With Texas A&M most likely leaving the Big 12, should the BCS redo AQ conferences?

[Davi323]

Basically, this is a simple debate. Was talking about this yesterday with a buddy, and we got into a nice discussion about the BCS and how it relates to teams switching conferences. With the likelihood of the Aggies leaving the Big 12 for the SEC, that would leave the Big 12 with only 9 teams, and could possibly lead to more teams defecting in the next few years. Is there a point where the Big 12 should no longer count as an automatic qualifier conference? If they drop down to 9, should their AQ be converted to another at-large bid instead? Should they keep it as long as Texas and Oklahoma are in it? Practically speaking, without Nebraska, there are only two real football programs in the entire conference. Sure, others pop up for a year or two at a time, but they have not been able to sustain any kind of success. But, are two legit programs enough to ensure the entire conference gets the special treatment a BCS AQ does?

Personally, I think there should be a 10 team minimum for a BCS automatic qualifying conference. Not only would I strip the Big 12 of their AQ, but I would also strip it from the Big East, which only has 8. Essentially, it comes to numbers. It is a whole lot easier to win a conference of 8 or 9 than it is to win in a conference of 12. It's really just that simple. That doesn't mean that teams from the A&M-less Big 12 or Big East can't get invited to BCS bowl games, just that they should have to get them as at large bids. Their conferences simply aren't strong enough with the reduced number of teams to qualify automatically. I also think that with the Big 12, it might not even matter in a few years. It is entirely possible that within the next 5-10 years, the Big 12 could collapse entirely, and Texas and Oklahoma get their own TV deals and become independents like Notre Dame. The Big 12 will have a hard time recovering from the attrition that is going on.

 

[Big Sexy]

Should they? Yes. Will they? No. Like everything in college football it's all about the money. As long as Texas and Oklahoma are in the Big 12 then they will remain an AQ conference. The Big East has continued to stay as one so the Big 12 sure as hell will. The only way it would change would be if Texas and Oklahoma both left and that seems unlikely at this point. The scenario that is most likely to happen is A&M leaving and then a school like BYU coming in to take over the tenth spot.

 

[Davi323]

That's part of the issue though...Texas is getting it's own network. They will have money rolling in, without or without the Big 12. With only 9 teams, what incentive does Texas have to remain? What stops them or Oklahoma from going independent? With their reputations, all they would have to do is be in the top 12, and they would get the same sweetheart consideration Notre Dame gets for BCS At large bids. The Big 12 is rapidly becoming irrelevant, and if either Texas, Oklahoma or both decided to do their own thing, as a conference, it would be completely dismantled.

PS... RIP KILLER.

 

[Big Sexy]

That's part of the issue though...Texas is getting it's own network. They will have money rolling in, without or without the Big 12. With only 9 teams, what incentive does Texas have to remain? What stops them or Oklahoma from going independent? With their reputations, all they would have to do is be in the top 12, and they would get the same sweetheart consideration Notre Dame gets for BCS At large bids. The Big 12 is rapidly becoming irrelevant, and if either Texas, Oklahoma or both decided to do their own thing, as a conference, it would be completely dismantled.

PS... RIP KILLER.

It's definitely a possibility but I'd say it's more likely they stay in the conference rather then leave. One reason Texas would want to stay rather then leave is because their schedule is going to be easier in the Big 12 then it will be as an independent. Oklahoma is really their only competition on a yearly basis. If Texas leaves though it's only a matter of time until Oklahoma follows suit and that is the end of the Big 12.

 

[Slyfox696]

For me, it's really simple. As long as the Big East and ACC get to keep their Automatic Qualifying bids, then so does the Big 12. If the Big 12 doesn't get their shit together and falls apart, then it won't matter. But as long as they are a conference, and those other schools get AQ bids, then so does the Big 12.

 

[The Bearded One]

For me, it's really simple. As long as the Big East and ACC get to keep their Automatic Qualifying bids, then so does the Big 12. If the Big 12 doesn't get their shit together and falls apart, then it won't matter. But as long as they are a conference, and those other schools get AQ bids, then so does the Big 12.

I understand you mentioning the Big East, but why the ACC? Just curious.

Without going into why college football should have a playoff system, I'll try my best to answer the question. I think conferences should have to have a championship game to be an automatic qualifier, that way teams would have to prove that they deserve to automatically go to a BCS game by winning their conference. It's, in essence, a one-game in-conference play-off to ensure a BCS bowl game. Conferences that do not have a conference championship game should not have automatic qualifiers, and, for at least this year, that includes the Big 12.

 

[Slyfox696]

I understand you mentioning the Big East, but why the ACC? Just curious.

Why not the ACC? Has there been a more overrated conference than the ACC over the course of the last 5 or 10 years? At least no one expects the Big East to be good. The ACC's three biggest named schools (FSU, Miami and Va Tech) haven't been legitimate title contenders in nearly a decade, and even then Miami and Va Tech were both Big East at the time. FSU hasn't been relevant since they last won the title back in 2000.

Why not the ACC?

Without going into why college football should have a playoff system, I'll try my best to answer the question. I think conferences should have to have a championship game to be an automatic qualifier, that way teams would have to prove that they deserve to automatically go to a BCS game by winning their conference. It's, in essence, a one-game in-conference play-off to ensure a BCS bowl game. Conferences that do not have a conference championship game should not have automatic qualifiers, and, for at least this year, that includes the Big 12.

The only problem with a championship game determining who goes to BCS is if a team like Mizzou beats Oklahoma (if, of course, the Big 12 had a conference championship)...Mizzou will lose 3 or 4 games this year, and Oklahoma may win 10 games. Even as a huge Mizzou fan, there's no way I can justify Mizzou deserving a BCS bid (well, I could considering they got screwed out of one a few years ago, but moving on...) as a 3 or 4 loss team coming out of a terribly weak North division.

 

[Shocky]

If the current Big IIX loses Texas A&M for good, then they still deserve to have an automatic AQ to the BCS regardless. A conference with just Texas and Oklahoma is still going to matter. The Big 12 is still the 4th best conference in the country, ahead of the ACC and BEast. Now, when Oklahoma decides to leave in the next week or two (it's going to happen), then all bets are off.

As far as the ACC vs. the BEast, my completely biased opinion is that the BEast is a better conference overall. The ACC has this perceived edge over the BEast for whatever reason, but when it comes to games on the field, the BEast has won the head to head matchups since the current BEast teams began play.

Also, the ACC has only won one BCS bowl game since 1999 if I remember right. Not that the BEast is a world beater, but they've won more then one if I recall right. The ACC is over rated because of the names on the front of the jerseys. The anti Big East propaganda started because of UConn making a bowl game last year, but everyone tends to forget that the undefeated Cincinnati team from a year earlier was a missed field goal away from playing for the national championship.

That's all a mute point regardless, by the time the SEC and Big 10 are done expanding to 16 teams (it's going to happen), the left overs of the BEast and ACC are just going to form the Big Atlantic Conference anyway.

 

[Davi323]

That's all a mute point regardless, by the time the SEC and Big 10 are done expanding to 16 teams (it's going to happen), the left overs of the BEast and ACC are just going to form the Big Atlantic Conference anyway.

Yeah...I think its obvious to college football fans who paid attention last year when all of the initial expansion talk was hot and heavy, that this is the direction that we are headed in...It seems almost inevitable that we are going to end up with 4 16-team super conferences that form out of the 6 BCS conferences raiding teams from each other and successful mid-major conferences. Further, the 4 super conference champions will then be semi-finalists in a 4-team national championship playoff. There will be no Notre Dame clause in whatever succeeds the BCS, because Notre Dame is going to be forced into a conference at some point. The next 10-15 years are probably going to change college football forever. Super conferences, the end of the BCS, and the creation of a real playoff, with a real non-mythical national championship.

 

[Kermit]

I live in Oklahoma and the word on the street is that the Big 12 is done. OU, OSU, and Texas will probably be heading towards the Pac-12. We will probably see the rise of super conferences with 16 teams, and a conference playoff.

Texas is too greedy, and AM is too stupid. AM overplayed their hand and now are being a prima donna in this situation. The Big 12 is a good thing, and the travel schedule within it makes sense. Anywhere else Texas and Oklahoma teams don't really fit well into any other conference (travel wise). I think a trip to the Pac-12 would be fine, as long as Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Texas all stay together I am cool with it.

 

[Davi323]

I live in Oklahoma and the word on the street is that the Big 12 is done. OU, OSU, and Texas will probably be heading towards the Pac-12. We will probably see the rise of super conferences with 16 teams, and a conference playoff.

Texas is too greedy, and AM is too stupid. AM overplayed their hand and now are being a prima donna in this situation. The Big 12 is a good thing, and the travel schedule within it makes sense. Anywhere else Texas and Oklahoma teams don't really fit well into any other conference (travel wise). I think a trip to the Pac-12 would be fine, as long as Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Texas all stay together I am cool with it.

If Texas, OSU and Oklahoma bolt for the Pac 12, you can bet that the Big Ten would then grab Kansas and at least Missouri for themselves. (more for basketball than football). The Big XII is dying.

 

[Slyfox696]

If Texas, OSU and Oklahoma bolt for the Pac 12, you can bet that the Big Ten would then grab Kansas and at least Missouri for themselves. (more for basketball than football). The Big XII is dying.

The Big Ten already had the chance to take Missouri and Kansas. Hell, Missouri practically begged the Big Ten to take them and they refused. As a Missouri fan, I'm not at all comfortable with the idea of Texas and Oklahoma leaving, because I have no idea where that would leave us.

 

[Davi323]

They originally just wanted to use expansion as leverage against Notre Dame. Make no mistake about it, the end game is, and always will be, getting the Irish into the fold. Getting Nebraska was a great second choice, but it was second choice. While they had little interest in Missouri and Kansas while the Big XII was expected to stay strong, if Texas and OU bolt for the PAC 12, essentially destroying the conference, it will be a free for all, in which case adding them would make more sense. Assuming that the Texas and OU to the PAC 12 rumors are not unsubstantiated, you are going to have teams looking for new homes. The Big Ten will not sit by and let the PAC 12 and SEC absorb them and become the only 16 team super conferences, they would get into the action too, they would practically have to. I just can't see them sitting idly by. Yeah, they originally only wanted to add one or two teams, and got Nebraska...but the circumstances would be substantially different if/when the Big XII dissolves, I think they would snatch up Kansas and Missouri in a heartbeat, if they became available due to the dissolution of the Big XII.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

I think the reason Mizzou got rebuffed was because it would have taken the big ten to 13 teams, when you need an even number to have a proper conference with a title game.

Also, no offense, but im unsure as to if Mizzou's academics are up to the level they need to be to be coveted by the Big Ten.

It appears of this, we will have the big four. The Pac 16 (or 14), the SEC with the addition of 2 or 4 teams, and the a combination of the teams lef to over from the Big East and ACC after those two conferences are throughly poached.

I have heard The Big Ten will go after Rutgers, VA Tech, Maryland, and Duke(the announced such intentions the last time this was all hinted at...All fit the academic profile of the Big Ten, and their desire to invade east coast TV markets and time zone)

SEC likely takes up TAMU, Mizzou, FSU, and Clemson (these were the four named to be targeted the last round of talks)

PAC 16 consists of OK, OKST, UT, and TX Tech. I have a feeling UT may go independant though, so just the Oklahoma teams will be heading west (ironic, lulz)....Which may leave TX Tech to the MWC, and if the MWC can gain a few more formidable teams, in addtion to TX Tech and Boise, they may just be given a BCS berth?

The 4th AQ conference will be the also-rans from ACC and Big East armageddon. Which will be a pretty damn solid conference really (Miami, South Florida, North Carolina, West Virginia, Georgia Tech, Cincinatti.....among others)

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

I think the reason Mizzou got rebuffed was because it would have taken the big ten to 13 teams, when you need an even number to have a proper conference with a title game.

Also, no offense, but im unsure as to if Mizzou's academics are up to the level they need to be to be coveted by the Big Ten.

It appears of this, we will have the big four. The Pac 16 (or 14), the SEC with the addition of 2 or 4 teams, and the a combination of the teams lef to over from the Big East and ACC after those two conferences are throughly poached.

I have heard The Big Ten will go after Rutgers, VA Tech, Maryland, and Duke(the announced such intentions the last time this was all hinted at...All fit the academic profile of the Big Ten, and their desire to invade east coast TV markets and time zone)

SEC likely takes up TAMU, Mizzou, FSU, and Clemson (these were the four named to be targeted the last round of talks)

PAC 16 consists of OK, OKST, UT, and TX Tech. I have a feeling UT may go independant though, so just the Oklahoma teams will be heading west (ironic, lulz)....Which may leave TX Tech to the MWC, and if the MWC can gain a few more formidable teams, in addtion to TX Tech and Boise, they may just be given a BCS berth?

The 4th AQ conference will be the also-rans from ACC and Big East armageddon. Which will be a pretty damn solid conference really (Miami, South Florida, North Carolina, West Virginia, Georgia Tech, Cincinatti.....among others)

Since when is the Big Ten this academic giant? I've gone to school with PLENTY of dumbasses who have attended Purdue, IU, and Michigan State. Northwestern and Michigan...yes: big academics. But if some of the rumdums I know can get into college at IU...then Missouri deserves to be in the Big 10 academically.

And I think the Mountain West would eventually have gotten consideration if TCU hadn't gone to the Big East. TCU + Boise every year is huge.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Since when is the Big Ten this academic giant? I've gone to school with PLENTY of dumbasses who have attended Purdue, IU, and Michigan State. Northwestern and Michigan...yes: big academics. But if some of the rumdums I know can get into college at IU...then Missouri deserves to be in the Big 10 academically.

Um, since forever? The academic standings among the top tier College Conferences isnt based on "A few rumdums" that you know. Its a big part of the reason that the conference is one of the most (hilariously) snobbish conferences in the nation, behind only maybe the SEC (although the SEC for VERY different reasons, I think reading "Horton Hears a Who" counts as academics in the SEC)

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

Um, since forever? The academic standings among the top tier College Conferences isnt based on "A few rumdums" that you know. Its a big part of the reason that the conference is one of the most (hilariously) snobbish conferences in the nation, behind only maybe the SEC (although the SEC for VERY different reasons, I think reading "Horton Hears a Who" counts as academics in the SEC)

I always considered the Pac-10 or 12 or whatever the hell it is to be a more academically elite conference than the Big 10. I always considered the Big 10 to be part of the "good ole boys" society, with a lot of academic and familial incest.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

I always considered the Pac-10 or 12 or whatever the hell it is to be a more academically elite conference than the Big 10. I always considered the Big 10 to be part of the "good ole boys" society, with a lot of academic and familial incest.

Not even close, actually. Of the big boys, the Big Ten is by far and away the most academically prestigous, above the ACC, then the big east. Pac 12 and SEC round out the bottom

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

Admittedly, I was simply going by the academic reputations of Stanford, UCLA, USC, and Cal. Are you suggesting that the academics at the other schools are relatively shit? Those are some top notch institutions.

And thanks to Norcal's rep, I am reminded that the quintessential scholar and gentleman, Scott Steiner, attended the University of Michigan. I can't believe I underestimated the Big Ten's academic prowess.