In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1421
Online now 2076 Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Eventually that may be true, but at the moment, starting with this first +1 agreement, they will definitely be apart of it.
I agree that it could go away, after the 2014 season, but the thought is that if a +1 system is established and agreed upon (still a big if, IMO), then the contract will be extended/renewed.
There is zero chance that the June 24th meeting results in an agreement to have the Rose Bowl winner play the winner of the Big12/SEC game. Zero chance. You can't honestly believe this will be the format we have come 2014. We are a long way from having anything close to that.
Disagree. Not saying this is going to happen, but it's an interesting idea. And all seven parties do not have to agree. If that were the case, they never could get anything done. At the end of the day, the absolutely essential parties are the SEC, B10, P12 and B12. The Big East is literally almost irrelevant and while it would be problematic if the ACC and ND were left out in the short term it would hurt them far more than it would the four power CFB conferences. Recruiting at places like FSU, CLEM and ND would take a major hit and the money and prestige gap would widen even further.
In reality, outside the four power CFB conferences, the only schools that matter much at all in CFB are ND, FSU, MIA, VT, CLEM and possibly BSU and BYU. And every one of those schools that joins one of the Big 4 weakens the position of the others. If the current rumors come to fruition (FSU and CLEM to the B12), that basically leaves just ND, VT and MIA as major football programs outside the Big 4. It's not at all unrealistic to think the Big 4 might actually tell those schools at that point that they have one final chance to get aboard the train before it leaves the station or get left behind. Even Jack Swarbrick, ND's AD, has acknowledged that despite ND's desire to remain independent there are some scenarios that could force it to join a conference.
This post has been edited 5 times, most recently by WingedHelmet 23 months ago
Actually, all of them do have to sign off on the agreement. Consider it like a jury on a trial. There is no majority wins in this procedure. That's what could kick start the 4 conferences going to 16 or 20 teams and starting their own division, sure, but all parties do have to sign the deal for the +1 to take place.
If they can't come to an agreement, the current format will stay in place until 2014 and then it will over. Simple as that. All they've decided on so far is that they are willing to discuss some kind of playoff system at this meeting. Still could easily not happen.
Why? What is the Big East's recourse if they don't agree? How about the ACC or ND? The only recourse for any of them is to take their marbles and go home. And that is the scenario I walked through in my example. It's slightly problematic to have two or three major football schools outside and looking in, but it's far worse for those schools than for the Big 4. And I question how long it would last before ND & Co. cave.
This is nothing like a jury. There is no law that requires a unanimous vote or even a majority vote. It's all about negotiating leverage and the Big East, ACC and ND have less with each passing day. If FSU and Clemson jump to the B12, it will be ND, Miami and VT against the rest of the elite footballl programs which all are in the Big 4. You are wrong if you think Slive/Delany/Scott/Bowlsby lose that faceoff.
Edit: Of course the existing format will remain in place through the 2013 season. This all has to do with what happens after those contracts expire.
The existing BCS agreement, at worst will be in place through the 2014 season. If all 7 parties don't agree (and they actually have to get the other commissioners of the other conferences to agree as well as they were brought into the fold during the last agreement, then what we presently have will stick.
After the 2014 season, there is no telling what will happen. Some seem to think that we are on the quick track to 4 Super conferences, but I have my doubts. The Big12 and SEC will want one thing. The B1G and PAC12 will want another. Eventually one of the sides will need a 3rd at the bargaining table, whether that is Notre Dame, the ACC, or even the Big East (please no!) to have a chance to get anything done.
Now, if the 4 conferences can agree on something like an 8-team playoff that would include all 4 conference champions and another team from each conference as long as they are say in the top 15 (or whatever number the decide on), then yes, I could see the 4 conferences taking their ball an leaving the rest of college football, forcing Super Conferences and Notre Dame to join. This isn't neccessarily the scenario, but something along those lines.
I would still like to see 16 teams with all the champions and 5 at large from the current conference format though.
My friend, I don't think you quite understand, not saying that in a bad way though as this situation can be a bit convoluted. No matter what, the current agreement is going to last until 2014. IF there is an agreed upon +1 or playoff, then that will be the first year it can happen, which is when the current bcs agreement expires. Now most are simply thinking that a new similar bcs agreement gets signed with a +1 of 4 team playoff. It is my current contention that it is entirely possible that the PAC-12, SEC, Big-12, and Big-10 simply back out of a new BCS agreement, thus killing the bcs. Those 4 conferences will then go on to agree to have a +1 themselves between the winner of the Rose Bowl and the winner of the new Big-12/SEC bowl. The only legal ramifications will be that they may not be able to call it a national championship game, but who cares. I believe that this new agreement will be signed for 4-5 years, and after it is over, then we will have an expanded play-off format.
Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken
You serious, Clark? Teams and coaches would never risk playing big games in which they'd be going up against very talented teams and running the risk of injury to their players if they didn't have to. No, they'd schedule nothing but creampuffs so that they could basically sit all the starters. Or they'd schedule those big opponents and sit the starters anyway. Either way, it won't make for good football for the fans. Go look at the NFL after a team has wrapped up their playoff spot. Same idea. Meaningless games result in meaningless football.
This post was edited by sf2k4 23 months ago
Hopkins Horn over at BurntOrangeNation is suggesting pretty much the same thing. If you haven't read his latest piece, you might find it interesting. He makes a lot of sense IMO.
What potential ramifications could there be by leaving the ACC/BEast teams out of this new CFB championship format in regards to CBB? Frankly, CFB wouldn't miss them, but you'd be hard pressed to call yourself the champion of CBB if you didn't play any of the teams in those conferences.
Always a risk of injury when you play football. It would make sense to see more good OOC teams, as you would be better prepared to face that style of play later. If you don't see much Pro-style passing attacks, then schedule a USC, or a Washington. If you don't see much of a fast paced read option attack, schedule an Oregon or West Virginia. If you are say Florida and want to prepare for Georgia's new odd man defensive front, schedule someone like Cal or another quality team who runs a 3-4 defense. Your own team will be more battle tested for it.
Really what does Alabama get out of scheduling a Towson or Georgia St? Rest for starters? Injuries are more likely to happen due to playing a little lax, as opposed to playing a tough opponent.
The quality teams from the ACC would jump ship in a heartbeat, and there are no more quality teams in the Big East. USC cannot call themselves national champion by going through a grueling PAC-12 season then beating LSU or Bama, simply cause they didn't play Louisville? Come on son.
He said CBB which is College BasketBall. He is asking what ramifications would come from kicking those conferences to the curb in football. He is suggesting that they may decide to stick it to the football conferences in basketball and form their own alliance in that sport.
At this point, we aren't to the point where the ACC is about to see their teams leave. I would say it won't be anytime this year and may not be next year. They have a rather expensive buyout and they just signed a lengthy television contract. This isn't the same as the exit from the Big 12 by the schools that left. That conference was in complete shambles. Honestly, I don't think they are out of the woods. If they can't make a serious move with some top tier teams in the next 1-2 years(FSU/Clemson/ND), I think Texas and Oklahoma bolt for greener pastures. We simply don't know what the landscape will look like even a year from now but as it stands, the June 24th meetings will be with all parties from the BCS and there is no chance in hell we come away with a 4 conference champion playoff. Zero chance.
You don't really believe that, do you?
I am talking about football. I don't forsee any changes to basketball's NCAA tourney. ACC trying to break away for basketball would not be a case of cutting of your nose to spite your face, it would be cutting off your head to spite your life. It would be suicide.
This post was edited by MJRuffalo 23 months ago
It's true. Obviously if your players are on the bench as opposed to on the field, then chance for injury declines greatly. I just hate those games. Taking advantage of stupid fans who pay money to see a game where there is less competition than at practice.
Big-12 is absolutely rock solid now. Ironically it was Texas' greed who saved it. Texas and the Oklahoma schools were a done deal to the PAC, then at the 11th hour Texas said that they were not going to give up the LHN, as they felt at that point the PAC would simply relent. PAC-10 told them to go fuck themselves. Oklahoma schools still wanted to come to the PAC, but the Presidents against the advice of Larry Scott, said that they did not want them without Texas. Big-12 went on to sign a new contract that states that any school that leaves gives up their tier one, and tier two TV rights for the length of the new contract (10 years I think). So no schools are going to give that up.
Forcing schools to stay in a conference at gunpoint is not stability. It simply makes it harder and more expensive for them to leave for a period of time. And if UT decides at some point it wants out of the B12, it has the money and lawyers to figure out a way to make it happen. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out that UT had its lawyers figure out possible options for getting out of the GOR before they even signed the papers.
Texas got everything it wanted, they run the conference, why the hell would they want out?
You are off the reservation if you think that conference is rock solid. They are bringing in teams like Cincy just to save their existence. The LHN is not very stable as well. It still has not been picked up by a single major carrier and ESPN has the option of dropping the thing if it fails. If it is dropped, watch out. The current make-up of the Big 12 is not one that is going to bring in a huge television contract and you can bet Oklahoma and Texas are going to look for an out if they can't go out and make the money themselves.
I think you need to come to grips with reality, bro. There is not going to be an allegiance between the four big conferences to have a playoff with champions only anytime in the near future. Any format that locks out teams that are ranked highly nor locks out major schools within other conferences is going to be met with resistance that you simply can't foresee. You think the BSC brought on talks of lawsuits? At least the BCS theoretically allowed all teams to be in contention for BCS bowl games. A system that locks 2/3 of the D1 schools out will be in court so fast, you have no idea. We aren't at a point where that can even be realistically done.
Face it, we are going to have some sort of system that allows for selection of teams. You are simply living in another universe if you think otherwise. At some point down the road, I see a format that has an 8 team playoff where we have 4 champs from super-conferences but as it stands right now, I'm not even convinced we will see super-conferences anytime soon. For the time being, get comfortable with polls or a committee deciding who the four teams will be. That's what we likely have. Best case scenario for your proposal is a compromise saying a conference champ(including the ACC at least) will play in the four team tourney as long as they are ranked in the top 6.
The question isn't why would UT ever consider leaving the B12. The question is how happy will you be if you move to the B12 and UT leaves. Because that is the risk you are taking. You get no guarantees with UT. They have almost left the B12 twice already and it's naive to assume they will never consider it again.
That new TV contract pretty much ensures that nobody can leave until it expires.
Not to come off as a prick, but I really do not believe that you have a solid grasp of the nature of the NCAA. Schools are run by their presidents and board of trustees. They can choose to be a part of an athletic conference which in turn can choose to be part of the NCAA which is just one, but not the only one, governing body of college athletics. If schools and therefore conferences decide to leave the NCAA for one or all sports that is their sole prerogative. For years the Rose Bowl only allowed the champions of the PAC-10 and BIg-10 to take part of. Now that ended with a BCS agreement that expires in 2014. There is absolutely no recourse anyone could take if the PAC-12 and B1G decide not to partake in a new BCS agreement. That goes the same for the SEC, Big-12 and anyone else as well. If the PAC-12, B1G, Big-12 and SEC decide to have another bowl game featuring the winner of the Rose Bowl and the winner of this new bowl, there is no recourse that could be taken. If those 4 conferences simply decide to leave the NCAA for football, there is no recourse that could be taken. The only legal thing that could possibly happen is that if they themselves call it a national championship bowl, then there could be a legal recourse to not call it that, based on the fact that certain institutions that also play football are excluded. So legally they could not themselves call it a national championship game. Who cares, only semantics anyway.
That guy has probably been reading some of my posts.
That's fine. Keep believing. You're going to be disappointed in the end. I'm out.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports