Call it selfish, but I'm just not as concerned for the welfare of college football as a whole as I am for the welfare of Texas A&M. In this case, being in the SEC is better for us in the long run than staying in the Big 12 ever could have been. If that means never, ever playing UT in so much as checkers ever again, so be it.

(06-01-2012 11:03 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  When one history dies, another begins...

This is similar to my beliefs in the matter. Everyone seems so afraid of change. Make some new rivalries. We are.

We lost our Wisconsin rivalry but are gaining one with Nebraska. Make some new god damned rivalries and get over it! They are just excuses to get you to pay money and sit in a damn seat to watch a game being played by Men.

As a yankee fan from way back I remember when the draft system was started and used as a way to evening things out. The Yankees didn't know what to do and suffered. It wasn't until George came along and was willing to do whatever to make the Yanks a champion. The gist of what I am saying is that money and and drive of an individual millionaire returned the Yankees to glory. If a individual millionaire came along with money he/she was willing to spend, the Kansas City Royal could win 4 world championships in a row. The commonality is money and willingness to spend it. Universities, especially state universities, don't have the luxury of money like George Steinbrenner and have academic obligations too. Even in the old BCS system it is almost impossible for the big east champion to be considered for the national championship? In short college football is a cartel and actively stamps out competition. It is precisely what the Sherman Anti-Trust legislation was designed for. But will a politician have the guts to enforce it? Probably not.

d

(06-01-2012 09:53 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 09:26 AM)RU8081 Wrote:  I disagree. The big 4 can't handle competition, they will fight it to the death. I saw a item on ESPN how the member schools of the SEC were so opposed to a champ game. They are pathetic. Can you imagine the Yankees doing this?

Um, I hope you realize that the Yankees certainly tried in terms of fighting every single luxury tax measure, hoarding all of their YES TV money, and using their cash position to sign up foreign players (e.g. El Duque, Jose Contreras, Hideki Matsui in the past) that smaller market clubs couldn't afford and even manipulate the draft (the one place where small market clubs are supposed to be able to improve themselves) by driving up the prices of top draft picks (so smaller market clubs with higher draft positions actually started passing on the best players available because they couldn't afford to sign them).

There's income stratification in every sport. Money doesn't necessarily buy you championships in MLB, but it can buy you year-to-year competitiveness. The English Premier League is the most popular league in the world and there's only 4 or 5 clubs that can realistically challenge for the title every year since they outspend everyone else by such wide margins. Having multiple superstars is so important in the NBA that only a handful of teams can really be legit title contenders. The only league that has done a decent job of managing competitiveness is the NFL, and even then, the Cowboys and a handful of other large market clubs still dominate in terms of revenue and national TV appearances.

What's interesting with college sports is that it's the one area where you don't have to be in New York or one of the other large markets to dominate. LeBron James and other star pro athletes wanted to flee the state of Ohio, but star high school recruits flock to Ohio State in every sport. The state of Alabama has two schools with the last three national championships in football. The state of Kentucky has the two largest revenue generators in college basketball. History, tradition and fan base intensity actually mean more than market size in college sports than pro sports. (Granted, if you have history, tradition and fan base intensity on top of a large market in college, such as Texas, then you're the Death Star.)

If WVU had gotten past Pitt in 2007, they absolutely would have been the unquestioned #2 team in the nation and gone to the BCS title game as the BE champ to face Ohio State instead of LSU.

Cincy, as undefeated BE champ, was 1 controversial second from playing in the title game vs Alabama in 2009.

(06-01-2012 11:36 AM)RU8081 Wrote:  As a yankee fan from way back I remember when the draft system was started and used as a way to evening things out. The Yankees didn't know what to do and suffered. It wasn't until George came along and was willing to do whatever to make the Yanks a champion. The gist of what I am saying is that money and and drive of an individual millionaire returned the Yankees to glory. If a individual millionaire came along with money he/she was willing to spend, the Kansas City Royal could win 4 world championships in a row. The commonality is money and willingness to spend it. Universities, especially state universities, don't have the luxury of money like George Steinbrenner and have academic obligations too. Even in the old BCS system it is almost impossible for the big east champion to be considered for the national championship? In short college football is a cartel and actively stamps out competition. It is precisely what the Sherman Anti-Trust legislation was designed for. But will a politician have the guts to enforce it? Probably not.

d

(06-01-2012 09:53 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 09:26 AM)RU8081 Wrote:  I disagree. The big 4 can't handle competition, they will fight it to the death. I saw a item on ESPN how the member schools of the SEC were so opposed to a champ game. They are pathetic. Can you imagine the Yankees doing this?

Um, I hope you realize that the Yankees certainly tried in terms of fighting every single luxury tax measure, hoarding all of their YES TV money, and using their cash position to sign up foreign players (e.g. El Duque, Jose Contreras, Hideki Matsui in the past) that smaller market clubs couldn't afford and even manipulate the draft (the one place where small market clubs are supposed to be able to improve themselves) by driving up the prices of top draft picks (so smaller market clubs with higher draft positions actually started passing on the best players available because they couldn't afford to sign them).

There's income stratification in every sport. Money doesn't necessarily buy you championships in MLB, but it can buy you year-to-year competitiveness. The English Premier League is the most popular league in the world and there's only 4 or 5 clubs that can realistically challenge for the title every year since they outspend everyone else by such wide margins. Having multiple superstars is so important in the NBA that only a handful of teams can really be legit title contenders. The only league that has done a decent job of managing competitiveness is the NFL, and even then, the Cowboys and a handful of other large market clubs still dominate in terms of revenue and national TV appearances.

What's interesting with college sports is that it's the one area where you don't have to be in New York or one of the other large markets to dominate. LeBron James and other star pro athletes wanted to flee the state of Ohio, but star high school recruits flock to Ohio State in every sport. The state of Alabama has two schools with the last three national championships in football. The state of Kentucky has the two largest revenue generators in college basketball. History, tradition and fan base intensity actually mean more than market size in college sports than pro sports. (Granted, if you have history, tradition and fan base intensity on top of a large market in college, such as Texas, then you're the Death Star.)

RU....your Yankees analogy is interesting but, IMO, it has limited application to CFB today. The Yankees are a private, for-profit business that pays taxes. Furthermore, I believe Congress has already granted MLB a monopoly status so as long as MLB follows the laws of the land, Congress is not going to interfere in its financial dealings.

CFB is a whole different animal. These are tax-exempt institutions, with the majority of them (the state universities) being funded by the taxpayers. IMO, as these institutions function more and more like MLB, or the NFL to be more precise, the greater the likelihood that a cash starved US government will challenge their tax exempt status.

Historically, you are correct about nobody challenging the BCS from a monopoly standpoint. IMO, this may be due to the fact that, while unpopular with the "have-nots," the BCS still has a lot "haves" in powerful places - at least enough to hold the voices of reform at bay. However, I think if the pool of "haves" shrinks further - with a corresponding increase in the number of "have-nots" - then you can have the inertia to propel real change. In some ways, this is similar to what happens in a revolution. If you go back through history, while many societies had long standing pressures for change, it was only when the broader society began to join the ranks of the disenchanted that real change occurred.

To be more precise, if the "Big 6" becomes the "Big 4" and the CFB powers-that-be restructure CFB to make this a reality, then you have pretty much the whole East Coast suddenly joining the ranks of the "have-nots." In my opinion, that would provide the rocket fuel for some very significant change - which I believe is precisely why the powers-that-be will tread very cautiously here rather than risk killing the goose that lays the golden egg.

It's not hard to look at the 4-team model and see it for what it is: an attempt to make additional money off of the NC game format, without expanding the field significantly.

The 3 Champs + 1 at-large model is lame and more troublesome than either all conference champs-in or straight-rankings top 4. The 8 team model fixes all of these problems easily with a Top 5 Conf Champs + 3 ranked At-Larges mix. Even SEC would get more teams-in every year with the 8-school plan, but then MONEY would be more accessible to non-big4 conferences & ND. THAT is why they resist it so hard, it's not about getting a fair-shot or having a realistic, rational method of crowning the champ, it's about controlling that $$$$.

A really whiny article with two big flaws. First, she claims the purpose of the 4 team playoff proposals are to direct the money to the Big Four conferences. Actually, the market directs most of the money to these conferences, because they have most of the teams fans want to see.

Also, she opposes the proposal to use the rankings to choose 4 teams on the grounds that rankings can be 'notoriously weighted' towards the large conferences. What does that mean? Does she think the computer formulas have lines of code that favor the SEC? That her fellow journalist pollsters hate small conferences?

She calls for a 'true' playoff system, but doesnt she realize someone will have to select the teams? What 'unbiased' method does she want?

(06-01-2012 11:08 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 11:00 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 10:20 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 09:22 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  I loved these two sentences:

Quote:When Texas ends up playing West Virginia more often than it plays Texas A&M, is college football really better? When it’s impossible for a Cinderella team to make the playoffs, is the game really stronger commercially?

Tell the writer to call me the next time A&M does something significant...

I think the point the writer was making was that it's better for longtime rivals to play each other than to play teams with which you have no history. Texas and WV now have a relationship based on conference affiliation, but I can't see them ever having a true rivalry like existed between UT and A&M.

Right. You could put it another way and say that ending the UT-TAMU and WVU-Pitt series doesn't necessarily make college football better.

it certainly doesn't make it worse

I know that I'm not the only WVU fan that could give a fuzzy rat's butt if WVU ever played Pitt again and I'm sure there are more than a few UT fans that feels the same way about A&M

A&M and Pitt both left their respective conferences and doing so tossed away decades of "tradition"

Pitt severed ties with schools like WVU and Rutgers while A&M did the same with the Big 12 schools.

as for rivalries, WVU played Va Tech for 32 years straight until Va Tech left the BE for the ACC

WVU played Penn State from 1947 until 1992 when Penn State joined the Big 10

Syracuse and WVU have played every year, I think, since 1955 and that's ending due to Syracuse leaving the BE for the ACC

and just because WVU and UT aren't 70 miles away from each other does not mean that a rivalry will not develop between the two schools

I think that Texas Tech and Kansas State will become our big rivals in football but who knows what will happen

(06-01-2012 10:32 PM)Theodoresdaddy Wrote:  I know that I'm not the only WVU fan that could give a fuzzy rat's butt if WVU ever played Pitt again...

That's just sad. Rivalries are what the game is made of.

This article is dead on. The rich getting richer and more exclusionary. Segregation is segregation no matter how you package it. In this case in the guise of a playoff to give the illusion of choice, but with a loaded deck.

(06-02-2012 01:35 AM)jaredf29 Wrote:  This article is dead on. The rich getting richer and more exclusionary. Segregation is segregation no matter how you package it. In this case in the guise of a playoff to give the illusion of choice, but with a loaded deck.

How is this 'deck' loaded any more than choosing the top 4 ranked conference champs?

(06-01-2012 11:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 10:32 PM)Theodoresdaddy Wrote:  I know that I'm not the only WVU fan that could give a fuzzy rat's butt if WVU ever played Pitt again...

That's just sad. Rivalries are what the game is made of.

and new rivalries will be created over time; it revitalizes the game

(06-02-2012 07:03 AM)Theodoresdaddy Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 11:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 10:32 PM)Theodoresdaddy Wrote:  I know that I'm not the only WVU fan that could give a fuzzy rat's butt if WVU ever played Pitt again...

That's just sad. Rivalries are what the game is made of.

and new rivalries will be created over time; it revitalizes the game

Come on. Do you really think USC football needs "revitalization" by say replacing Notre Dame on the schedule with Utah, or Ohio State via replacing Michigan on the schedule with i don't know, Cincinnati?
Long-time rivalries are fantastic.

Let's face it: WVU's move to the Big 12 has pros and cons. The pro is essentially a boat-load more money, and I would be last person to denigrate the importance of that. It's easy for fans like me to snicker at moves made for money, because I don't have the responsibility of meeting WVU budget goals. But, there are also cons, and the main one is that WVU's football schedule will now be filled with schools that WVU has no geographic or cultural affinity with, meaning WVU fans don't care about their opponents and the opponents do not care about WVU. WVU playing a bunch of Texas schools is competitively nonsensical. The only times WVU should play Oklahoma State are the odd once-every-couple-of-generations two game home-away contract, or a bowl game.

WVU if a far more-natural fit in the ACC than the Big 12, and it's even a more natural fit in the SEC or B1G than the Big 12 too. But those conferences didn't invite them.

Last time I checked most of these endeavors are tax payer supported public institutions pushing for the exclusion of tax payer supported public institutions. Congress will not sit quietly by while the good ol' boys of college football use these tax supported institutions to line their pockets at the expense of other tax supported institutions. It will not happen.

The Big 12, SEC, PAC and Big 10 have worked hard to come up with a plan that will effectively cut The ACC and Big East out of the national championship picture. Sadly The Big 12, SEC, PAC and Big 10 are so greedy they can't even agree on a way to screw The ACC and Big East. As soon as they reach some kind of consensus, look for strongest and weakest of those four ( SEC and Big 12 ) to partner up in an effort to screw the other two. (That's already happening...LOL)

Rest assured, wheels are turning.
CJ

(06-02-2012 07:30 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Last time I checked most of these endeavors are tax payer supported public institutions pushing for the exclusion of tax payer supported public institutions. Congress will not sit quietly by while the good ol' boys of college football use these tax supported institutions to line their pockets at the expense of other tax supported institutions. It will not happen.

The Big 12, SEC, PAC and Big 10 have worked hard to come up with a plan that will effectively cut The ACC and Big East out of the national championship picture.

I find it funny how, during the BCS regime when the ACC and Big East were a part of the ruling cartel, most fans of these schools had no problem with the fact that the BCS system cut out the MWC, C-USA, WAC, etc. from access to the title game and big bowl money. They would lecture fans of these have-not conferences that it was only natural that the Big Boys who make the money should keep the money.

But now that the shoe is on the other foot and their conferences will soon be on the outside looking in, ACC and Big East fans scream bloody murder and vow congressional investigations into the injustice of it all ...

Basically, this article is arguing against capitalism (as are most of the posters here). The most popular teams with the most fans get the most money, and they use that money to become more competitive and win more often. This is how capitalism works.

You can whine about collusion and corruption, but the fact is that:
1) there is zero collusion whatsoever when it comes to playing the games on the field.
2) There is zero collusion between the conferences and the pollsters.
3) There is zero collusion between the conferences and the BCS computers.

So the only way that being rich and powerful helps you get into the national championship game is by giving you the resources to field the best team on the field.

10th Mountain is correct that UC was 1 controversial second away from a national title game appearance in 2010. I guarantee that if our team had been 12-1 the year before (like Texas had) and blown out every opponent (Texas had 3 games decided by 10 or fewer points; UC had 5) that we would have been seriously considered for the national title game. Even if we hadn't gone to the title game, it wouldn't have been because of collussion or corruption. It was because that's what the pollsters chose. No one paid them off, implicitly or explicitly. Similarly, no one paid off the pollsters or the computers last year when Alabama played LSU.

How can you complain about corruption when the voting system is completely transparent and the voters aren't paid off? We can all agree that it is difficult and controversial to decide the best two teams using any system, but that doesn't make it corrupt.

The funny thing is that outside the SEC, most of the people in charge (the college presidents) could care less about a national championship. Even most fans in the B1G and PAC care a lot more about winning their conference than anything else.

Articles like this are really just complaining that the most popular teams get the most revenue. They're advocating for the socialistic economy that the NBA and NFL have. It's all fine and good if that's the system you prefer, but don't be naive and whine about corruption and fairness when really you just want your team's facilities to be subsidized by a richer, more popular team.

(06-02-2012 07:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-02-2012 07:30 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Last time I checked most of these endeavors are tax payer supported public institutions pushing for the exclusion of tax payer supported public institutions. Congress will not sit quietly by while the good ol' boys of college football use these tax supported institutions to line their pockets at the expense of other tax supported institutions. It will not happen.

The Big 12, SEC, PAC and Big 10 have worked hard to come up with a plan that will effectively cut The ACC and Big East out of the national championship picture.

I find it funny how, during the BCS regime when the ACC and Big East were a part of the ruling cartel, most fans of these schools had no problem with the fact that the BCS system cut out the MWC, C-USA, WAC, etc. from access to the title game and big bowl money. They would lecture fans of these have-not conferences that it was only natural that the Big Boys who make the money should keep the money.

But now that the shoe is on the other foot and their conferences will soon be on the outside looking in, ACC and Big East fans scream bloody murder and vow congressional investigations into the injustice of it all ...

Actually I have been calling for the government to step in since The SEC expanded with USC (lite) and Arkansas. That was before Louisville joined CUSA. My opinion hasn't changed. As usual, I had the foresight to see this coming. The rest of the college football world is finally catching up. The reality is the have nots will soon out number the haves. As with any scheme to defraud, the longer the scheme goes on, the more bold the perps become. Their arrogance will soon be rewarded. You can go back to thinking whatever you want now, even if it is obviously wrong.
CJ

(06-02-2012 07:43 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Basically, this article is arguing against capitalism (as are most of the posters here). The most popular teams with the most fans get the most money, and they use that money to become more competitive and win more often. This is how capitalism works.

You can whine about collusion and corruption, but the fact is that:
1) there is zero collusion whatsoever when it comes to playing the games on the field.
2) There is zero collusion between the conferences and the pollsters.
3) There is zero collusion between the conferences and the BCS computers.

So the only way that being rich and powerful helps you get into the national championship game is by giving you the resources to field the best team on the field.

10th Mountain is correct that UC was 1 controversial second away from a national title game appearance in 2010. I guarantee that if our team had been 12-1 the year before (like Texas had) and blown out every opponent (Texas had 3 games decided by 10 or fewer points; UC had 5) that we would have been seriously considered for the national title game. Even if we hadn't gone to the title game, it wouldn't have been because of collussion or corruption. It was because that's what the pollsters chose. No one paid them off, implicitly or explicitly. Similarly, no one paid off the pollsters or the computers last year when Alabama played LSU.

How can you complain about corruption when the voting system is completely transparent and the voters aren't paid off? We can all agree that it is difficult and controversial to decide the best two teams using any system, but that doesn't make it corrupt.

The funny thing is that outside the SEC, most of the people in charge (the college presidents) could care less about a national championship. Even most fans in the B1G and PAC care a lot more about winning their conference than anything else.

Articles like this are really just complaining that the most popular teams get the most revenue. They're advocating for the socialistic economy that the NBA and NFL have. It's all fine and good if that's the system you prefer, but don't be naive and whine about corruption and fairness when really you just want your team's facilities to be subsidized by a richer, more popular team.

Capitalism?....
State supported capitalism? Do you know what capitalism is?

cap·i·tal·ism/ˈkapətlˌizəm/
Noun: An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.

Since the institutions in question are for the most part publicly supported, how can they operate in a capitalistic state?

I wish the government would subsidize my business by helping pay the bills while I pocket the profits. If that's what capitalism is sign me and my company up.
CJ

BTW.....
Louisville made more money than anyone in The Big East, The ACC, PAC and 8 of the 10 teams in The Big 12 and I still think the system sucks.

(06-02-2012 07:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-02-2012 07:03 AM)Theodoresdaddy Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 11:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 10:32 PM)Theodoresdaddy Wrote:  I know that I'm not the only WVU fan that could give a fuzzy rat's butt if WVU ever played Pitt again...

That's just sad. Rivalries are what the game is made of.

and new rivalries will be created over time; it revitalizes the game

Come on. Do you really think USC football needs "revitalization" by say replacing Notre Dame on the schedule with Utah, or Ohio State via replacing Michigan on the schedule with i don't know, Cincinnati?
Long-time rivalries are fantastic.

Let's face it: WVU's move to the Big 12 has pros and cons. The pro is essentially a boat-load more money, and I would be last person to denigrate the importance of that. It's easy for fans like me to snicker at moves made for money, because I don't have the responsibility of meeting WVU budget goals. But, there are also cons, and the main one is that WVU's football schedule will now be filled with schools that WVU has no geographic or cultural affinity with, meaning WVU fans don't care about their opponents and the opponents do not care about WVU. WVU playing a bunch of Texas schools is competitively nonsensical. The only times WVU should play Oklahoma State are the odd once-every-couple-of-generations two game home-away contract, or a bowl game.

WVU if a far more-natural fit in the ACC than the Big 12, and it's even a more natural fit in the SEC or B1G than the Big 12 too. But those conferences didn't invite them.

Steve, I sometimes wonder if your version of common sense is you disguising the fact that you're dense and obtuse...

WVU fit in the ACC back in 1953, but not today. WVU is basically an SEC team at heart, and the ACC will never be mistaken for the SEC. Not on their best day - or the SEC's worst...

The fact of the matter is that the Backyard Brawl is dead, unless by some miracle it's resurrected in the future. The Texas-A&M, Oklahoma-Nebraska, and several other rivalries have died as well. Trying to hold onto a dead carcass is stupid. It will decay and crumble in your hand...

The ACC is never going to invite WVU, and even if they did, I tell 'em to get stuffed. At this point in time, the only conference other than the Big XII that I'd want WVU to be a part of is the SEC - unless JoePa's ghost comes back at some time and spooks all the old eastern indies into creating that eastern all-sports conference he dreamed of....

Those are the only conferences that suit IMO, and the ACC doesn't make the cut...

(06-02-2012 07:59 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-02-2012 07:29 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-02-2012 07:03 AM)Theodoresdaddy Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 11:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-01-2012 10:32 PM)Theodoresdaddy Wrote:  I know that I'm not the only WVU fan that could give a fuzzy rat's butt if WVU ever played Pitt again...

That's just sad. Rivalries are what the game is made of.

and new rivalries will be created over time; it revitalizes the game

Come on. Do you really think USC football needs "revitalization" by say replacing Notre Dame on the schedule with Utah, or Ohio State via replacing Michigan on the schedule with i don't know, Cincinnati?
Long-time rivalries are fantastic.

Let's face it: WVU's move to the Big 12 has pros and cons. The pro is essentially a boat-load more money, and I would be last person to denigrate the importance of that. It's easy for fans like me to snicker at moves made for money, because I don't have the responsibility of meeting WVU budget goals. But, there are also cons, and the main one is that WVU's football schedule will now be filled with schools that WVU has no geographic or cultural affinity with, meaning WVU fans don't care about their opponents and the opponents do not care about WVU. WVU playing a bunch of Texas schools is competitively nonsensical. The only times WVU should play Oklahoma State are the odd once-every-couple-of-generations two game home-away contract, or a bowl game.

WVU if a far more-natural fit in the ACC than the Big 12, and it's even a more natural fit in the SEC or B1G than the Big 12 too. But those conferences didn't invite them.

Steve, I sometimes wonder if your version of common sense is you disguising the fact that you're dense and obtuse...

WVU fit in the ACC back in 1953, but not today. WVU is basically an SEC team at heart, and the ACC will never be mistaken for the SEC. Not on their best day - or the SEC's worst...

The fact of the matter is that the Backyard Brawl is dead, unless by some miracle it's resurrected in the future. The Texas-A&M, Oklahoma-Nebraska, and several other rivalries have died as well. Trying to hold onto a dead carcass is stupid. It will decay and crumble in your hand...

The ACC is never going to invite WVU, and even if they did, I tell 'em to get stuffed. At this point in time, the only conference other than the Big XII that I'd want WVU to be a part of is the SEC - unless JoePa's ghost comes back at some time and spooks all the old eastern indies into creating that eastern all-sports conference he dreamed of....

Those are the only conferences that suit IMO, and the ACC doesn't make the cut...

Since we agree that WVU is a better fit for the SEC than Big 12, i guess you think I'm "dense" because of the ACC issue? Well tough cookies, because I don't see how anyone can argue that, geographically or culturally, WVU isn't closer to the ACC than the Big 12. It just doesn't compute.