|
|
Post by 94sdsu on Jun 15, 2010 22:39:03 GMT -8
With Utah leaving before the July 1 deadline, their wins / ranking the last couple of seasons now will belong to the Pac 12 just as BSU's now belong to the MWC right?
How does losing these affect us in that stupid BCS AQ scheme?
|
|
|
|
Post by dshawfan on Jun 16, 2010 5:23:32 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Aztec89 on Jun 16, 2010 5:44:32 GMT -8
The most profound effect is that the BCS has stuck a pacifier in Orin Hatches mouth. Will this halt Congressional attempts to abolish the BCS and it's anti trust Cartel? Or just delay the inevitable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2010 5:51:02 GMT -8
The most profound effect is that the BCS has stuck a pacifier in Orin Hatches mouth. Will this halt Congressional attempts to abolish the BCS and it's anti trust Cartel? Or just delay the inevitable. The good thing is that his constituency still includes BYU. But who knows how active BYU alumni are in politics? It would definitely be ironic if he succeeded in breaking up the BCS just as Utah gained admittance to a BCS conference. |
|
|
|
Post by haleiwaaztec on Jun 16, 2010 7:24:44 GMT -8
If Utah informs the MWC by Sept 1st that they intend to leave and are therefore part of the Pac 10 for the 2011 season, then their 'stats' would not count for the MWC. BSU was different in that the WAC required them to annouce by July 1 if they were leaving (to join the MWC for the 2011 season). According to Craig Thompson. "All the MWC requires of the Utes is that they inform the league by Sept. 1 that they are departing" |
|
|
|
Post by Fred Noonan on Jun 16, 2010 7:37:55 GMT -8
Well, I never believed that they would really let us in. Hence the third prong of their so called test-- how well the bottom of the conference does. My thought has been that when the time actually came to let us in they'd do what any other market cartel would do and come up with some reason to keep us out. I think that Utah in the PacWhatever affords them that reason. The Fred Noonan School of Navigation.  |
|
|
|
Post by aztecpaulg on Jun 16, 2010 8:07:35 GMT -8
No one can blame Utah for leaving. State would do it in a heart beat. If Utah leaves us with the gift of playing in the MWC through 2011, then, I will have zero hard feeling. They would leave us with the gift of an AQ for a couple of years.
There's hope this might happen. Colorado doesn't begin play in the PAC 12 until 2012. Haven't teams always joined the PAC in duos?
|
|
|
|
Post by goaztecs on Jun 16, 2010 8:09:02 GMT -8
Boise is better than Utah in football so I still see us as BCS material.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fred Noonan on Jun 16, 2010 8:50:57 GMT -8
I guess I'd put it more like this: Having gotten together to allocate the marketplace in such a fashion as to maximize the monetary return, why would the BCS now decide to let the MWC share in the pot? The whole point of market domination/allocation is to keep the $$ where you want them, so having been successful in doing so why would you relent? If you look at it from a "football fairness" perspective of who has the better team, who is deserving, what games would fans enjoy, etc. then sure losing Utah won't impact the equation. Boise just about equalizes the conference back out. But, I just do not believe it is about "fairness" and competition on the field. Call me a cynic but it's all about the money, and that's it. Bottom line. The Fred Noonan School of Navigation. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2010 8:58:41 GMT -8
Well, I never believed that they would really let us in. Hence the third prong of their so called test-- how well the bottom of the conference does. Frankly, I don't think that third prong is at all unfair. Too many MWC supporters use tunnel vision in comparing the top half of our conference with the top half of the Big East. While it certainly compares very favorably, the Sagarins - or whatever standard is used - of the bottom half of the MWC are drastically lower than those of the bottom half of the Big East. Sorry, but it's my mantra: the dregs of the Mountain West, including our beloved Aztecs, really need to pick it up. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2010 9:04:45 GMT -8
I'm sure Utah leaving hurts the BCS AQ attempt but we obviously won't know how much until we find out exactly when they're leaving. But really, how much do we, SDSU, affect our BCS AQ attempt? With 6 wins over two years, we have been dragging down the conference. Utah would be going to a conference where it wouldn't be weighed down by laggards.
As Fred Noonan alluded to, I believe we're (along with UNLV and New Mexico) more important to the BCS AQ status than Utah.
EDIT: SGF, didn't see your post
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecpaulg on Jun 16, 2010 9:23:50 GMT -8
Fred, I think you're spot on this is all about greed. Why I think the MWC will get into the BCS is because the power six will make more money long term by including us than they will by trying to exclude us. In the MWC you have every non-BCS teams which year after year show the BS about the BCS. If they include us the detractors of the system go away and they can keep the money. Diving the pie with 10 more teams is a lot better than diving it with 50 more schools.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fred Noonan on Jun 16, 2010 9:23:53 GMT -8
Well, I never believed that they would really let us in. Hence the third prong of their so called test-- how well the bottom of the conference does. Frankly, I don't think that third prong is at all unfair. Too many MWC supporters use tunnel vision in comparing the top half of our conference with the top half of the Big East. While it certainly compares very favorably, the Sagarins - or whatever standard is used - of the bottom half of the MWC are drastically lower than those of the bottom half of the Big East. Sorry, but it's my mantra: the dregs of the Mountain West, including our beloved Aztecs, really need to pick it up. SGF I certainly agree with you that we need to pick it up. We are indeed what's holding back whatever chance we have to better ourselves as a conference. It's just that I don't think it's about competitive fairness. Were it a fairness system whereby teams were rewarded based on merit then yes, we are the problem. But that's not what we have. It's market allocation, tying up the money and using SDSU, et. al., as a convenient reason to justify it. Our lack of competitiveness is a smokescreen for keeping people out of their market system. Oh, and yes to repeat you are one hundred percent correct, we need to pick it up. But, even if the system were based on fairness and merit we'd still be out in the cold. The Fred Noonan School of Navigation. |
|
|
|
Post by dshawfan on Jun 16, 2010 9:59:38 GMT -8
Nail/Head
They ain't sharing the $$$$ with the likes of us.
|
|
|
|
Post by texasaztec on Jun 16, 2010 10:49:56 GMT -8
I just hope that the MWC has another kiss ### year against top competition. I agree with Fred's cynicism, so I would love to FORCE the issue.
Better yet, let's just have a playoff!
|
|
|
|
Post by rickdoerr on Jun 16, 2010 11:00:11 GMT -8
Assuming Fred's right for the moment what is the future of the MWC and SDSU? If the decision to accept the MWC, whole or in part, is going to be decided in corporate boardrooms is there really a future? The problem with qualifying for a BCS bowl game is the rich will continue to get richer which would allow for even greater recruitment. This I'd think would continue to widen the competitive gap. And as Dshawfann sez "they ain't sharing the $$$ with the likes of us." So, is there really a future?
|
|
|
|
Post by sdsuaztecs on Jun 16, 2010 11:32:27 GMT -8
Until ESPN or FOX or CBS offer up a billion $$$$ or so at some point in the future for a true playoff system , there will be a lot of puffing going on in BCS board rooms for the forseeable future. Texas revealed the true colors of the BCS....greed, greed and more greed.
|
|
|
|
Post by dshawfan on Jun 16, 2010 11:38:10 GMT -8
As long as the BCS exists we are left with the scraps they throw our way. Now this is not to say that one cannot build an outstanding program as the Big 3 in the MWC have or as BSU has done in the WAC, but even they are forced to accept the system as it is. Until the BCS is dismantled, the system sucks for us as far as getting to "play the game on equal footing."
|
|
|
|
Post by dshawfan on Jun 16, 2010 12:02:54 GMT -8
The most profound effect is that the BCS has stuck a pacifier in Orin Hatches mouth. Will this halt Congressional attempts to abolish the BCS and it's anti trust Cartel? Or just delay the inevitable. Well I think he attended BYU; if so, then that can't hurt. Problem is, the guy's pretty old. If he's gonna try to exert whatever influence a Utah senator might have, he'd better hurry. JYP is correct. Senator Hatch graduated from BYU many, many years ago. So I would think as a BYU alum that he would be bit upset about Utah being invited to the Big Dance while his Cougs are left outside in the rain. I would think he would continue to stir up whatever hornets he is able to. hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Biography.FastFacts |
|
|
|
Post by sancarlosaztec on Jun 16, 2010 12:03:36 GMT -8
Have to side with the Noonanator. The BCS was never going to let us in anyway. With Utah gone things will be easier for them. I suspect that was the underlying motive in all these schenanigans anyway.
Big XII lost Nebraska, but they were compensated by the Pac10 taking CU and by an improved TV contract terms from ESPN.
Pesky MWC knocked down a few levels.
What might screw the BCS is if SDSU, UNLV, UNM, & Wyo programs right themselves. Even if that happens it is too late for this AQ eval period.
Unless enough political and monetary clout can be aggregated and applied to the situation on behalf of the MWC the BCS will never let us in.
|
|
