Commissioners acting in the best interest of their own conference isn't evil Corey and I never thought it was. It's you that smears Kramer at every opportunity while ignoring the Rose Bowl connection as a big barrier to accomplishing a playoff. I just thought I would join your bandwagon and just go ahead and blame Kramer and the SEC for all things that I think Corey might not like. Have to go bowling, have a nice evening. :wink: :wink:
Well the flaw, among the many, with your point is that the Pac10/Big10 Rose Bowl alliance is now part of the BCS and nothing really changed.. They just have the Rose Bowl in the fold now. Oh, and of course they drew up those lame minimum standards to avoid an anti-trust lawsuit for the non-BCS conference teams. One thing you are ignoring, perhaps intentionally or perhaps out of ignorance on the subject, is that these are NCAA member institutions and the NCAA CAN take control of it. They just won't. All of this squabble about Alliances, Systems, Bowls etc is a non-entity in the discussion if the NCAA simply decides that it will take the bull by the horns and actually rule this damned thing the way they do the other sports and divisions.
By the way Bill... In terms of acting in one's best interest. The Pac10 and Big 10 commissioners have been absolute clusterf**** when it comes to this subject for the past several years. They have either been behind the times or at the end of the whip. Kramer did what was best for his, and that includes proposing his system to the masses that they bought into. The other 2 have been tripping over themselves and blaming everyone else when the reality is.... they didn't put their teams in a position to succeed the way Kramer put his.
And Utah and TCU have about 90% of the MWC's BCS non-con wins over the past 4 years. So....what's the point?
Terry Did you read the article that Dave posted???????? Before you get pissy with me, you should probably check your math. The point was that it was a ******** metric to show the MWC is 'getting there' because you could turn around and use that same metric against many of the other BCS conferences including the premier conference.
The math in your own claim. You are right, it is a long thread but every time I think it has taken a civil turn to football discussion, another pissy moderator chimes in You said that Utah and TCU are 90% of the MWC wins. Such hyperbole and ignorance of fact is the exact reason for the basis of the justification for keeping the MWC out of the BCS. In the past 4 years, Wyoming is 3-3 vs BCS non-conference opponents with road wins at Tennessee and Ole Miss. Utah and TCU have made up 44% of the regular season BCS noncon wins and that is a far, far cry from your 90% figure. It is also less than the 57% that UF and UGa represent for the SEC East.
I'm pretty sure I didn't say that, maybe Aquilla, Scott88, MCG...but not me. I love the Mtn West Conference. BYU, Utah, Air Force have all given me a lot of great football games to watch, esp Air Force.
I said that and it was based on a very good non-record.....a whole lot of wins between them ( TCU and Utah) over the past 4 years. You have actual numbers?
Dang Corey this is another side of you, a rational side! I am curious though as to how you feel that Kramer put the SEC in a better position than the Big 10 and Pac 10. I'm serious and not being a smart you know what. It seems the Big 10 has been in a pretty good position but couldn't get the win. The Pac 10 seems to be at the mercy of the computer polls which I have to admit irks me. I'm not a fan of the computer geeks at all. What should those two conferences do different in your opinion?
Terry, My apologies, I should have known it was Dave! In all honesty, I must have had some sort of cache issue because the reason I typed the reply is because I couldn't find it in edit to C/V. Reading it, I am positive it showed as Terry. Weird. I got on my laptop at home and I can see it clearer here. (Maybe Apple is > than PC, maybe I'm retarded? Who knows. Either way, my apologies) Dave, yes I have the actual numbers. That metric being used was such ******** that it sent me to immediately look at the actual comparison numbers. I will post those in a sec. Bill, No I'm always rational, you just like some of my points more than others As for your question... What Kramer did was lead. He devised and implemented a sexy system and sold it as the future of football... others followed. He devised a sexy bells and whistles ponzi scheme that clearly favors the very type of conference he created for his own conference under the guise of forming 'the best system possible for us to have a national champion.' He sold it and the rest bought in... but they continue to follow, some closer than others. He led, others followed. No matter what, he was doing what was best for his conference. That doesn't make it right or wrong, it just is. What has gone on with the Pac10/Big10 Commissioners is painful to watch if you're on that side of the fence. At first, they dug in and said to hell with these Alliances.. they are shams! I was behind them.. Many in their conference were behind them!! Maybe you don't see it from your perspective but a good many folks on the outside (P10, B10, nonBCS schools, and even Congress when they got a peek at it) thought this system was an nepotistic cash grab that deeply favors its founders.. They said they valued tradition and 'the old way' of college football. They said that you couldn't put a price tag on the Rose Bowl... All of it true.. if that is what you believe in. Then they turned around and caved in. The BCS is really a peer pressure based system. You just can't avoid where 'the cool kids' are and if you want to show you're the best, then you have to stay with the cool kids. I am quite sure ND fans aren't happy with their current situation with the BCS, but the former AD caved in and re-structured... He hangs his hat with the aspirational peers in the p10/b10. Anyway, they decide that they are going to now join the party.... But what preparations did they make to stay competitive in this new environment? Absolutely none. Did they attempt to go to the Super Conference format? No... (And sweet Georgia Brown, all the B10 has to do is add 1 more team!!!) Did they launch an aggressive preemptive strike media campaign to make the case for their conference and conference reps? No. I mean, they both do a fair amount of post-shaft whining and bitching but that isn't the same and the crafty contracts etched out by the likes of the SEC, Big12 and ACC. (And think about that for a minute.. the ACC has a national football contract. I live in the south and I know for a fact half the people here don't give a sh*t about ACC football... but there they are in marquis time slots in CA and in Utah on a Saturday).. Meanwhile the Pac10 is the king of the Vs network and late night Fox football. Compare that to the CBS/ESPN/JP (or whatever it is called these days) contracts that bring SEC football nationwide and into every Southern home... Oh yeah.. the Big10 has their own network... that even their own fans make fun of... They even whored out the Rose Bowl...brought to you by (insert douchebag name here)... If you grew up with this, it is a travashamockracy.. Still, sh*t or get off the pot.. Led, don't follow. Stand by your values or you wind up being forced to submit to those of others... The pac10 and big10 leadership have both failed terribly in comparison to the other conference leaders. Slive has been alright but let's be real. He's riding on Kramer's coat tails here. It is awfully easy to sink that 5 foot putt when the guy who came before you had the rules changed to allow you a 3 foot diameter hole. Kramer wasn't SEC commissioner to be everyone's best friend. He was there to lead that conference and put it in the best possible position. I think he did just that.. Others have followed his queue and have benefited from simply being copy cats... While those who didn't have the balls to challenge him and stick with it have been left behind. As to the Big10 being in a 'good position'.. I'd say the one thing they've done well is negotiate early on and aggressively for bowl positions. Other than that, they remain in the run for the title because the conference just isn't that good. I think it hurts teams like Ohio State (most recently) because they just aren't as tested at the end of the year.. That is not to say the conference sucks, but it certainly isn't what it should be...and more important easily could be.
numbahs <r>Dave, I am counting noncon games and not bowl games (which i believe the author did and honestly..with the MWC bowl record it benefits you to not use them..it would only help my case).. the "BCS Conference teams" are those teams from the BCS schools (SEC, ACC, Big East, Big 10, Pac10, Big12 and ND) non BCS schools are the rest and just like the BCS, they don't count. <E></E><br/> <br/> In the last 4 years:<br/> <br/> The SEC East:<br/> <B><s></s>Florida<e></e></B> 5-0 (Wins: 4 FSU and 1 Miami)<br/> <B><s></s>Georgia<e></e></B> 6-1 (Wins: 3 Gtech, 1 Arizona State and 1 Oklahoma State) (Losses: 1 GTech)<br/> <B><s></s>South Carolina<e></e></B> 3-3 (Wins: 1 Clemson, 1 North Carolina, 1 NC State) (Losses: 3 Clemson)<br/> <B><s></s>Vanderbilt<e></e></B> 2-4 (Wins: 1 Duke, 1 Wake Forest) (Losses: 1 Wake Forest, 1 Duke, 1 Michigan)<br/> <B><s></s>Kentucky<e></e></B> 2-3 (Wins: 2 Louisville) (Losses: 1 Indiana, 2 Louisville)<br/> <B><s></s>Tennessee<e></e></B> 1-3 (Wins: 1 Cal) (Losses: 1 ND, 1 Cal, 1 UCLA)<br/> <br/> The MWC:<br/> <B><s></s>TCU<e></e></B> 6-2 (Wins: 1 Oklahoma, 1 Texas Tech, 2 Stanford, 2 Baylor) (Losses: 1 Texas, 1 Oklahoma)<br/> <B><s></s>Utah<e></e></B> 5-3 (Wins: 1 Arizona, 1 UCLA, 1 Louisville, 1 Michigan, 1 Oregon State) (Losses: 1 UCLA, 1 Oregon State, 1 North Carolina)<br/> <B><s></s>New Mexico<e></e></B> 3-2 (Wins: 1 Missouri, 2 Arizona) (Losses: 1 Missouri, 1 Texas A&M)<br/> <B><s></s>Wyoming<e></e></B> 3-3 (Wins: 1 Ole Miss, 1 Tennessee, 1 Virginia) (Losses: 1 Florida, 1 Virginia, 1 Syracuse)<br/> <B><s></s>UNLV<e></e></B> 2-2 (Wins: 1 Arizona State, 1 Iowa State) (Losses: 1 Wisconsin, 1 Iowa State)<br/> <B><s></s>Air Force<e></e></B> 2-2 (Wins: 1 Notre Dame, 1 Washington) (Losses: 1 Notre Dame, 1 Tennessee)<br/> <B><s></s>BYU<e></e></B> 3-5 (Wins: 1 Arizona, 1 UCLA, 1 Washington) (Losses: UCLA, 2 Boston College, 1 Notre Dame, 1 Arizona)<br/> <B><s></s>Colorado State<e></e></B> 1-6 (Wins: 1 Colorado) (Losses: 3 Colorado, 2 Cal, 1 Minnesota)<br/> <B><s></s>SDSU<e></e></B> 0-7 (Losses: 1 UCLA, 1 Ohio State, 1 Wisconsin, 1 Washington State, 1, Arizona State, 1 Cincinnati, 1 Notre Dame)<br/> <br/> I had the MWC totals wrong, they are 26-32. I think you will find it surprising that the MWC has a great number of teams with quality wins while they loss totals are really brought down by SDSU and Colorado State (13 of them) Certainly though, the MWC noncon wins are not as top heavy as you suggested.</r>
Nice comparison......informative. In looking at the top 6 of the MWC I would say as whole that those 6 teams could compete in the SEC East....and at least the 2 best teams Utah and TCU could be in the upper half of the division but would be hard pressed to win it....as it is for any of the SEC East winners the last few years. It's just not an easy task.
We will just have to agree to disagree on that one. Well, let's see, perhaps you are always rational, your rants aren't always so! Well, when put in a rational matter it makes things much easier to discuss. I don't have any problem with the above. I think it was Lee Iacocca who said, lead, follow or get out of the way. I'll take the leader every time. I would also submit that the other people following most likely was because the plan that come out of discussions was one they could all prosper with. It's called win - win, a lot different than what you originally said. As to the Big 10, when they wanted to add Penn State and Notre Dame it seemed that they were heading to a conference playoff. Then when Notre Dame declined they left it at 11 teams which didn't make sense to a lot of people. However it only has to make sense to them.
Dave, I didn't really use the two as a comparison to show the MWC was as tough as the SEC East... but since the SEC East is considered the pinnacle of conference toughness for the past 10 or so years, I wanted to show that the metric isn't a good way of showing the MWC is 'close but no cigar'...if anything it shows they belong right now and are being cheated. I agree with you about the bottom of the MWC, but the weird one is SDSU. That is a sleeping giant. They have everything and more for a run into greatness, but the hippy and liberalista whackjob Admins can't get out of the way.. Also, I think BYU might have something to say about not being in the top 2 but the proof is in the pudding. Bill- It is if you include everyone, but the system didn't. By design, it excludes half of the entire division. But I agree with you overall though. I am surprised the B10 didn't make a run at Pitt or someone to go to the super conference format. Either way, the P10 and b10 sold their souls... They may as well get on with the burning rather than sit around waiting for fairness.
BYU has their moments but week in/week out in the SEC I am not sure they would be in the upper half of the SEC East....probably more like a SouCar when all is said and done. I think Utah and TCU have proven they could go 5-3 in the SEC East and make the upper half.....that's what I am saying. Most years that doesn't win it and certainly eliminates an appearance in the BCS Title game.
Hear, hear. As soon as I read the twisting, Pelosi-esque "They are essentially getting a foothold but they are far from the top of the mountain" remark I knew this thread was headed off course.
Dave, I get that, but I think the overall point here is that this league is good enough for an automatic BCS birth and if a team goes unbeaten for the season coming from that conference, they certainly should be a viable NC candidate. Twice now in 5 years they have produced an unbeaten champ that was given little more than novelty consideration.
I guess I am saying they might not fare any better than the two best teams in the ACC would fare in the SEC East....and those guys haven't been sniffing the BCS Title game either. Do they deserve an automatic BCS bowl game.....just as much or more than the ACC does for sure.