PDA

View Full Version : WAC as BCS conference


neko4
12-06-2007, 03:42 PM
IF Hawaii wins, does the WAC earn the right to be a BCS conference?
Also can someone tell me what makes a conference a BCS conference?

soybean
12-06-2007, 03:46 PM
if Hawaii beats Georgia they need to reconsider the BCS in a way where teams in the WAC, MAC, MWC can have a chance to compete for the NC.

princefielder28
12-06-2007, 03:47 PM
Ahhhh no the WAC doesn't deserve BCS magnitude. They have Boise State and this year Hawaii. Not many other schools with much history of success outside of Fresno State.

What is a BCS conference? A conference that is pretty competitive and tough top to bottom. Big Ten, Big 12, Pac 10, Big 12, SEC, and Big East would all dominate the WAC.

Hawaii and Boise State are nice stories but do you really think that they should be put on a BCS level with prestigious schools such Florida, Ohio State, Michigan, Oklahoma, USC, Texas, Tennessee, and LSU???? The WAC has a long ways to go.

GB12
12-06-2007, 03:51 PM
You should know what it means before asking that question. A BCS conference gets an automatic bid to a BCS Bowl game. To answer if the WAC should get one: hell no. The only way a WAC team deserves a BCS game is to go undefeated. If they do go undefeated they'll get one, if they don't they shouldn't be in.

Michigan
12-06-2007, 03:59 PM
not to mention the fact that the MWC is far superior to the WAC in terms of competitiveness. Every year the WAC is essentially just Boise State + flavor of the year team.

hot route
12-06-2007, 06:07 PM
You should know what it means before asking that question. A BCS conference gets an automatic bid to a BCS Bowl game. To answer if the WAC should get one: hell no. The only way a WAC team deserves a BCS game is to go undefeated. If they do go undefeated they'll get one, if they don't they shouldn't be in.

perfectly said. not so sure about Michigan's MWC comment though, i think the two conferences are MUCH closer than people think. though in terms of bottomfeeders, yes, the MWC would destroy the WAC's, but i would think that (at least this season), boise, hawaii, fresno, and nevada would have all made solid runs in the MWC.

etk
12-06-2007, 06:18 PM
You should know what it means before asking that question. A BCS conference gets an automatic bid to a BCS Bowl game. To answer if the WAC should get one: hell no. The only way a WAC team deserves a BCS game is to go undefeated. If they do go undefeated they'll get one, if they don't they shouldn't be in.

If Hawaii went undefeated in the WAC but 2/3-1 against tougher non-conference opponents, I'd put them in the BCS.

NYGibril28
12-06-2007, 06:21 PM
The rules should definitely be made so that non-BCS schools have a shot at the National Championship.

D-Unit
12-06-2007, 06:27 PM
It's a crap system. It's a system where the rich get richer and the powerhouse schools will forever dominate. Even this year, when Hawaii gets a BCS Bowl bid, they only receive $4M out of the $17 that all the other BCS Schools will get.

It's an unfair system, but it's one that we must live with. Fair? Nobody cares. It's all about who gets the money.

junior2430
12-06-2007, 06:37 PM
The MWC is far superior the WAC. Only Boise and Hawaii would have made noise the MWC this year. I'll take the MWC top to bottom.

iowatreat54
12-06-2007, 07:12 PM
It's a crap system. It's a system where the rich get richer and the powerhouse schools will forever dominate. Even this year, when Hawaii gets a BCS Bowl bid, they only receive $4M out of the $17 that all the other BCS Schools will get.

It's an unfair system, but it's one that we must live with. Fair? Nobody cares. It's all about who gets the money.

wait, why do they only get $4M? is it cuz they are from a non-BCS conference and teams from BCS conferences get more?

mqtirishfan
12-06-2007, 07:16 PM
God, no. I am not watching Boise State and Hawaii battle for a BCS bowl every single year.

D-Unit
12-06-2007, 07:18 PM
wait, why do they only get $4M? is it cuz they are from a non-BCS conference and teams from BCS conferences get more?
Yup. That's the reason. The rich get richer, every year. Without a playoff system, there will never be a true Champion. ...and thus, it should be clearly understood how entirely crazy it is for a small school like Boise and Hawaii to be able to knock off ANY school from ANY BCS conference. Our athletic budgets are so low in comparison that it's pitiful.

RyanLeaf#1
12-06-2007, 07:19 PM
Yup. That's the reason. The rich get richer, every year. Without a playoff system, there will never be a true Champion.

Well not to sound like a prick, but yes we all want a playoff system (meyself included), but there will never be one.

iowatreat54
12-06-2007, 07:19 PM
Yup. That's the reason. The rich get richer, every year. Without a playoff system, there will never be a true Champion.

damn that sucks...so they have to split $4M between the whole WAC? ouch...

KCJ58
12-06-2007, 07:20 PM
i was thinking if any team from the Mid-America/C-USA ran the table and go undefeated could they get into a BCS game?

D-Unit
12-06-2007, 07:20 PM
God, no. I am not watching Boise State and Hawaii battle for a BCS bowl every single year.
Boise vs OU was one of the best games all season last year. I'm sorry that was such bad TV for you.

D-Unit
12-06-2007, 07:21 PM
damn that sucks...so they have to split $4M between the whole WAC? ouch...
No it's $6M split up. Hawaii's portion is $4M.

KCJ58
12-06-2007, 07:21 PM
Boise vs OU was one of the best games all season last year. I'm sorry that was such bad TV for you.

that game is still on my Tivo

mqtirishfan
12-06-2007, 07:21 PM
Boise vs OU was one of the best games all season last year. I'm sorry that was such bad TV for you.

A) Not my point.
B) That was the best Boise team in years.

D-Unit
12-06-2007, 07:22 PM
i was thinking if any team from the Mid-America/C-USA ran the table and go undefeated could they get into a BCS game?
Sure can as long as they meet the criteria. Being ranked in the Top 12, etc.

D-Unit
12-06-2007, 07:24 PM
A) Not my point.
B) That was the best Boise team in years.
So you don't want to see any Non-BCS school make it into a BCS Bowl ever again? What is your point?

iowatreat54
12-06-2007, 07:26 PM
No it's $6M split up. Hawaii's portion is $4M.

wait, Hawaii gets more than the rest of their conference? OSU is only getting between $1-$2M from being in the NC...

Nevermind it isn't split exactly equally...how is it determined how much participating teams get?

bearsfan_51
12-06-2007, 07:26 PM
To be fair, most people didn't even know anything about Boise State until they beat Oklahoma. I agree that it's not "fair", but the non-BCS teams need the BCS FAAAAAAAR more than they need them.


And to answer the original question...no. That's ridiculous.

RyanLeaf#1
12-06-2007, 07:27 PM
To be fair, most people didn't even know anything about Boise State until they beat Oklahoma. I agree that it's not "fair", but the non-BCS teams need the BCS FAAAAAAAR more than they need them.

Most people like who? Boise State has been a pretty famous school for sometime now. Especially from the gambling perspective people have loved betting on Boise State since the early Dan Hawkins days because he held nothing back.

bearsfan_51
12-06-2007, 07:29 PM
Most people like who? Boise State has been a pretty famous school for sometime now. Especially from the gambling perspective people have loved betting on Boise State since the early Dan Hawkins days because he held nothing back.

Most people as in the majority of people in the United States that watch television. I didn't realize that was complicated.


People that bet on sports are MUCH more in tune with what's going on than the casual fan that watches bowl games for the halftime shows and the parades.

RyanLeaf#1
12-06-2007, 07:31 PM
Most people as in the majority of people in the United States that watch television. I didn't realize that was complicated.


People that bet on sports are MUCH more in tune with what's going on than the casual fan that watches bowl games for the halftime shows and the parades.

Its no complicated at all. I think alot of people know of Boise because they play a ton of weekday games, and they are the team with the smurf turf.

D-Unit
12-06-2007, 07:37 PM
Its no complicated at all. I think alot of people know of Boise because they play a ton of weekday games, and they are the team with the smurf turf.
Don't bother debating with Bearsfan. He lives in a hole and he thinks everyone lives in there with him.

Primetime21
12-06-2007, 07:40 PM
Most people as in the majority of people in the United States that watch television. I didn't realize that was complicated.


Well BSU played 4 ESPN games that year before the Fiesta Bowl so all those people watching television probably got a glimpse of Boise State at one point.

someone447
12-06-2007, 07:40 PM
Its no complicated at all. I think alot of people know of Boise because they play a ton of weekday games, and they are the team with the smurf turf.

Most casual sports fans knew nothing about Boise, other than the smurf turf. They couldn't have told you the name of the school. They would just refer to it is, that team with the blue field. The people on this site are not representative of the nation as a whole. We are much more into football than the average fan.

RyanLeaf#1
12-06-2007, 07:41 PM
Don't bother debating with Bearsfan. He lives in a hole and he thinks everyone lives in there with him.

Okay thanks for letting me know that. I was confused when he said most people never heard of Boise State before they played Oklahoma.

mqtirishfan
12-06-2007, 07:54 PM
So you don't want to see any Non-BCS school make it into a BCS Bowl ever again? What is your point?

My point is that I don't want to see the WAC get a berth every year into a BCS bowl.

junior2430
12-06-2007, 07:59 PM
D-Unit is right. The system is such garbage. Desisgned to help the rich get richer and keep the poor in the gutter.

Is not the MWC, WAC, C-USA, Sun Belt in the FBS? Then why are they automatically excluded from competing for the national title? Schools from these conferences have just as much right to compete for the national title as any BCS schools.

mqtirishfan
12-06-2007, 08:03 PM
D-Unit is right. The system is such garbage. Desisgned to help the rich get richer and keep the poor in the gutter.

Is not the MWC, WAC, C-USA, Sun Belt in the FBS? Then why are they automatically excluded from competing for the national title? Schools from these conferences have just as much right to compete for the national title as any BCS schools.

Name me one MWC, C-USA or Sun Belt team that can compete with the likes of Georgia, Virginia Tech or even West Virginia.

D-Unit
12-06-2007, 08:10 PM
Name me one MWC, C-USA or Sun Belt team that can compete with the likes of Georgia, Virginia Tech or even West Virginia.
It's the fact that they system makes it impossible for that to ever happen, is what is most frustrating.

Fact of the matter is that big rich schools have the best chance to win. Since they can attract the best athletes, they have the best facilities and highest paid coaches.

Non-BCS schools will never be on equal playing ground and the fact that they do end up beating the big boys is monumental.

So when someone says Georgia will SMASH Hawaii... uh.. well... THEY SHOULD! AND THEY BETTER! Geogia's football revenue last year was $60M. Hawaii barely raked in $7M.

bearsfan_51
12-06-2007, 08:12 PM
Don't bother debating with Bearsfan. He lives in a hole and he thinks everyone lives in there with him.
Well that's a compelling argument. The casual tv watcher knows very little, if anything, about the WAC. This consipracy that you're espousing is just dribble. If the networks thought that smaller conferences drew ratings they wouldn't relegate them to ESPN2 past the primetime spot.

junior2430
12-06-2007, 08:13 PM
Hawaii, Boise State, BYU, Utah. There's four.

But there is a reason for that. The BCS conferences keep all the money and don't let any of the other schools get that money so they can get better.

If every conference received the same amount of money at the end of the year, it would make college football even better. More parity and a lot more closer games.

It's also spilling over to the other sports, because the BCS now has even more more to pout into basketball, baseball, etc.

The BCS is ruining college athletics.

Why are you so against a level playing field?

bearsfan_51
12-06-2007, 08:14 PM
It's the fact that they system makes it impossible for that to ever happen, is what is most frustrating.

Fact of the matter is that big rich schools have the best chance to win. Since they can attract the best athletes, they have the best facilities and highest paid coaches.

Non-BCS schools will never be on equal playing ground and the fact that they do end up beating the big boys is monumental.

So when someone says Georgia will SMASH Hawaii... uh.. well... THEY SHOULD! AND THEY BETTER! Geogia's football revenue last year was $60M. Hawaii barely raked in $7M.

So what exactly are you disagreeing with then? The 2nd tier conferences are there for a reason. When they get to play in the BCS games it's a really neat thing, but it shouldn't become a regularity because on average they aren't going to be able to hang.

junior2430
12-06-2007, 08:23 PM
So what exactly are you disagreeing with then? The 2nd tier conferences are there for a reason. When they get to play in the BCS games it's a really neat thing, but it shouldn't become a regularity because on average they aren't going to be able to hang.

That's because the system is stacked against them. Given a fair playing field they would be able to compete and win on a regular basis.

But that would mean that BCS schools would lose and we can't have that can we?

D-Unit
12-06-2007, 08:27 PM
Well that's a compelling argument. The casual tv watcher knows very little, if anything, about the WAC. This consipracy that you're espousing is just dribble. If the networks thought that smaller conferences drew ratings they wouldn't relegate them to ESPN2 past the primetime spot.
Hawaii vs. Boise St game was the highest rated Friday Night game all season long on ESPN and ESPN2. ...and highest ESPN2 game all year.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/sports/story/223935.html

"The Boise State-Hawaii game was the highest-rated of the 14 college football games aired Friday on ESPN or ESPN2 this season, according to ESPN the network.

The game drew a 2.8 rating - the equivalent of 2,647,000 households - as Hawaii beat Boise State 39-27 last week to win the WAC championship and improve its chances of reaching the Bowl Championship Series.

The game also was the highest-rated college football broadcast on ESPN2 this season."



uh, so yeah... nobody watches, right?

bearsfan_51
12-06-2007, 08:27 PM
That's because the system is stacked against them. Given a fair playing field they would be able to compete and win on a regular basis.

But that would mean that BCS schools would lose and we can't have that can we?
How would your propose that they do so? And why is that fair? Where do you draw the line?

Should sub-division (Div 1-AA) teams be part of the equation too? If not, is that not fair?

Either way, programs like Utah and Northern Illinois are likely never going to be as big as Michigan, or even Ole Miss. If they do, then the BCS will find ways to incoporate them. There have been a lot of teams that are now in the BCS that were in a minor conference not too long ago. Hell, look at the Big East, Connecticut and South Florida haven't even had football for that long.

bearsfan_51
12-06-2007, 08:30 PM
Hawaii vs. Boise St game was the highest rated Friday Night game all season long on ESPN and ESPN2. ...and highest ESPN2 game all year.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/sports/story/223935.html

"The Boise State-Hawaii game was the highest-rated of the 14 college football games aired Friday on ESPN or ESPN2 this season, according to ESPN the network.

The game drew a 2.8 rating - the equivalent of 2,647,000 households - as Hawaii beat Boise State 39-27 last week to win the WAC championship and improve its chances of reaching the Bowl Championship Series.

The game also was the highest-rated college football broadcast on ESPN2 this season."



uh, so yeah... nobody watches, right?

Yeah Friday Night is a huge draw for college football. Pro Wrestling does better than a 2.8 on a weekly basis, and that is very likely the best the WAC has ever done.



The Liberty Bowl last year between Fresno State and Tulsa did a 3.3


And why did that game even do that well? Is it because of the huge fan bases in Hawaii and Boise State. No...it's the ******* BCS. The BCS is the entire reason why anyone is even talking about Hawaii. Without the system they would just be a top 15 fighting to play in the Sun Chips bowl. The BCS at least gives them a primetime stage. It makes people care.

D-Unit
12-06-2007, 08:34 PM
So what exactly are you disagreeing with then? The 2nd tier conferences are there for a reason. When they get to play in the BCS games it's a really neat thing, but it shouldn't become a regularity because on average they aren't going to be able to hang.
I'm saying the way the system is set up, that even when a team like Hawaii gets a bid in a miraculous season, they should be rewarded equally. Instead they throw us a bone and say "Be happy you got that". WE WANT MEAT! We should get MORE than the BCS schools because it's a harder feat to accomplish and our programs need the money most! The system is set up for the rich to get richer and THAT sucks... it's not like they are more deserving or worked harder for it.

iowatreat54
12-06-2007, 08:41 PM
I'm saying the way the system is set up, that even when a team like Hawaii gets a bid in a miraculous season, they should be rewarded equally. Instead they throw us a bone and say "Be happy you got that". WE WANT MEAT! We should get MORE than the BCS schools because it's a harder feat to accomplish and our programs need the money most! The system is set up for the rich to get richer and THAT sucks... it's not like they are more deserving or worked harder for it.

so just wondering, should Boise have earned more money than Florida last year? I mean, they both went undefeated in D1A football...but it was "harder" for Boise to get there, so should they get more money?

junior2430
12-06-2007, 08:42 PM
How would your propose that they do so? And why is that fair? Where do you draw the line?

Should sub-division (Div 1-AA) teams be part of the equation too? If not, is that not fair?

Either way, programs like Utah and Northern Illinois are likely never going to be as big as Michigan, or even Ole Miss. If they do, then the BCS will find ways to incoporate them. There have been a lot of teams that are now in the BCS that were in a minor conference not too long ago. Hell, look at the Big East, Connecticut and South Florida haven't even had football for that long.

Not FCS should not be included, because they are in a different division.

How would I propose to even the playing field? Well, to start how about revenue sharing. Take all the money from bowl games played (minus the money the individual team get for appearing in the games) and place it in a big pool. Then divide it equally amongst all FBS conferences.

That would just be a start, and would go along way towards evening things out.

D-Unit
12-06-2007, 08:42 PM
Yeah Friday Night is a huge draw for college football. Pro Wrestling does better than a 2.8 on a weekly basis, and that is very likely the best the WAC has ever done.



The Liberty Bowl last year between Fresno State and Tulsa did a 3.3


And why did that game even do that well? Is it because of the huge fan bases in Hawaii and Boise State. No...it's the ******* BCS. The BCS is the entire reason why anyone is even talking about Hawaii. Without the system they would just be a top 15 fighting to play in the Sun Chips bowl. The BCS at least gives them a primetime stage. It makes people care.
If you wanna make a point, then compare apples to apples. At this rate, the next thing I'm gonna hear from you is how the Rose Bowl is out rated by Hannah Montana!

...and why do people care about Hawaii and the BCS? Because it affects their own selfish desires. The BCS is not perfect and it doesn't reward equally. The BCS does not make people care. College Football is the reason people care.... with or without the BCS.

junior2430
12-06-2007, 08:43 PM
No, Hawaii should be playing for the national title. They are the only team in the country that hasn't lost.

D-Unit
12-06-2007, 08:44 PM
so just wondering, should Boise have earned more money than Florida last year? I mean, they both went undefeated in D1A football...but it was "harder" for Boise to get there, so should they get more money?
No because Florida was the National Champion. They should be rewarded most of all. Being rewarded the same as any other BCS school in a BCS Bowl should be the reward. Instead, our reward is 35% of what they get. psssh..

D-Unit
12-06-2007, 08:44 PM
No, Hawaii should be playing for the national title. They are the only team in the country that hasn't lost.
Uh... not even I will go there...

iowatreat54
12-06-2007, 08:45 PM
No because Florida was the National Champion. They should be rewarded most of all. Being rewarded the same as any other BCS school in a BCS Bowl should be the reward. Instead, our reward is 35% of what they get. psssh..

well, OSU is going to get less that $4M for going to the NC...so Hawaii is technically making more

bearsfan_51
12-06-2007, 08:46 PM
No, Hawaii should be playing for the national title. They are the only team in the country that hasn't lost.
Oh...you're on drugs. It all makes sense to me now. Say hi to Jerry Garcia for me.

D-Unit
12-06-2007, 08:46 PM
well, OSU is going to get less that $4M for going to the NC...so Hawaii is technically making more
Is that true? Do you have a source?

junior2430
12-06-2007, 08:48 PM
Uh... not even I will go there...

I know it's not a popular opionion, but why not. If Ohio State or LSU is as much better as everyone thinks, they'll win anyway. Why not reward the only undefeated team in the FBS and give them a chance to prove they belong?

iowatreat54
12-06-2007, 08:48 PM
Is that true? Do you have a source?

its wiki but still

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowl_Championship_Series

and it's just projected but

Big Ten (11 teams): $1.545M / $1.955M

first number is per team if 1 team makes it, 2nd is if 2 teams make it...

so, OSU will make $1.96M for going to a BCS bowl...

junior2430
12-06-2007, 08:50 PM
Also, a little coverage on ESPN regularly would go a long way. They won't even put the WAC or MWC scores on SportsCenter unless it's a team in the Top 25.

bearsfan_51
12-06-2007, 08:51 PM
Also, a little coverage on ESPN regularly would go a long way. They won't even put the WAC or MWC scores on SportsCenter unless it's a team in the Top 25.
Why would they? They are a media outlet. They want people to watch their programming. People are more likely to watch if they are talking about teams they care about. This is why they make the obligatory Yankees, Red Sox, and Cowboys reference every show.

This isn't UNICEF, it's a business.

iowatreat54
12-06-2007, 08:52 PM
Also, a little coverage on ESPN regularly would go a long way. They won't even put the WAC or MWC scores on SportsCenter unless it's a team in the Top 25.

agreed...but to be fair, they don't put a lot of teams on SC unless they are top 25 or it's a good game...I think Iowa highlights were on ESPN like twice all season...so it's not like they put every BCS conference team on over smaller conferences...it's just a bias towards certain teams regardless

RyanLeaf#1
12-06-2007, 08:52 PM
No, Hawaii should be playing for the national title. They are the only team in the country that hasn't lost.

Thats just shows to you that you don't follow college football. Thats why there is such a thing called Strength of Schedule. Obviously if Hawaii played a better out of conference schedule they would have a shot at the NC, but they didnt. They played 2 1-AA schools, the worst team in the Pac-10, and UNLV who was 2-10. The combined record for Division 1 teams on Hawaii's schedule is 42 and 68. You really think they deserve a shot at the NC?

RyanLeaf#1
12-06-2007, 08:53 PM
Also, a little coverage on ESPN regularly would go a long way. They won't even put the WAC or MWC scores on SportsCenter unless it's a team in the Top 25.

You dont know what your talking about just stop talking. Hawaiis last 4 games were on ESPN.

junior2430
12-06-2007, 08:54 PM
Why would they? They are a media outlet. They want people to watch their programming. People are more likely to watch if they are talking about teams they care about. This is why they make the obligatory Yankees, Red Sox, and Cowboys reference every show.

This isn't UNICEF, it's a business.

So apparently there aren't any fans of teams outside the BCS?

Take for example the Bowl Selection show.

Out of a 3 hour broad cast, 2 hours and 45 minutes was spent talking about the BCS games. Isn't that a little excessive?

Yet not one mention of a MWC or WAC affiliated bowl game.

iowatreat54
12-06-2007, 08:56 PM
So apparently there aren't any fans of teams outside the BCS?

Take for example the Bowl Selection show.

Out of a 3 hour broad cast, 2 hours and 45 minutes was spent talking about the BCS games. Isn't that a little excessive?

yes, but they get ratings of people waiting to hear the announcements, thus, making more money...that's all they are there for...sure, ESPN was ingenious when it first came out and had the "news first" mentality, but like all other business' ever, in the end they are there to make money, not make everyone happy

junior2430
12-06-2007, 08:57 PM
agreed...but to be fair, they don't put a lot of teams on SC unless they are top 25 or it's a good game...I think Iowa highlights were on ESPN like twice all season...so it's not like they put every BCS conference team on over smaller conferences...it's just a bias towards certain teams regardless

Oh I agree. SportsCenter has turned into Sports Commentary.

I would much prefer an hour of scores and highlights to people talking about one event for 40 minutes and then barely having time to fit in the top 25.

D-Unit
12-06-2007, 08:58 PM
You dont know what your talking about just stop talking. Hawaiis last 4 games were on ESPN.
Yeah, that's true. We had LaTech, Idaho, SJST, Fresno, Nevada, Boise, Washington all on ESPN this year. 7 games on national TV... Not bad if I do say so myself. I wonder why ESPN would do that since Hawaii's ratings are so low??? pffff... ESPN banks on Hawaii. Gambler's last game prior to heading into Sunday.

RyanLeaf#1
12-06-2007, 08:59 PM
Yeah, that's true. We had LaTech, Idaho, SJST, Fresno, Nevada, Boise, Washington all on ESPN this year. 7 games on national TV... Not bad if I do say so myself. I wonder why ESPN would do that since Hawaii's ratings are so low??? pffff... ESPN banks on Hawaii. Gambler's last game prior to heading into Sunday.

Gamblers love betting on Hawaii, and they pretty much lost all year.

someone447
12-06-2007, 09:00 PM
its wiki but still

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowl_Championship_Series

and it's just projected but

Big Ten (11 teams): $1.545M / $1.955M

first number is per team if 1 team makes it, 2nd is if 2 teams make it...

so, OSU will make $1.96M for going to a BCS bowl...

Ok, that is wrong. OSU makes 1.96M+ whatever they make for being the ones in the bowl.

iowatreat54
12-06-2007, 09:04 PM
Ok, that is wrong. OSU makes 1.96M+ whatever they make for being the ones in the bowl.

umm well its like $17M per team in the game...17/11 = 1.54...plus another $4.5M for Illinois 21.5/11= 1.954

the Big Ten splits all money equally amongst the teams, regardless of who goes...OSU and Illinois will technically get more money in addition to that for traveling and etc., but that is payed for by the Big Ten, not by the school itself

oh, and how is this, this year $9M will be split between the CUSA, MAC, MWC, SunBelt, and WAC, plus another $9M because Hawaii is participating...so for not having any teams in a BCS game, the CUSA, MAC, MWC, and Sun Belt get to split $14M...

mqtirishfan
12-06-2007, 09:08 PM
So apparently there aren't any fans of teams outside the BCS?

Take for example the Bowl Selection show.

Out of a 3 hour broad cast, 2 hours and 45 minutes was spent talking about the BCS games. Isn't that a little excessive?

Yet not one mention of a MWC or WAC affiliated bowl game.

It's because.... Nobody Cares!!!! The BCS hasn't been around forever. There have been powerful teams and ****** teams for the past 100 years of college football. While it shifts from time to time, there's still always some teams that are way, way better than others. There are also really ****** teams, such as 80-90% of the MWC, C-USA, MAC, WAC, and Sun Belt. Hell, one could easily argue that under the BCS system, we are seeing more parity in college football than ever.

How do you propose the system gets changed without losing networks shittons of money? You aren't just fighting against the big bad BCS. There's years of tradition, top-notch coaching, and boosters that help out the program. In order to get the BCS money, the teams need to prove they can win games against quality teams. To do that, they need to recruit better. Nobody will care until they help themselves through better recruiting.

junior2430
12-06-2007, 09:16 PM
We recruit the best we can with what we are given. But with the way the money is distributed right now, that's not even fair. BCS probably spend the same amount as a school like New Mexico's entire recruiting budget on just recruiting just a couple of players.

junior2430
12-06-2007, 09:18 PM
It's because.... Nobody Cares!!!! The BCS hasn't been around forever. There have been powerful teams and ****** teams for the past 100 years of college football. While it shifts from time to time, there's still always some teams that are way, way better than others. There are also really ****** teams, such as 80-90% of the MWC, C-USA, MAC, WAC, and Sun Belt. Hell, one could easily argue that under the BCS system, we are seeing more parity in college football than ever.

How do you propose the system gets changed without losing networks shittons of money? You aren't just fighting against the big bad BCS. There's years of tradition, top-notch coaching, and boosters that help out the program. In order to get the BCS money, the teams need to prove they can win games against quality teams. To do that, they need to recruit better. Nobody will care until they help themselves through better recruiting.

That's complete BS. Of course people care! Unless you are saying that certain people don't count. Hasn't the world heard that before?

kwilk103
12-06-2007, 09:18 PM
anyone else think its bs that you have to divide the money evenly? shouldnt the team that plays in the game get more?

mqtirishfan
12-06-2007, 09:20 PM
That's complete BS. Of course people care! Unless you are saying that certain people don't count. Hasn't the world heard that before?

First of all, limited amounts of people care. Like 5% of college football fans.

Second, if you pull the ******* Nazi card, I'll smack you.

iowatreat54
12-06-2007, 09:20 PM
anyone else think its bs that you have to divide the money evenly? shouldnt the team that plays in the game get more?

I don't mind it when my team sucks...but yea, I think the team that is in the game should get a little more, and then evenly divide it by the rest

GB12
12-06-2007, 09:20 PM
That's complete BS. Of course people care! Unless you are saying that certain people don't count. Hasn't the world heard that before?
You are a moron.

junior2430
12-06-2007, 09:22 PM
anyone else think its bs that you have to divide the money evenly? shouldnt the team that plays in the game get more?

That's why I said first take out money for the teams playing in the games, then spread the rest evenly.

junior2430
12-06-2007, 09:25 PM
How do you propose the system gets changed without losing networks shittons of money? You aren't just fighting against the big bad BCS. There's years of tradition, top-notch coaching, and boosters that help out the program. In order to get the BCS money, the teams need to prove they can win games against quality teams. To do that, they need to recruit better. Nobody will care until they help themselves through better recruiting.

How is evenly distributing the money costing the networks? They will still be showing BCS teams every Saturday.

mqtirishfan
12-06-2007, 09:25 PM
That's why I said first take out money for the teams playing in the games, then spread the rest evenly.

And what about the fact that the bigger programs bring in amazing amounts of money? Isn't it unfair that the small schools get to leach on to them?

GB12
12-06-2007, 09:27 PM
How is evenly distributing the money costing the networks? They will still be showing BCS teams every Saturday.
Why the hell should the Big Ten share it's money with the Sun Belt?

junior2430
12-06-2007, 09:27 PM
First of all, limited amounts of people care. Like 5% of college football fans.

Second, if you pull the ******* Nazi card, I'll smack you.


It's a whole lot more than 5%.

And I wasn't talking about the Nazi card, but that also is very similar. Thanks for helping make my point.

kwilk103
12-06-2007, 09:28 PM
That's why I said first take out money for the teams playing in the games, then spread the rest evenly.

sorry, didnt read every post

i mean the only reward you get is playing the actual game and the exposure; really every team in the big east benefits off wvu this year; we should get more than the other schools

junior2430
12-06-2007, 09:30 PM
Thats just shows to you that you don't follow college football. Thats why there is such a thing called Strength of Schedule. Obviously if Hawaii played a better out of conference schedule they would have a shot at the NC, but they didnt. They played 2 1-AA schools, the worst team in the Pac-10, and UNLV who was 2-10. The combined record for Division 1 teams on Hawaii's schedule is 42 and 68. You really think they deserve a shot at the NC?

In all honesty, probably not. But it also doesn't help that the top BCS schools won't play non-BCS schools with regularity becuase that would hurt their SOS. Look at all the critism Ohio State is facing this year because of their weak SOS.

junior2430
12-06-2007, 09:31 PM
You dont know what your talking about just stop talking. Hawaiis last 4 games were on ESPN.


Why don't you learn how to read. I was talking about coverage on programs like SportsCenter. Not televised games.

Michigan
12-06-2007, 09:32 PM
We recruit the best we can with what we are given. But with the way the money is distributed right now, that's not even fair. BCS probably spend the same amount as a school like New Mexico's entire recruiting budget on just recruiting just a couple of players.

...because some schools have more money than others?

mqtirishfan
12-06-2007, 09:32 PM
Why don't you learn how to read. I was talking about coverage on programs like SportsCenter. Not televised games.

The lack of consistent NFL talent hurts their chances.

junior2430
12-06-2007, 09:33 PM
And what about the fact that the bigger programs bring in amazing amounts of money? Isn't it unfair that the small schools get to leach on to them?


No. It might seem like leaching at first, but the point is that most of the non-BCS schools would increase in quality enough to the point where they would consistently be competive. But a few years of leaching would make up for the years of bias against non-BCS teams.

bearsfan_51
12-06-2007, 09:33 PM
We recruit the best we can with what we are given. But with the way the money is distributed right now, that's not even fair. BCS probably spend the same amount as a school like New Mexico's entire recruiting budget on just recruiting just a couple of players.
The fact that New Mexico has a hard time recruiting has to do with a lot more than just money.

And I still can't believe you're trying to make this ridiculous argument about equal television time. If the networks thought that giving non-BCS schools more air-time would boost ratings they would do it in a heart beat. The fact is that if the New Mexico-New Mexico State highlights come on half the country is going to be looking for their remote within seconds. I'm sorry, but most people don't care about your team.

junior2430
12-06-2007, 09:35 PM
Why the hell should the Big Ten share it's money with the Sun Belt?

Why not? Are you afraid that a Sun Belt team would then beat a Big Ten team?

junior2430
12-06-2007, 09:37 PM
...because some schools have more money than others?

Because BCS conferences pull in tens of millions of dollars ever year to help in recruiting while non-BCS conferences are lucky to get a million with out being in a BCS game.

iowatreat54
12-06-2007, 09:37 PM
Why not? Are you afraid that a Sun Belt team would then beat a Big Ten team?

so the Big Ten, for having 2 teams in the BCS and sending 8 total teams to a bowl game, should share that money with another conference for no reason other than "helping them become competitive"? that's absolutely ridiculous...what has, in that example, the Sun Belt done to help earn that money?

GB12
12-06-2007, 09:37 PM
Why not? Are you afraid that a Sun Belt team would then beat a Big Ten team?
Answer the question. You're the one who feels it should be shared. Why should the Big Ten who makes way more money than the sunbelt have to share evenly because the sunbelt can't make it's own money.

junior2430
12-06-2007, 09:38 PM
The lack of consistent NFL talent hurts their chances.


Once again goes back to recruiting budgets, which is a result of the unfair amount of money put into BCS conferences vs non-BCS conferences.

junior2430
12-06-2007, 09:41 PM
The fact that New Mexico has a hard time recruiting has to do with a lot more than just money.

And I still can't believe you're trying to make this ridiculous argument about equal television time. If the networks thought that giving non-BCS schools more air-time would boost ratings they would do it in a heart beat. The fact is that if the New Mexico-New Mexico State highlights come on half the country is going to be looking for their remote within seconds. I'm sorry, but most people don't care about your team.



Actually, almost all of it has to do with money.

I'm not asking for equal TV time, just some TV time. Would it really be awful to mention a box score on air?

mqtirishfan
12-06-2007, 09:42 PM
Because BCS conferences pull in tens of millions of dollars ever year to help in recruiting while non-BCS conferences are lucky to get a million with out being in a BCS game.

I'm going to assume that when you get a paycheck, you give half of it to charity. Seriously, it's a business. You make money, then you spend money to improve your program/conference.

bearsfan_51
12-06-2007, 09:43 PM
Actually, almost all of it has to do with money.

I'm not asking for equal TV time, just some TV time. Would it really be awful to mention a box score on air?
They do that. It's called the score ticker.

Or the internet. Or a newspaper. Your whole argument is ridiculous.

GB12
12-06-2007, 09:43 PM
I'm not asking for equal TV time, just some TV time. Would it really be awful to mention a box score on air?
Why would they waste air time to mention the box score of a game that no one cares about. The small percentage of people that do care about the Florida International's and Idaho's of the world can look it up online.

someone447
12-06-2007, 09:45 PM
I'm going to assume that when you get a paycheck, you give half of it to charity. Seriously, it's a business. You make money, then you spend money to improve your program/conference.

It is completely different. Why do the mid majors not make the same amount of money as BCS conferences when they get to a BCS game?

junior2430
12-06-2007, 09:48 PM
Okay, so you don't want equality. What about revenue sharing where instead of spreading the money equally, Say 67% goes to the six BCS conferences, 33% goes to the 4 non-bcs conferences. It's still not fair, but would be better than what the situation is now.

junior2430
12-06-2007, 09:50 PM
IT's like talking to a brick wall.

iowatreat54
12-06-2007, 09:55 PM
basically what this argument boils down to is that the mid-majors don't get as much money as the BCS conferences...they don't get as much because they aren't as good, and they can't get as good without money...it's a vicious circle...but if you really look at it, all these big programs started somewhere, and sure most of them were established a long time ago when money wasn't as important of a difference as it is now, but teams like Rutgers or Penn State or Virginia Tech didn't need other teams/conferences to give them money in order to "be able to compete" with the other big teams...almost all of the big teams have essentially built up their programs on their own and through a strong conference support...once the WAC or Hawaii have proven that they can sustain a level of competitiveness with the BCS conferences, then the BCS would prolly adjust accordingly

GB12
12-06-2007, 09:55 PM
It is completely different. Why do the mid majors not make the same amount of money as BCS conferences when they get to a BCS game?
That I agree with, but everything else is a load of crap.
IT's like talking to a brick wall.
Yes, with you being the wall.

mqtirishfan
12-06-2007, 09:56 PM
Okay, so you don't want equality. What about revenue sharing where instead of spreading the money equally, Say 67% goes to the six BCS conferences, 33% goes to the 4 non-bcs conferences. It's still not fair, but would be better than what the situation is now.

Somehow I don't think that the non-BCS conferences give 33% of the revenue the BCS gets, so why should they get it back?

bearsfan_51
12-06-2007, 09:57 PM
Somehow I don't think that the non-BCS conferences give 33% of the revenue the BCS gets, so why should they get it back?

So they can get better. Come on...it's SOOOOO simple.

mqtirishfan
12-06-2007, 09:59 PM
So they can get better. Come on...it's SOOOOO simple.

Don't ya just love how the economy would be if this concept was applied to other things? :D

someone447
12-06-2007, 10:03 PM
That I agree with, but everything else is a load of crap.

Yes, with you being the wall.

Ya, junior isn't even making good arguments.

If the mid major conferences got equal money for making BCS as the BCS conferences got, they would begin to catch up with recruiting, eventually leading to the need for a playoff. It is ridiculous that the WAC gets half of what the BCS conferences get for having the same number of teams in BCS games.

someone447
12-06-2007, 10:04 PM
Don't ya just love how the economy would be if this concept was applied to other things? :D

It's called welfare...

mqtirishfan
12-06-2007, 10:09 PM
It's called welfare...

I'm talking about businesses. It'd be much more like Pepsi giving its profits to Jones soda for the **** of it.

ironman4579
12-06-2007, 10:11 PM
This argument sounds like a certain system that shall remain nameless. "We earned less. You earned more. Give us half of yours so we'll be equal." Yes, that makes sense. Where can I sign up for that? Oh wait....................

someone447
12-06-2007, 10:16 PM
This argument sounds like a certain system that shall remain nameless. "We earned less. You earned more. Give us half of yours so we'll be equal." Yes, that makes sense. Where can I sign up for that? Oh wait....................

CANADA!!!! Well, close enough.

ironman4579
12-06-2007, 10:23 PM
Let's not get this locked. I'll go off if we stay on that too long. Seriously though, why the hell should the non BCS conferences be getting equal or any of the money that the major conferences are bringing in? It's ridiculous IMO.

someone447
12-06-2007, 10:28 PM
Let's not get this locked. I'll go off if we stay on that too long. Seriously though, why the hell should the non BCS conferences be getting equal or any of the money that the major conferences are bringing in? It's ridiculous IMO.

Do you agree that non BCS conferences should make the same as the BCS when one of their teams makes a BCS game?

ironman4579
12-06-2007, 10:43 PM
Do you agree that non BCS conferences should make the same as the BCS when one of their teams makes a BCS game?

In theory, sure. My only negative to that is that the amounts of money the BCS is able to give out to the schools and conferences is basically a direct result of the major conferences and teams. Without those teams and major conferences, college football would not be near what it is today, and not be near the revenue generator it is. That said, I wouldn't have a problem with equal pay. In fact, I was surprised that wasn't how it was already.

dabears10
12-06-2007, 10:50 PM
I am glad that people site that Boise State winning and getting big numbers and a big game is a reason that equality throughout the conferences should happen, while when Utah won there was no cry, even though they won handily over a pretty poor opponent in Pittsburgh.

I'm pretty sure that the non-BCS conferences negotiated how much money they should get for making a bowl game. It's not like it was an arbitrary number just assigned to them. Notre Dame also negotiated a settlement on how much they make, and when they make a BCS game they get ALOT more money than teams from conferences do.

etk
12-06-2007, 10:54 PM
so just wondering, should Boise have earned more money than Florida last year? I mean, they both went undefeated in D1A football...but it was "harder" for Boise to get there, so should they get more money?

That is incorrect. Florida lost to Auburn in the middle of the season, hence the debate over who should be #2 to OSU.

someone447
12-06-2007, 11:13 PM
I am glad that people site that Boise State winning and getting big numbers and a big game is a reason that equality throughout the conferences should happen, while when Utah won there was no cry, even though they won handily over a pretty poor opponent in Pittsburgh.

I'm pretty sure that the non-BCS conferences negotiated how much money they should get for making a bowl game. It's not like it was an arbitrary number just assigned to them. Notre Dame also negotiated a settlement on how much they make, and when they make a BCS game they get ALOT more money than teams from conferences do.

The really had no choice. They negotiate in the same way that El Salvador negotiates with the US. They accept what is given them. Notre Dame is an anomaly. They have so much power because of their history. Without Notre Dame agreeing to the BCS, no one would take it seriously. Notre Dame has ALL the power in that negotiation, the non BCS teams have none of it.

dabears10
12-06-2007, 11:30 PM
The really had no choice. They negotiate in the same way that El Salvador negotiates with the US. They accept what is given them. Notre Dame is an anomaly. They have so much power because of their history. Without Notre Dame agreeing to the BCS, no one would take it seriously. Notre Dame has ALL the power in that negotiation, the non BCS teams have none of it.

So do you believe that if all other conferences refused to be a part of the BCS it would not send a message and cause a ruckus, which I believe while ballsy, is what needs to be done for equality.

someone447
12-06-2007, 11:41 PM
So do you believe that if all other conferences refused to be a part of the BCS it would not send a message and cause a ruckus, which I believe while ballsy, is what needs to be done for equality.

Then they make no money. They have no power in this relationship.

bearsfan_51
12-06-2007, 11:50 PM
So do you believe that if all other conferences refused to be a part of the BCS it would not send a message and cause a ruckus, which I believe while ballsy, is what needs to be done for equality.

All of the other conferences have very little, if anything, to do with the BCS. The BCS was set up to decide a national championship. That's it. The odds of that effecting a non-BCS school, especially with the expansion of the # of teams in the BCS, is slim.

RyanLeaf#1
12-07-2007, 07:42 AM
In all honesty, probably not. But it also doesn't help that the top BCS schools won't play non-BCS schools with regularity becuase that would hurt their SOS. Look at all the critism Ohio State is facing this year because of their weak SOS.

Ohio State has a weak SOS because the Big 10 was terrible this year, but atleast they play in a BCS conference.

RyanLeaf#1
12-07-2007, 07:46 AM
Why don't you learn how to read. I was talking about coverage on programs like SportsCenter. Not televised games.

So you would rather a team get coverage on SportsCenter then their whole game getting played before that program airs? What more coverage could Hawaii ask for when they were on ESPN 6 times this year? And by the way Hawaii games are on SportsCenter, and talked about on SportsCenter all the time. Why dont you learn a little more about college football then come back and argue with me.