ESPN: SEC expects BCS to lift 2 teams per conference limit
September 28th, 2011 at 2:23 PM ^
I have an idea. Let's create the SEC Bowl Subdivision, or SECBS, where all the SEC teams play eachother in bowls at the end of the year. I would skip watching UM play in their bowl game just to see that. The best football teams in the world playing the best football teams..... yeah, that's what I'd like to see.
EDIT: Forgot to mention, the winner of each bowl would be crowned a national champion, of course.
September 28th, 2011 at 2:31 PM ^
you're aware that Delaney said the same thing last month, yes?
September 28th, 2011 at 2:35 PM ^
Why would you ever choose to watch a team besides Michigan play?
September 28th, 2011 at 2:35 PM ^
check it.
September 28th, 2011 at 3:01 PM ^
About to start studying for another 9 hours, not including classes=sarcasm meter low.
September 28th, 2011 at 2:09 PM ^
So four at-large bids become two, with the Big Ten and SEC taking an additional one every year. If the BCS keeps getting a non-AQ every year, that really sucks for ND. Not that I'd shed any tears over them not getting into a BCS bowl when they thought they deserved it.
September 28th, 2011 at 2:18 PM ^
When do they not think they deserve a BCS berth?
September 28th, 2011 at 2:44 PM ^
ND actually has some very favorable criteria to get into the BCS. I forget exactly what it is. I want to say it's something like if they're ranked in the Top 10, they get a BCS bid. However, they haven't been that good lately and haven't been able to take advantage of the rule in place for them.
September 28th, 2011 at 3:17 PM ^
I am pretty sure ND has to be ranked in the top 8 to be guaranteed a BCS bowl. So, although they have their own special clause in the contract, they are not treated all that differently than teams in the B10/P12/SEC. It is hard to come up with a scenario in which a team from one of those leagues would not get a BCS bid if it were ranked in the top 8, unless of course 3 teams from the same league were in the top 8 (and that restriction appears to be on the chopping block).
September 28th, 2011 at 3:47 PM ^
The question is, though, how long are they able to hold onto it? If the three team restriction goes by the wayside and you have three SEC teams, three B1G teams and Boise, then Stanford wins the Pac but USC is ranked in the top ten, what purpose does ND serve? If the Big Ten and SEC make these power grabs, ND seems like a very easy target and likely loser.
September 28th, 2011 at 4:52 PM ^
If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that ND might lose its special BCS clause. I agree. In fact, Slive said they were going to propose a few changes for the BCS to look at (though he did not say what they were). If the BCS is going to consider eliminating the rule that prevents more than two teams from the same league from playing in BCS bowls, I expect they will also look at all the related provisions to ensure that everything still works smoothly.
The BCS has a provision that requires a team to be in the top 14 just to be eligible for an at-large bid. It also has a provision that provides for an automatic bid to a non-AQ team under certain conditions. And, then, there is the ND automatic bid clause. I think the BCS will look at all of those clauses together and very possibly could eliminate the ND clause.
Really, it is hard to understand why the ND automatic bid clause even exists. Everyone knows that anytime ND qualifies for an at-large bid, it almost certainly will be selected due to TV ratings. The special ND clause really has no purpose IMO. That is probably why the AQ conferences caved and let them have it, because it's hard to see when it would ever come into play.
September 28th, 2011 at 5:01 PM ^
Exactly what I was saying. Especially now that BYU is going independent, a portion of the BE might go back in that direction and Texas isn't sure what its best interest is, that clause is just alienating teams not named ND.
On top of that, if the Big Ten or SEC had a top eight clause like ND does, MSU would have been in last year (LSU would have been very close as well), which cost the B1G a little over six million. I doubt Slive or Delaney will want them to keep that special provision, especially since they hold all the cards anyway and it has the potential to cost millions if ND is picked over one of their teams.
September 28th, 2011 at 5:30 PM ^
Actually, I forgot about the BYU situation. As you said, it is another reason to eliminate ND's special clause. How can the BCS justify giving ND a special clause and not do the same for BYU? It is a perfect excuse for the BCS to eliminate special treatment for any one team and take the position that, if ND wants to be an independent, it should be treated the same as all of the other independents.
September 28th, 2011 at 11:34 PM ^
When it all started with the Bowl Coalition in 1992, Notre Dame was one of the founders, along with the SEC, Big 8, SWC, ACC, and Big East, plus 6 bowl games (Orange, Sugar, Cotton, Fiesta, Gator, John Hancock). ND was at the table, and thus, they were able to set up the rules.
In 1995, this begat the Bowl Alliance, which was ND plus the SEC, Big 8, SWC, ACC, and Big East, plus just 3 bowl games (Sugar, Orange, and Fiesta). Once again, if you're in, you get to make the rules (and name a #2 team "National Champion"...).
Current BCS management is defined as the 4 bowls, all 11 FBS "BCS" conferences, and Notre Dame. They're still at the table with equal weight as a conference.
Revenue rules - special ND proviso:
Each conference whose team qualifies automatically for the BCS receives approximately $22 million in net revenue. A second team qualifying brings an additional $6 million to its conference. Notre Dame receives approximately $1.6 million. Army and Navy receive $100,000 each, and each of the NCAA's Football Championship Subdivision conferences receives $250,000.
Access Rules - I guess ND rules come under "certain thresholds":
Each conference had an opportunity to earn annual automatic qualification through a four-year evaluation covering the regular seasons of 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. The Atlantic Coast, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and Southeastern conferences met the threshold and earned automatic qualification through the 2013-14 season. A seventh conference could qualify for the 2012-13 and 2013-14 bowl season based on an evaluation of the 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 regular seasons.
Additionally, institutions can qualify in any given season by meeting certain thresholds.
September 29th, 2011 at 12:31 AM ^
Even if they have a full vote as a conference, what happens when the Big Ten, SEC and Pac all want their special clause amended because they want three every year? Sure ND has a vote, but do they have enough pull to keep their special place in the face of big time opposition?
September 28th, 2011 at 9:30 PM ^
September 28th, 2011 at 2:23 PM ^
Limiting the number of teams from each conference stifles competition when a conference has more than 2 legitimate BCS worthy teams. Just because a good deal of the best teams happen to be in 2-3 conferences shouldn't factor in. I'd much rather see a third SEC,B1G,PAC team than ANYONE from the Big East.
September 28th, 2011 at 2:31 PM ^
The 2 limit rule started when there were only 4 BCS games and at *max* 12 teams in a conference. With the conferences who consistently get 2 bids (Big Ten, SEC) getting larger, it was only a matter of time before the limit was changed.
September 28th, 2011 at 2:31 PM ^
I read this differently. It states at least that Slive expects the BCS to ask the commisioners to lift the 2 team limit. The commissioners would still have to pass this, would anyone other than Slive and Delany ok such a move?
September 28th, 2011 at 2:42 PM ^
Yeah, that's exactly what I got out of it too. I'm pretty sure nobody else wants this except the SEC, so I don't know if it will happen. Personally, I don't want it to happen either. It would almost gaurentee 3 SEC teams in BCS bowls for the forseable future. There's already enough SEC worship out there as it is.
September 28th, 2011 at 2:55 PM ^
When I wrote "SEC expects" in the OP, I didn't mean they anticipated this would happen, I meant they "expect" it should be done, like my wife expects I'll take the trash out: i.e. they want it done.
September 28th, 2011 at 3:01 PM ^
September 28th, 2011 at 5:33 PM ^
I agree that it is not likely to result in an extra BCS bid for any one conference, but it makes it more likely that AQ conferences as a group will get more of the four at-large bids. In that sense, it definitely hurts the non-AQ schools.
IMO, this is not just an idea that Slive and Delany are supporting on its own merits. I believe it is, in part, a reaction to the AQ schools pushing for equal access to the BCS. Delany has repeatedly hinted in a not-so-veiled way that the non-AQ schools are crossing the line by constantly complaining about lack of equal access to the BCS and even trying to get the government involved to force the hand of the AQ schools. I believe that this proposal (eliminating the restriction on two schools from any conference in the BCS) and the proposal put forth over the Summer to increase the amount of money paid per scholarship athlete are collateral to that feud. I am not saying the two proposals are not good ones on their own merits, but the AQ schools easily could have held back on them if they wanted to in deference to the non-AQ schools. Both proposals, if enacted, will make it increasingly difficult for non-AQ schools to compete with AQ schools. I don't think that is a coincidence. Rather, I think you have seen Slive and Delany finally begin to take off the gloves in this fight.
September 28th, 2011 at 5:59 PM ^
Dunno, I think Bama could make a good argument for a 3rd BCS team last year. They certainly showed by belonged more than the 3rd B1G team that would have been considered. LSU could also make a very similar argument as to why they should deserve a third BCS bid. A BCS bowl would also love to invite Bama or LSU because of the fans and people would pay attention. They are a very attractive team to invite. Look at this year too. LSU and Bama are pretty much locks at this point for a BCS bowl. If another team only loses 2 games, like a Florida or SCa, they could also make a good argument for a 3rd BCS spot.
September 28th, 2011 at 7:39 PM ^
I don't think a 9 - 3 team that didn't even win their own division deserved a BCS game. In fact this concept is not very good ... but the BCS is concerned about the UConn pathetic matchup and lack of fans at the game.
Go Blue!
September 28th, 2011 at 10:35 PM ^
I agree that after the bowls, it was clear that the third SEC team was better than the third Big Ten team, but when it was time to pick bowls I think 11-1 MSU would have been chosen first, they were certainly ranked much higher. 2006 would have been the same for us.
September 28th, 2011 at 2:37 PM ^
an absurd and archiaic mess and yet the NCAA continues to enable it. Why the NCAA allows college football's postseason to be run by slimy guys in funny sport coats is beyond me. Please just ditch the BCS and put in an 8 to 16 team play-off. First round games played as home games for the higher seeds. Later rounds rotated amongst the major bowl sites. Non-playoff teams can still play in the Poulan Weed Eater Bowl, et al.
September 28th, 2011 at 7:30 PM ^
Then we can all bitch about who gets the 15th an 16th seeds. So we can then expand to a 32 game playoff.. And then we can bitch about that..
<br>
<br>A playoff in college football is asinine. We might as well give wild card bids and 70 million dollar contracts.
September 28th, 2011 at 2:48 PM ^
The SEC would clearly be in favor. Probably the Big Ten also, because they'd be more likely to gain an extra team than to lose one. But even the Big Ten might be skeptical because they'd get a third team in less often than the SEC would, and the perceived gap between the two conferences would grow.
But every other conference should be opposed, because their chances of getting a second team in would drop. The non-AQ conferences would scream about it, because there'd be almost no chance they get a second team into the BCS, as happened recently with Boise and TCU.
Of course, the bowls themselves would be in favor, because they'd have more chances to pick schools like LSU or Penn State instead of Stanford or TCU as an at-large team. ESPN would also like it because of better TV ratings. Is that enough momentum to overcome strong opposition from the other conferences?
September 28th, 2011 at 3:09 PM ^
September 28th, 2011 at 3:03 PM ^
I'd be okay with the idea, with constraints. The third team should be in the top 8 (maybe top 10); otherwise, you might get stupid cases like 15th ranked PSU getting in because they are a big $ team.
I mainly want teams like Wisconsin 2006 (6th ranked,went to the citrus bowl) not to get shafted.
September 28th, 2011 at 5:27 PM ^
Wouldn't mind seeing the Wisconsin coach get shafted.
September 28th, 2011 at 5:29 PM ^
Wisconsin not going cost Michigan about half a million dollars. BCS bids are big money.
September 28th, 2011 at 4:52 PM ^
The SEC expects the rest of the football world to kiss its collective ass, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen. The odds are in their favor for this, though. All they have to do is bribe the people who run the BCS bowls and the vote will be "taken care of" for them.
September 28th, 2011 at 5:13 PM ^
I remember about 10 years ago when an undefeated SEC team wouldnt even make the national title game. sorry asses
September 28th, 2011 at 5:33 PM ^
The SEC wants an auto-bid for the Meineke Car Care Bowl. They'll attempt to build their empire in the Belgiums and Armenias of the bowl world.
September 28th, 2011 at 5:44 PM ^
A little humor from this week's Wall Street Journal about the SEC to go with this discussion.....
http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576592773857297688.html