasons and some quality OOC wins on a regular basis. They should also look at a deal with a network like ION or CW to give TV access to local affiliates in each city.

The Fake Lonnie Finch · July 14, 2011

They do want us as their "whipping boys." And, as long as we submit to them, they will continue to bully us in the football realm. That's where the money is.

Baseball, they could care less. Basketball, they could care less. They are the ultimate hypocrites in football.

I say, call their bluff, make a separate organization, and tell them to go beat up each other. Whoever is eft standing at the end of their "bowl championship series" send to a neutral site to play our champion. Have a real championship. Not one stacking in favor of "traditional powers."

The BCS is nothing more than a ruse to enrich old powers who fear equal footing. The Michigans and Notre Dames of the world are protected and enriched whether they succeed on the field anymore or not.

Nothing could be less competition-friendly than rewarding the mediocre. The BCS enriches is bad and mediocre. We'll play Indiana this year. They are annually enriched although they've only been to one game in the BCS Era, and it wasn't a BCS bowl game.

BYU has been to more bowl games than Indiana in the BCS Era...Air Force, TCU, Utah, Tulsa, Houston...and yes, UNT! We've been to more bowl games than Indiana in the BCS Era, as yet they get a windfall every year just because of the conference they are in.

Why do Non-BCS AQ conferences continue to participate in it? Tell them to bugger off, and if they grow the balls to do so, meet us once a year for a championship.

UNTflyer · July 14, 2011

FLF, while I understand the frustration that is the root of your plan, it would be the worst thing for non-AQs.

First, we would get cut out of the BCS money that we receive, diminishing our resources to compete.

Second, it draws a more distinctive line between 'Us" and "Them". Right now, we can say "We're all BCS conferences" even though in our hearts we know we are not competing on a level playing field.

Third, It would shut us out of any possibility of playing them in a BCS bowl.

Finally, when playoffs do come around it would make a stronger case to leave us out of any discussion of gettng automatic berths into the playoffs.

I think what we need to do is keep making the case that we belong here. America loves an underdog, and if you are not a fan of the AQ in the BCS bowl you are rooting for the BCS Buster. That is a marketing strength that keeps us around, and all the non-AQs need to exploit that strength.

Edited July 14, 2011 by UNTflyer

golfingomez · July 14, 2011

this would end any recruiting argument any 'non-bcs' school would have over a bcs school

Mean Green 93-98 · July 14, 2011

FLF, while I understand the frustration that is the root of your plan, it would be the worst thing for non-AQs.

First, we would get cut out of the BCS money that we receive, diminishing our resources to compete.

Second, it draws a more distinctive line between 'Us" and "Them". Right now, we can say "We're all BCS conferences" even though in our hearts we know we are not competing on a level playing field.

Third, It would shut us out of any possibility of playing them in a BCS bowl.

Finally, when playoffs do come around it would make a stronger case to leave us out of any discussion of gettng automatic berths into the playoffs.

I think what we need to do is keep making the case that we belong here. America loves an underdog, and if you are not a fan of the AQ in the BCS bowl you are rooting for the BCS Buster. That is a marketing strength that keeps us around, and all the non-AQs need to exploit that strength.

Additionally, the big boys would never agree to a "Super Bowl" between the upper tier and lower tier. They would consider the BCS champion the national champion and be done with it.

PlummMeanGreen · July 14, 2011

A Super Conference, ie, BCS with only 70 (+/-) some odd teams playing each other means more 5 & 6 or 6 & 5 records on a regular basis and during this era of NCAA football that will mean an epidemic of coaching turnovers at that highest level.

Moral of story: The Big Boys need the FBS moreso than the FBS needs the Big Boys. Some of our FBS schools would kill to have a 6 & 5 record and I know of one in particular right now.

GrandGreen · July 15, 2011

A split between the have and have-nots of college football would be awful for the have-nots. It would effectively put them into a fc like conference that is viewed by the vast majority as second rate and not worth even thinking about. Those fans that lived through the 1aa years should know better than to believe this kind of separation would be beneficial. It would kill the left out schools as they lose a major sources of revenue and prestige. Losing guarantee money would be bad but there would be a drastic decline in donations and ultimately a repeal of student athletic fees as students rebel against funding second tier football.

It should be obvious to most that the "major schools" benefit from the current arrangement. They can easily buy home games with schools that have little chance to beat them. If the top 50 to 75 actually did form their own organization than the bottom half of that group would quickly become the "have-nots" in the new association. There could also be serious legal ramifications of attempting to exclude other Universities based on whatever standards that they devise.

untjim1995 · July 15, 2011

They do want us as their "whipping boys." And, as long as we submit to them, they will continue to bully us in the football realm. That's where the money is.

Baseball, they could care less. Basketball, they could care less. They are the ultimate hypocrites in football.

I say, call their bluff, make a separate organization, and tell them to go beat up each other. Whoever is eft standing at the end of their "bowl championship series" send to a neutral site to play our champion. Have a real championship. Not one stacking in favor of "traditional powers."

The BCS is nothing more than a ruse to enrich old powers who fear equal footing. The Michigans and Notre Dames of the world are protected and enriched whether they succeed on the field anymore or not.

Nothing could be less competition-friendly than rewarding the mediocre. The BCS enriches is bad and mediocre. We'll play Indiana this year. They are annually enriched although they've only been to one game in the BCS Era, and it wasn't a BCS bowl game.

BYU has been to more bowl games than Indiana in the BCS Era...Air Force, TCU, Utah, Tulsa, Houston...and yes, UNT! We've been to more bowl games than Indiana in the BCS Era, as yet they get a windfall every year just because of the conference they are in.

Why do Non-BCS AQ conferences continue to participate in it? Tell them to bugger off, and if they grow the balls to do so, meet us once a year for a championship.

My favorite example to use in the non-AQ vs AQ money difference was back in 2008, when two top ten teams, TCU and Boise State, who combined for exactly one loss between them, played each other in the Poinsettia Bowl. They played here because they were not chosen for the BCS bowls, thus their conferences brokered a deal to have these two play each other in San Diego. TCU beat Boise State, 17-16, in a great game that saw both teams still finish in the top ten, IIRC. When it was all said and done, TCU and Boise State got less money from bowl revenues than some other teams that are fairly close in proximity to them--Baylor, which probably was lucky to have won 4 games, and Washington, which went 0-12. Seems fair, huh?

I realize that money in the Big XII is great, but I wonder if Baylor has ever wondered if they had just done what TCU did, if they wouldn't be better off today. TCU now plays in an AQ league, has benefited greatly from getting away from the other Texas public giants, and won't worry about getting left behind if/when the Big XII finally runs falls apart. Baylor made lots of money being the tick on the hound, while TCU decided to make themselves into a bigger dog instead of being a tick. Success, to me, in football, has trumped the BCS $$$ that Baylor has lived on for years.

LongJim · July 15, 2011

You do realize that TCU dramatically ramped up spending to produce these results, right? TCU's ability to rally their alumni base and fund a top tier football program after getting kicked to the curb by the Big 12 has put them where they are today.

These are salient points in your post, IMO.

The main reason TCU was "kicked to the curb" is because for decades the school neglected its athletic programs, thus drew flies and no TV sets, and was one of the "ticks on the hound" in the SWC. Only after the other schools said "good riddance, succubus" did they get their act together (to their credit) and start to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

Another point that always gets overlooked about TCU is that they are not a "have not" program. Never were, until they quit prioritizing their programs and facilities in the early 70's. They are historically the most successful college football program in the state behind UT Austin, are second in national championships, had more SWC titles than any school not UT/aTm, and were 2nd in Heisman winners. They spend more money on their programs (again, a credit to their donors/fans) than any school in the MWC, and will probably be the leader in the Big East, as well.