http://beltboard.com/?p=441

respectfully asf', you're missing the entire point. How are the non-AQ's expected to play on a same size playing field as the AQ's when the deck is stacked so significantly against them.

At the end of the year, how much does an AQ conference member share (let's say a Vandy, Wake, Duke, etc.) compared to a non-AQ (like Fresno, Nevada, Troy, Northern Ill., etc.). That's right, simply by being a member of the cartel, lesser AQ performers will gain 10 times more revenue from the BCS distribution than much stronger non-AQ performers.

This is the real issue. We non-AQ'ers are treated like stray dogs behind the Italian restaurant, while the AQ's are sitting at the fine linen tables drinking their favorite port and ordering a-la-carte.

Don't you see that we are second class citizens to inferior programs for no other reason than cartel alignment in this sport. How is ASU ever going to catch-up with the Hogs when not only are you much smaller (endowment wise) but on top of that, you're forced to fight with one hand tied behind your back. Please stop being a BCS apologist, it reeks of lack of vision and perspective from our non-AQ point of view.

I get the point. I just admit that it is a point that isn't going to be achieved any time soon.

The five non-AQ can't work together to distribute revenue in a manner similar to how the greedy SOB's do it, so where is the credibility to scold the rich six?

If you think I'm a BCS apologist, you are off your nut.

Understanding that the presidents won't create a playoff and won't approve Plus One because it smells like a playoff means understanding not getting to play for a title. That's how it is and how it will be until THEY do what the fans want them to do.

Given the two realistic options of the current system or back to the old system, I choose this system. Old system meant little to no access and NO MONEY. We couldn't afford the bowls we have now without the BCS check.

Our biggest enemy right now is the MWC. They will sell us down the river if that's what takes to get AQ. They held out for the unbalanced revenue sharing and then have the gall to kick us in the face with an unbalanced distribution then cry because the BCS doesn't let them in the club, when they are guilty of the very behavior they complain of.

Until the five non-AQ get their act together and act in a collegial manner toward each other, there is no credibility for them to complain about the BCS. You won't fix the crappy BCS system (which you have to admit beats the old system) until the five non-AQ achieve the moral high ground.
The SEC and Big 10 don't have to share a damn thing, but they do.

(12-10-2010 11:53 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Until the five non-AQ get their act together and act in a collegial manner toward each other, there is no credibility for them to complain about the BCS. You won't fix the crappy BCS system (which you have to admit beats the old system) until the five non-AQ achieve the moral high ground.
The SEC and Big 10 don't have to share a damn thing, but they do.

Agreed. And the only way to break up the '6 Sisters' is through congressional, anti-competitive, threats and/or legislation.

The SEC and Big 10 DO have to share. As the ULM fan states in the Arrogance thread (and I paraphrase); the BCS Bowls and Conferences are building giant, unassailable fortresses through huge corporate and television contributions. We are being systematically locked out of this game and the gulf between the Q's and the non-Q's gets wider and deeper with each passing year.

It's time the non-Q's dig up the old Sherman Anitrust Act (its purpose is to oppose the combination of entities that harm competition, such as monopolies or cartels).

(12-10-2010 12:16 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  Agreed. And the only way to break up the '6 Sisters' is through congressional, anti-competitive, threats and/or legislation.
.....
It's time the non-Q's dig up the old Sherman Anitrust Act...

OK, break 'em up and there are two likely outcomes. Back to what existed before, and a playoff (16 or 8 team).

-The Old Bowl System will give us what we deserve: NOTHING. We'll have our bowl tie-ins, and no check from the BCS (and no BIG check when Boise makes the BCS games, or we jump up from dead last).

-The playoff system (assuming it is paid out like the basketball tournament) will net us very little as well, until we get to where we can possibly knock off #1-3 in the nation. Bowl games will still exist, but there will likely be fewer.

With the BCS, we are thrown a welfare check (or hush money, whichever you'd like to call it).
Life isn't fair.
-Some folks are born into money and just live off the trust fund (Vandy, Washington State, Baylor etc.).
-Some are Eddie Murphy in Trading Places (UConn, USF)
-Some are Dan Akroyd in Trading Places(TCU, SMU, Houston).
-Some work their butt off, living the American Dream, and make a name for themselves (FSU, Boise St., etc.).

(12-10-2010 12:16 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(12-10-2010 11:53 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Until the five non-AQ get their act together and act in a collegial manner toward each other, there is no credibility for them to complain about the BCS. You won't fix the crappy BCS system (which you have to admit beats the old system) until the five non-AQ achieve the moral high ground.
The SEC and Big 10 don't have to share a damn thing, but they do.

Agreed. And the only way to break up the '6 Sisters' is through congressional, anti-competitive, threats and/or legislation.

The SEC and Big 10 DO have to share. As the ULM fan states in the Arrogance thread (and I paraphrase); the BCS Bowls and Conferences are building giant, unassailable fortresses through huge corporate and television contributions. We are being systematically locked out of this game and the gulf between the Q's and the non-Q's gets wider and deeper with each passing year.

It's time the non-Q's dig up the old Sherman Anitrust Act (its purpose is to oppose the combination of entities that harm competition, such as monopolies or cartels).

Honestly, the BCS schools have a better anti-trust claim when they send a second school that gets a token payment or a potential third school is left out.

Professor Michael McCann alludes to that in a column http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/wr...9/bcs.law/

Even if he and I are both wrong, the courts do not have the ability fashion the remedy. The BCS leagues can simply say, Fine we lost the lawsuit we will no longer work in concert and each conference is on its own to make whatever post-season deal it likes. Then each league is an independent actor seeking bowl ties and market forces determine who plays who. There is no longer money shared and the Fiesta, Rose, Orange, and Sugar are no longer obligated by contract to take us if we meet the conditions.

We are starting the 13th BCS bowls and in over a decade not one of those adamant that it violates anti-trust has filed suit despite the potential windfall of damages being multiplied by three. Tulane's law school has a premier sports law program and didn't sue when they got left out.

The BCS isn't the greatest threat to the game anyway. BCS money is nothing in the grand scheme of athletics. If you want to get Congress involved use them correctly.

Declare any university with athletic and athletic-related expenditures in excess of x number ($100 million, $80 million, pick a figure) to be a for profit entity and tax all revenue minus scholarship costs at 25%.

Deny deductibility for any donations or business related expenditures to a for profit college athletic department.

Tax all conference revenue in excess of $50 million at 25%.

If athletic and athletic related spending exceeds the cap, instead of taxing it, deduct the amount in excess of the cap from Federal funds available to the institution and its students. Tell Texas they are going to lose $25 million in Federal research grants and see what happens.

35 years ago Arkansas paid its head football coach 2X what ASU paid. Today its 11X or 12X. I bet the numbers for UNT and UT then were similar and UT is paying Mack 10X.

Spending is out of control under the guise of charitable activity but go look at what a tiny fraction goes to scholarships and educational benefits at the wealthiest schools. That is a far greater problem than the BCS which generates less money for most of the uber-conferences than NCAA Tournament or television.

(12-10-2010 03:41 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(12-10-2010 12:16 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(12-10-2010 11:53 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Until the five non-AQ get their act together and act in a collegial manner toward each other, there is no credibility for them to complain about the BCS. You won't fix the crappy BCS system (which you have to admit beats the old system) until the five non-AQ achieve the moral high ground.
The SEC and Big 10 don't have to share a damn thing, but they do.

Agreed. And the only way to break up the '6 Sisters' is through congressional, anti-competitive, threats and/or legislation.

The SEC and Big 10 DO have to share. As the ULM fan states in the Arrogance thread (and I paraphrase); the BCS Bowls and Conferences are building giant, unassailable fortresses through huge corporate and television contributions. We are being systematically locked out of this game and the gulf between the Q's and the non-Q's gets wider and deeper with each passing year.

It's time the non-Q's dig up the old Sherman Anitrust Act (its purpose is to oppose the combination of entities that harm competition, such as monopolies or cartels).

Honestly, the BCS schools have a better anti-trust claim when they send a second school that gets a token payment or a potential third school is left out.

Professor Michael McCann alludes to that in a column http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/wr...9/bcs.law/

Even if he and I are both wrong, the courts do not have the ability fashion the remedy. The BCS leagues can simply say, Fine we lost the lawsuit we will no longer work in concert and each conference is on its own to make whatever post-season deal it likes. Then each league is an independent actor seeking bowl ties and market forces determine who plays who. There is no longer money shared and the Fiesta, Rose, Orange, and Sugar are no longer obligated by contract to take us if we meet the conditions.

We are starting the 13th BCS bowls and in over a decade not one of those adamant that it violates anti-trust has filed suit despite the potential windfall of damages being multiplied by three. Tulane's law school has a premier sports law program and didn't sue when they got left out.

The BCS isn't the greatest threat to the game anyway. BCS money is nothing in the grand scheme of athletics. If you want to get Congress involved use them correctly.

Declare any university with athletic and athletic-related expenditures in excess of x number ($100 million, $80 million, pick a figure) to be a for profit entity and tax all revenue minus scholarship costs at 25%.

Deny deductibility for any donations or business related expenditures to a for profit college athletic department.

Tax all conference revenue in excess of $50 million at 25%.

If athletic and athletic related spending exceeds the cap, instead of taxing it, deduct the amount in excess of the cap from Federal funds available to the institution and its students. Tell Texas they are going to lose $25 million in Federal research grants and see what happens.

35 years ago Arkansas paid its head football coach 2X what ASU paid. Today its 11X or 12X. I bet the numbers for UNT and UT then were similar and UT is paying Mack 10X.

Spending is out of control under the guise of charitable activity but go look at what a tiny fraction goes to scholarships and educational benefits at the wealthiest schools. That is a far greater problem than the BCS which generates less money for most of the uber-conferences than NCAA Tournament or television.

Schools could be making twice as much in a new system while being taxed. I don't mean any offense when I say this, but there are people far smarter than you or I that have done much research into where the money goes. It ends up in the pockets of the organizations whose sole responsibility in life is to plan one game in January every year.

Taxing the schools isn't the answer, taxing the Bowl Committees and removing their charitable donation status is. It's the bowl committees that prey on the large donors of the big schools and the tax payers of the bowl cities and participating schools. Of course you could cry foul with all of the athletic directors and coaches who have a bowl appearance bonus in their contract, when their schools stand to lose money.

It is going to take state a federal legislatures to change this because right now, they are the only shareholders many schools have.

The arms race in college football is led by fans and the pride that they feel when they give money to their schools. It is somewhat unrelated to the BCS system in place.

ASF, when you propose that the bigger schools and conferences could be sharing less, you make the argument to call it what is and remove the amateur status and ignore the fact that these kids are selling their bodies and not getting paid. There'd have to be some Labor Act violations in that.

Have you read Death to the BCS?

(12-12-2010 10:44 AM)MagNTX Wrote:  ... these kids are selling their bodies and not getting paid. There'd have to be some Labor Act violations in that.

They are getting a free education etc.. They can choose to not play, and pay for their education. It's just like any other scholarship (just exaggerated effects). Some require you to work in the admissions office, or some other job on campus and "not be paid for their work" as you say.

(12-10-2010 02:03 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  

(12-10-2010 12:16 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  Agreed. And the only way to break up the '6 Sisters' is through congressional, anti-competitive, threats and/or legislation.
.....
It's time the non-Q's dig up the old Sherman Anitrust Act...

OK, break 'em up and there are two likely outcomes. Back to what existed before, and a playoff (16 or 8 team).

-The Old Bowl System will give us what we deserve: NOTHING. We'll have our bowl tie-ins, and no check from the BCS (and no BIG check when Boise makes the BCS games, or we jump up from dead last).

-The playoff system (assuming it is paid out like the basketball tournament) will net us very little as well, until we get to where we can possibly knock off #1-3 in the nation. Bowl games will still exist, but there will likely be fewer.

With the BCS, we are thrown a welfare check (or hush money, whichever you'd like to call it).
Life isn't fair.
-Some folks are born into money and just live off the trust fund (Vandy, Washington State, Baylor etc.).
-Some are Eddie Murphy in Trading Places (UConn, USF)
-Some are Dan Akroyd in Trading Places(TCU, SMU, Houston).
-Some work their butt off, living the American Dream, and make a name for themselves (FSU, Boise St., etc.).

I agree with everything you're saying, but I would add that the system we're in, while providing us with the "welfare" check, is also working against our efforts to move up in the world. While the possibility to become a Boise exists, it's much more difficult to become a Florida Sate. The possibility exists if you have the success and right circumstances, but Boise has definitely more than TCU and Utah in the past decade, but TCU and Utah are the ones that find themselves as the newest members of the "club".

(12-12-2010 02:56 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  ...but TCU and Utah are the ones that find themselves as the newest members of the "club".

Boise vs. DFW vs. Salt Lake City. You get to pick two. Find me the idiot that chooses Boise.

(12-12-2010 03:32 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  

(12-12-2010 02:56 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  ...but TCU and Utah are the ones that find themselves as the newest members of the "club".

Boise vs. DFW vs. Salt Lake City. You get to pick two. Find me the idiot that chooses Boise.

I don't disagree with that either. Just further proof that life is unfair. Thirty years ago, getting into a major conference wasn't about television markets, which is one of the biggest reasons that it's now much more difficult to become a "have" when you are a "have not".

The SEC became a billion dollar entity last year (2009-2010). The Big Ten will more than likely join them at the end of this fiscal year. In the end, if the non-AQ's came together and formed a solid block, we could work to increase the share of our pie by raising all of the guarantee game fees to a minimum payout of $2.5M. The fact still remains that the AQ's need the non-AQ's to fill their schedules. The fact also remains that we non-AQ's make more money playing the AQ's on the road than we do playing them at home. So, instead of plugging away for a 1-1 or a 2-1 that will not pay us anything, do the guarantees and force them to pay even more money. Florida State is going to pay ULM $1.3M next season as a guarantee. In the grand scheme of what they will make over the course of the season, that $1.3M will not amount to anything but budgetary pocket change. If we would all come together, we could force minimum guarantees of $2.5M, which with 2 guarantees would add $5M to our budgets. That would be an increase over prior years of almost $3M for most non-AQ's. That money could go a long way for almost every non-AQ, and that would be ontop of the other money that trickles down from the BCS. That is how we can get an increase in money. Again, the SEC is already a billion dollar entity. The Big 10 should be there this fiscal year, and the ACC and PAC12 are pulling closer to that range. The money is there to demand a higher guarantee. The non-AQ's just have to come together and stay together to demand the money. Arguing for the system to be changed is only going to act to shut us out of the system again. The one poster is right, they don't have to share a darn thing with us. So, the system is the system, and unfortunately we have to play within it if we want to continue to be a part of the same system as the big boys. That doesn't mean that we are without power. Like I said, they need us to fill out their schedule. So, we need to use that to our advantage. Home and home scheduling will not do it.

(12-12-2010 04:58 PM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  The SEC became a billion dollar entity last year (2009-2010). The Big Ten will more than likely join them at the end of this fiscal year. In the end, if the non-AQ's came together and formed a solid block, we could work to increase the share of our pie by raising all of the guarantee game fees to a minimum payout of $2.5M. The fact still remains that the AQ's need the non-AQ's to fill their schedules. The fact also remains that we non-AQ's make more money playing the AQ's on the road than we do playing them at home. So, instead of plugging away for a 1-1 or a 2-1 that will not pay us anything, do the guarantees and force them to pay even more money. Florida State is going to pay ULM $1.3M next season as a guarantee. In the grand scheme of what they will make over the course of the season, that $1.3M will not amount to anything but budgetary pocket change. If we would all come together, we could force minimum guarantees of $2.5M, which with 2 guarantees would add $5M to our budgets. That would be an increase over prior years of almost $3M for most non-AQ's. That money could go a long way for almost every non-AQ, and that would be ontop of the other money that trickles down from the BCS. That is how we can get an increase in money. Again, the SEC is already a billion dollar entity. The Big 10 should be there this fiscal year, and the ACC and PAC12 are pulling closer to that range. The money is there to demand a higher guarantee. The non-AQ's just have to come together and stay together to demand the money. Arguing for the system to be changed is only going to act to shut us out of the system again. The one poster is right, they don't have to share a darn thing with us. So, the system is the system, and unfortunately we have to play within it if we want to continue to be a part of the same system as the big boys. That doesn't mean that we are without power. Like I said, they need us to fill out their schedule. So, we need to use that to our advantage. Home and home scheduling will not do it.

I wonder if entering into a home/home agreement with the MAC for 1 Home and 1 Away each year would enable us to add to the win totals for top teams in the Sun Belt while at the same time driving up the price for Big 10 / SEC money games . . .

(12-12-2010 05:02 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  I wonder if entering into a home/home agreement with the MAC for 1 Home and 1 Away each year would enable us to add to the win totals for top teams in the Sun Belt while at the same time driving up the price for Big 10 / SEC money games . . .

And some on this board are saying the AQs are using anti-competitive practices. . .

(12-12-2010 05:02 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  

(12-12-2010 04:58 PM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  The SEC became a billion dollar entity last year (2009-2010). The Big Ten will more than likely join them at the end of this fiscal year. In the end, if the non-AQ's came together and formed a solid block, we could work to increase the share of our pie by raising all of the guarantee game fees to a minimum payout of $2.5M. The fact still remains that the AQ's need the non-AQ's to fill their schedules. The fact also remains that we non-AQ's make more money playing the AQ's on the road than we do playing them at home. So, instead of plugging away for a 1-1 or a 2-1 that will not pay us anything, do the guarantees and force them to pay even more money. Florida State is going to pay ULM $1.3M next season as a guarantee. In the grand scheme of what they will make over the course of the season, that $1.3M will not amount to anything but budgetary pocket change. If we would all come together, we could force minimum guarantees of $2.5M, which with 2 guarantees would add $5M to our budgets. That would be an increase over prior years of almost $3M for most non-AQ's. That money could go a long way for almost every non-AQ, and that would be ontop of the other money that trickles down from the BCS. That is how we can get an increase in money. Again, the SEC is already a billion dollar entity. The Big 10 should be there this fiscal year, and the ACC and PAC12 are pulling closer to that range. The money is there to demand a higher guarantee. The non-AQ's just have to come together and stay together to demand the money. Arguing for the system to be changed is only going to act to shut us out of the system again. The one poster is right, they don't have to share a darn thing with us. So, the system is the system, and unfortunately we have to play within it if we want to continue to be a part of the same system as the big boys. That doesn't mean that we are without power. Like I said, they need us to fill out their schedule. So, we need to use that to our advantage. Home and home scheduling will not do it.

I wonder if entering into a home/home agreement with the MAC for 1 Home and 1 Away each year would enable us to add to the win totals for top teams in the Sun Belt while at the same time driving up the price for Big 10 / SEC money games . . .

I doubt the SBC would win more than 50% of its games against the MAC so it wouldn't help. Might as well play big BCS schools and say you lost to somebody because unless the top of the SBC is playing the very bottom of the MAC it should tilt toward the MAC.

(12-12-2010 06:04 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  

(12-12-2010 05:02 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  I wonder if entering into a home/home agreement with the MAC for 1 Home and 1 Away each year would enable us to add to the win totals for top teams in the Sun Belt while at the same time driving up the price for Big 10 / SEC money games . . .

And some on this board are saying the AQs are using anti-competitive practices. . .

The AQ's know very well they are perceived (and rightly so) as a bunch of bullies who bend and cheat the system (they created) for their own financial benefit. Now, in the attached article, they are threatening to disband the BCS if the non-AQ's continue to demand 'their fair share'.

Recently in New York, 5 AQ Commissioners ganged up on the weakest of non-AQ's, the WAC (who happens to be the rep' from the non-AQ's), and told 'us' not to expect any more from them. Let's see, you cherry-pick the best of the non-AQ's (Utah) and jury-rig the Big East (TCU) and then you tell us to shut-up and eat our gruel. Hmmm.

They say they 'created' everything back in 1902...yeah so what...our founding fathers 'created' a fair way of governering back in 1776 and said that all men were created EQUAL. Maybe the BCS organizers need to go back and re-read this document. They also need to go back and study their history for just around that time the Sheman Anti-Trust Laws were created to deal with CARTELS. When they study this they will find that Their CARTEL is UN-AMERICAN!

You want to take you ball and go home?... great, you see how well that goes over with the American people.
http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2010/12...e/#cmtForm

After this next round of alignment is complete, the non-Q's will be set back another 5 years. BYU is gone, Utah is gone, TCU is gone. Just as the WAC is a shell of its former self, so are the non-AQ's as a whole; we've just had all our best fruit plucked. Sure new schools will fill this vacuum, but it will take time for Nevada or N. Ill or one of the C-USA or MAC or Belt schools to be held in the same regard as those which are leaving.

The non-Q's must now circle the wagons for the next round of BCS negotiations. They've taken the leading programs. There is only strength in numbers. Access is being systematically denied. I think we need to expand. We need to save the WAC and we need to turn our guns on the real enemy.

(12-13-2010 08:47 AM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  

(12-12-2010 05:02 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  

(12-12-2010 04:58 PM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  The SEC became a billion dollar entity last year (2009-2010). The Big Ten will more than likely join them at the end of this fiscal year. In the end, if the non-AQ's came together and formed a solid block, we could work to increase the share of our pie by raising all of the guarantee game fees to a minimum payout of $2.5M. The fact still remains that the AQ's need the non-AQ's to fill their schedules. The fact also remains that we non-AQ's make more money playing the AQ's on the road than we do playing them at home. So, instead of plugging away for a 1-1 or a 2-1 that will not pay us anything, do the guarantees and force them to pay even more money. Florida State is going to pay ULM $1.3M next season as a guarantee. In the grand scheme of what they will make over the course of the season, that $1.3M will not amount to anything but budgetary pocket change. If we would all come together, we could force minimum guarantees of $2.5M, which with 2 guarantees would add $5M to our budgets. That would be an increase over prior years of almost $3M for most non-AQ's. That money could go a long way for almost every non-AQ, and that would be ontop of the other money that trickles down from the BCS. That is how we can get an increase in money. Again, the SEC is already a billion dollar entity. The Big 10 should be there this fiscal year, and the ACC and PAC12 are pulling closer to that range. The money is there to demand a higher guarantee. The non-AQ's just have to come together and stay together to demand the money. Arguing for the system to be changed is only going to act to shut us out of the system again. The one poster is right, they don't have to share a darn thing with us. So, the system is the system, and unfortunately we have to play within it if we want to continue to be a part of the same system as the big boys. That doesn't mean that we are without power. Like I said, they need us to fill out their schedule. So, we need to use that to our advantage. Home and home scheduling will not do it.

I wonder if entering into a home/home agreement with the MAC for 1 Home and 1 Away each year would enable us to add to the win totals for top teams in the Sun Belt while at the same time driving up the price for Big 10 / SEC money games . . .

I doubt the SBC would win more than 50% of its games against the MAC so it wouldn't help. Might as well play big BCS schools and say you lost to somebody because unless the top of the SBC is playing the very bottom of the MAC it should tilt toward the MAC.

These three bowl games are virtually toss ups in Vegas . . . so on home fields - the Sun Belt would do fine. Plus - having 2 Money games instead of 3 money games would increase, on average, the win totals of the top Sun Belt teams. I'm not as familiar with the MAC's typical scheduling practices, but I assume it would help the MAC in the same way.

The bowls aren't the issue. The money involved is nominal in the grand scheme of things. If Alabama had kept 100% of the $17 million generated by their championship appearance it would be less than 16% of total athletic revenue. Bama got $11 million more in ticket revenue and $12 million more than the BCS fee in contributions. Despite $95 million in athletic revenues from all sources, in 2008-09 the university provided $5 million in support.

So you tax them out of existence and get a playoff. You still haven't fixed the underlying issues. Alabama spent 3X more on salaries than scholarships. less than 10% of all athletic spending went to student assistance. 10% if you count the medical costs and insurance. If the Salvation Army or Red Cross spent only 10% of their income on charitable purposes it would be a national scandal leading every newscast.

(12-13-2010 10:23 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(12-12-2010 06:04 PM)Raider_ATO Wrote:  

(12-12-2010 05:02 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  I wonder if entering into a home/home agreement with the MAC for 1 Home and 1 Away each year would enable us to add to the win totals for top teams in the Sun Belt while at the same time driving up the price for Big 10 / SEC money games . . .

And some on this board are saying the AQs are using anti-competitive practices. . .

The AQ's know very well they are perceived (and rightly so) as a bunch of bullies who bend and cheat the system (they created) for their own financial benefit. Now, in the attached article, they are threatening to disband the BCS if the non-AQ's continue to demand 'their fair share'.

Recently in New York, 5 AQ Commissioners ganged up on the weakest of non-AQ's, the WAC (who happens to be the rep' from the non-AQ's), and told 'us' not to expect any more from them. Let's see, you cherry-pick the best of the non-AQ's (Utah) and jury-rig the Big East (TCU) and then you tell us to shut-up and eat our gruel. Hmmm.

They say they 'created' everything back in 1902...yeah so what...our founding fathers 'created' a fair way of governering back in 1776 and said that all men were created EQUAL. Maybe the BCS organizers need to go back and re-read this document. They also need to go back and study their history for just around that time the Sheman Anti-Trust Laws were created to deal with CARTELS. When they study this they will find that Their CARTEL is UN-AMERICAN!

You want to take you ball and go home?... great, you see how well that goes over with the American people.
http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2010/12...e/#cmtForm

After this next round of alignment is complete, the non-Q's will be set back another 5 years. BYU is gone, Utah is gone, TCU is gone. Just as the WAC is a shell of its former self, so are the non-AQ's as a whole; we've just had all our best fruit plucked. Sure new schools will fill this vacuum, but it will take time for Nevada or N. Ill or one of the C-USA or MAC or Belt schools to be held in the same regard as those which are leaving.

The non-Q's must now circle the wagons for the next round of BCS negotiations. They've taken the leading programs. There is only strength in numbers. Access is being systematically denied. I think we need to expand. We need to save the WAC and we need to turn our guns on the real enemy.

"They say they 'created' everything back in 1902"

I thought it was the Harvard and Yale game in 1899. It looks like the BCS commissioners are practicing revisionists history.

(12-13-2010 01:27 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  "They say they 'created' everything back in 1902"

I thought it was the Harvard and Yale game in 1899. It looks like the BCS commissioners are practicing revisionists history.

He said the big stage they created in 1902. That's the Rose Bowl. The Big 10 dates to 1896.

Rutgers-Princeton in 1869 is generally regarded as the first football game (Only took 89 years before Rutgers made a bowl game).