*****The Super, Mega, Huge Big 12 Expansion Thread*****
- Thread starter CloneFan4
- Start date
- Status
I am more and more of the opinion that we should just add the rest of the Big East minus South Florida to get to 14 teams. Then if we want to go to 16 down the road add the Florida twins of USF and UCF.
Mountain West Conference to request BCS automatic bid for 2012-13 - ESPN
Don't see them getting far with this with the latest defections.
Don't see them getting far with this with the latest defections.
I'm not convinced they'd even get it if Boise stayed. It's a lot easier for the Big East to justify keeping AQ-status than it will be for MWC to justify gaining it.
Originally Posted by Al_4_State
Can a mod explain why Mizzoulander hasn't been banned but QBUMizzou was?Because his name is misleading.
I can't speak for the mods, but it seems pretty clear that QBU just wanted to insult Cyclone fans. Somebody posted his response at Tigerboard that pretty much proved that.
I doubt he was even a Missouri fan...just a guy who doesn't like Iowa State.
If not for the threat of legal action, I think the Big East would have lost its AQ status already. Some columnist said that for the BCS, "keeping the Big East in the club is just the cost of doing business." I think that's true.
The BCS knew when they drafted the criteria for AQ inclusion that it was unlikely that any outside conference would ever meet those standards before their best teams were poached by another AQ conference. And that's what happened with Boise and TCU.
So a guy who hates Iowa State chose to impersonate a Missouri fan?
The easiest explanation is that the guy IS a Missouri fan and is just a ******...
I think there is something to be said for having 6 BCS-AQ conferences, considering there are 11 conferences total. The BCS system can be protected by having a majority of "haves" and a minority of "have nots".
Also consider 12 (ACC) + 12 (B1G) + 12 (Pac-12) + 12 (SEC) + 10 (B12) + 8 (BEast) + 1 (ND) = 67 teams in BCS conferences out of 120 total. Majority is in power there too. Toss out the Big East and we're under half. The BCS would not like that one bit
Also consider 12 (ACC) + 12 (B1G) + 12 (Pac-12) + 12 (SEC) + 10 (B12) + 8 (BEast) + 1 (ND) = 67 teams in BCS conferences out of 120 total. Majority is in power there too. Toss out the Big East and we're under half. The BCS would not like that one bit
Last edited:
To paraphrase the ancient scholar: "Get up, get get get down. BCS a joke in your town."
However, your point of getting 67 teams theoretically automatically eligible for the BCS, with a +1 system, is a solid improvement, especially if completely undefeated teams outside of that new majority-qualifiers still have some (thin) chance of "busting in."
In other words, if Louisiana-Lincoln-Forbush goes undefeated it in its non-AQ conference and its non-conference victories include wins at Michigan State and Pitt or something, then they should have an At-Large bid.
I completely understand wanting to gate out, entirely, non AQ schools, because, for every occasional Boise State, TCU or good Utah (and, really, its only them) you have the threat of Hawaii, Houston or bad Utah (well, not Utah anymore, since they are AQ, but you get the point).
But I'm fine with the BCS risking the possibility of a really crummy bowl game (after all, they've retained the Big East as an AQ!) in exchange for the equity of everyone, at a minimum, having a theoretical chance of playing in the championship tournament.
Without a +1, I don't know if your 67 team-plan does much to improve things, but it doesn't kill it any worse than the BCS has done this year with its at-larges.
The numbers are still growing, roughly west to East:
12 - Pac 12
10 - Big 12 including TCU and WVU but not Mizzou/A&M
12 - Big Ten
14 - SEC
14 - ACC including Pitt and Cuse
10 - Big East minus WVU, Cuse, Pitt, plus BSU, SDSU, SMU, Houston, UCF
1 - ND
*3 provisional teams, Big East goes to 12 if AFA/Navy join, BYU may work out some sort of independent deal like ND has
So now we're at 73 for sure and as many as 76. If the Big 12 and ACC take 3-4 more Big East teams as expected the number could grow as high as 80 mostly by the Big East adding to hang onto it's AQ.
Basically a 64 team mega league like Scott from the P12 wanted is not impossible because you'd be stripping BCS status from about 9 to 16 programs.
The best thing that came from all of this is Utah, Boise State, TCU, Houston, SMU, UCF, Navy, AFA and SDSU gained access while nobody lost access. The ACC hasn't always deserved an AQ recently and now at least it's a bad league with 14 chances at a good team instead of 12. The often undeserving Big East already had an AQ and it's just as good at the top with the 10-12 new teams as it was, probably better.
Really? That seems like a recipe for trouble. Non-AQ conferences are like AQ conferences, in that they cycle between periods of strength and weakness. If you hypothetical LA-L-F beats up on a down Dust Belt conference, should they get a chance for the Orange Bowl because they beat a couple of mid-range BCS programs early in the season?
It may not be fair, but in a 12-game season, you've got to reward teams that rise to the top after beating good competition week in and week out. Otherwise, you'll be leaving behind a lot of 10-win K-States and Arkansas's in favor of some directional team that's completely unproven.
Name the last team that satisfied the hypothetical - went undefeated in an off-brand conference and beat 2 .500+ BCS schools.
If the concept is to match #1 vs #2 to see who is the best, and LSU and Alabama are #1 and #2...we already know LSU was better in Alabama's own stadium.
I think most years it would make more sense to match the highest rated conference champions if we really wanted to see who was the best. If OK State had got stomped by LSU then everyone votes Alabama #2 anyway but at least it's more of a 120 team champ instead of a 12 team champ.
Only the dumbest "system" ever would give the #1 ranked conference one team in the BCS and the #5 conference two teams.
Especially when that same system always favored the Big 10, allegedly because it didn't have a championship game, so it could theoretically have two undefeated teams qualifying (reminder - it was not a round robin, but a round robin minus one).
Now that the Big 10 has a championship, 2 of its teams get in - one of whom did not make it in its division - plus the ACC and Pac 12?
Ridiculous.
I still don't understand how the Big 12 mathematically hurt itself by shifting to the theoretically beneficial (in terms of eliminating the potential "champkiller" game) while two divisional losers and a championship loser get in.
Oh well. Big 12 needs to win its bowl games to keep this gross error relevant.
That makes even LESS sense. What does overall conference rank have to do with anything? So if the Pac 12 ends up with a bunch of 6-6 or 7-5 teams, you'd put their champion in the NCG...even if they're 9-3?! Just because the computer says they're a "strong" conference?
Why can't the two best teams come from the same conference? Nobody wants a rematch, but what are you supposed to do when everybody else loses?
- Status