NCAAF  > General NCAAF  > Should the Big East forfeit their BCS bid and give it to the Mountain West?
October 24, 2010, 03:33 AM
Come on Big East. Do the right thing.
You guys can't compete with anyone on a national level.

Give it to the MWC, or the WAC, or the Pac 10, or the SEC.
October 24, 2010  04:31 AM ET

I think you can make a strong case for the Mountain West and WAC. The Pac 10 and SEC already have their bid. But the winner of Utah - TCU will have earned it more than any Big East team this year. (heck, maybe even more than the ACC) As for the WAC, Boise State is going to earn it regardless. It's a shame Nevada lost to Hawaii or there'd be more to debate.

October 24, 2010  08:59 AM ET

Yes.

October 24, 2010  09:28 AM ET

Oh snap they posted online game...bump

October 24, 2010  10:38 AM ET

One of the things I don't like about the BCS is the automatic bid system. Makes for crappier bowl games at the end of the year. This year highlights it. Big East doesn't have a BCS bowl worthy team this year. I would like auto bids removed but if they keep them Big East should hang onto it or they should remove it from Big East and not give it to anyone. Big East is still much stronger conference than MWC or WAC despite the top notch leaders in both of those conferences.

October 24, 2010  12:01 PM ET
QUOTE(#4):

One of the things I don't like about the BCS is the automatic bid system. Makes for crappier bowl games at the end of the year. This year highlights it. Big East doesn't have a BCS bowl worthy team this year. I would like auto bids removed but if they keep them Big East should hang onto it or they should remove it from Big East and not give it to anyone. Big East is still much stronger conference than MWC or WAC despite the top notch leaders in both of those conferences.

Fully agree about the auto bid system, it's a double standard. Except for insuring maximum revenues for the big six, it really serves no practical purpose to qualify conference winners by different criteria. The 6 or 7 highest ranked conference winners should replace the current AQ's as automatic qualifiers.

Not that I'm trying to fix the BCS because deciding anything by rankings is no fix IMO. Besides, I'm looking forward to a train wreck at the end of the season. Just not sure if BSU/TCU will be the stalled car on the tracks or the locomotive. Maybe both. I can only imagine what might be if Houston played better against UCLA and Keenum was still around with an undefeated team.

October 24, 2010  02:59 PM ET

The Big East, this season, is 2-11 against AQ OOC. At the same time the ACC is 3-10 against AQ OOC competition and yet no one is calling for their BCS head. While the Big East, THIS SEASON, flat out STINKS, the truth is, that using the 4-year sliding scale adopted by the BCS to judge the qualifications of conferences; it is the ACC that is still the weakest AQ conference. As well, this same sliding scale reveals that the MWC (has passed on one) and has not yet met BCS standards.

If the Big East in 2011 has an OCC season identical to their 2010 season, the discussion of their expulsion from the BCS family can be reopened.

October 24, 2010  03:24 PM ET

They should take the Pac Ten's bid..

KIDDING.

I hate the automatic bid thing, especially for the independents.

October 24, 2010  03:32 PM ET

Doing away with the automatic bids or changing the AQ conferences wouldn't make much of a difference and might make matters worse.

1. Currently the system allows 2 teams at most from each of the 6 AQ conferences to be invited to BCS games. Without this limit (or some form of agreement like the conference affiliations prior to the BCS), bowls would go after teams that are going to travel and ensure advertising dollars for the networks. Odds are, most years, one of the major major conferences would have a shot at 3 of the BCS bowls - the national championship and 2 others. Plus, Notre Dame would only have to be bowl eligible. This doesn't help the non-AQ's at all.

2. They added the separate championship game to accommodate the non-AQ's and it's working. Boise St., TCU, Utah, and Hawaii have played in BCS games over the last few years and there's no evidence this will change as long as they keep winning.

3. Taking the bid from the Big East or ACC and giving it to the MWC won't change anything. (Without Boise St. the WAC doesn't have a chance.) Boise St. and TCU are already getting the invites and the other teams haven't proven worthy.

October 25, 2010  09:23 AM ET
QUOTE(#4):

One of the things I don't like about the BCS is the automatic bid system. Makes for crappier bowl games at the end of the year. This year highlights it. Big East doesn't have a BCS bowl worthy team this year. I would like auto bids removed but if they keep them Big East should hang onto it or they should remove it from Big East and not give it to anyone. Big East is still much stronger conference than MWC or WAC despite the top notch leaders in both of those conferences.

The 2010 MWC version is better than the 2010 BE. The 2011 MWC will be far better.

2010 versions:
TCU and Utah are better than WVU and Pitt
AFA is better than USF
SDSU is better than UCONN

Would favor the 2010 BE in the rest of the matchups, but how important is bottom-feeder depth anyway?

2011 Version:
BSU and TCU will be better than the BE top 2.
SDSU, AFA, Nevada, and Fresno will be better than the next 4.
BE will again win the bottom feeder category.

October 25, 2010  09:57 AM ET
QUOTE(#9):

Would favor the 2010 BE in the rest of the matchups, but how important is bottom-feeder depth anyway?

I think it is very important, even critically important. When trying to determine schedule strength between teams in separate conferences, the strength of the teams being played week in and week out means a lot.

October 25, 2010  10:10 AM ET

Automatic bids make it so an 8-5 Pitt team could get into a bowl game instead of a 11-1 UTAH or 12-0 TCU.....Come on BCS and tell the BIGEAST.....wait until basketball season!

October 25, 2010  10:11 AM ET

The Big East will all be 6-6 by Seasons end with the rate they are going

October 25, 2010  10:33 AM ET

The BIG EAST will be super stubborn since they are talking about giving up MILLIONS of Dollars. Besides the MWC is losing UTAH and BYU and could possibly lose TCU...then they would have nothing.....but Boise....the WAC is losing BOISE......Things are changing but not the automatic BIDS!

October 25, 2010  02:28 PM ET

You can't give the big east bid to the WAC.... it's about to be gutted by the MWC.

October 25, 2010  03:21 PM ET
QUOTE(#8):

Doing away with the automatic bids or changing the AQ conferences wouldn't make much of a difference and might make matters worse.

1. Currently the system allows 2 teams at most from each of the 6 AQ conferences to be invited to BCS games. Without this limit (or some form of agreement like the conference affiliations prior to the BCS), bowls would go after teams that are going to travel and ensure advertising dollars for the networks. Odds are, most years, one of the major major conferences would have a shot at 3 of the BCS bowls - the national championship and 2 others. Plus, Notre Dame would only have to be bowl eligible. This doesn't help the non-AQ's at all.

2. They added the separate championship game to accommodate the non-AQ's and it's working. Boise St., TCU, Utah, and Hawaii have played in BCS games over the last few years and there's no evidence this will change as long as they keep winning.

3. Taking the bid from the Big East or ACC and giving it to the MWC won't change anything. (Without Boise St. the WAC doesn't have a chance.) Boise St. and TCU are already getting the invites and the other teams haven't proven worthy.

Excellent points LadyBird.

1. I agree that the purpose of the BCS and the automatic conference bids was to eliminate individual bowls from poaching the best teams and to ensure that each of the Big 6 conferences got some of the money generated by the major bowls. In that respect, the BCS is working exactly as intended.

2. Also agree. non-AQ teams have been given a reasonable opportunity to play in the big money games. It has definitely raised the national stature of Boise, TCU and Utah, as evidenced in the human polls.

3. I can't quite agree here though. The Big East (and ACC as Keeping It Real pointed out) get automatic bids; the conference champion only needs to be bowl eligible and they get to play in the Orange Bowl. Conversely, the MWC and WAC only get an automatic bid if their conference champion is ranked in the top 12, and only the highest ranked non-AQs even gets that.

I agree with JP and TtT. Giving automatic bids to the highest ranked 6 or 7 conference champions would produce better bowl games than the current system. Or possibly forcing all conferences to meet the "conference champion must be ranked in the top 12 to get an automatic bid," the way the non-AQ conferences must do today.

October 25, 2010  03:33 PM ET

Silly Rabbit.

October 25, 2010  04:27 PM ET

Shuffling the AQ bid would actually be a good way to force the system to change. Give the ACC and Big East a few miles in the MWC's and the WAC's shoes to feel just how unfair the current system is.

October 25, 2010  08:54 PM ET
QUOTE(#8):

Doing away with the automatic bids or changing the AQ conferences wouldn't make much of a difference and might make matters worse.1. Currently the system allows 2 teams at most from each of the 6 AQ conferences to be invited to BCS games. Without this limit (or some form of agreement like the conference affiliations prior to the BCS), bowls would go after teams that are going to travel and ensure advertising dollars for the networks. Odds are, most years, one of the major major conferences would have a shot at 3 of the BCS bowls - the national championship and 2 others. Plus, Notre Dame would only have to be bowl eligible. This doesn't help the non-AQ's at all.2. They added the separate championship game to accommodate the non-AQ's and it's working. Boise St., TCU, Utah, and Hawaii have played in BCS games over the last few years and there's no evidence this will change as long as they keep winning.3. Taking the bid from the Big East or ACC and giving it to the MWC won't change anything. (Without Boise St. the WAC doesn't have a chance.) Boise St. and TCU are already getting the invites and the other teams haven't proven worthy.

Yep.

October 25, 2010  09:45 PM ET

"Should the Big East forfeit their BCS bid and give it to the Mountain West?"

Nope. The only fair thing to do here is for the Big East and the ACC to give up their AQ bids, and instead Boyzee and TCU should each get an automatic BCS bid every year, regardless of their records or schedules.

 
October 26, 2010  07:09 AM ET
QUOTE(#19):

"Should the Big East forfeit their BCS bid and give it to the Mountain West?"Nope. The only fair thing to do here is for the Big East and the ACC to give up their AQ bids, and instead Boyzee and TCU should each get an automatic BCS bid every year, regardless of their records or schedules.

I could buy that...

In all seriousness though, if TCU does bolt the MWC for the BE then the BE will be legit. Otherwise its hard to see how the BE will maintain AQ status given on-field results last year and this year unless they turn it around in 2011. The ACC should be safe, if for no other reason than that they have beat up on the BE all year this year.

Comment

Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.


Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    Tuukka Rask takes blame for Bruins' Game 1 loss
    Views
    2375
    Comments
    231
  2. 2
    Clippers, Warriors exchange barbs
    Views
    276
    Comments
    156
  3. 3
    Smush Parker allegedly punches high schooler
    Views
    1926
    Comments
    139
  4. 4
    Quarterback freefalling down draft boards
    Views
    6810
    Comments
    90
  5. 5
    Joel Quenneville's Midnight Hawk favored to win Illinois Derby
    Views
    496
    Comments
    88

SI.com

SI Photos