Archived Topic

Do we need anything more for BCS invite if the Big 12 folds?

by craigoscarson · 6/11/2010

craigoscarson

6/11/2010, 10:19:56 PM

Could the BCS pass us up and just give more to the Pac 16? I wonder what the legal ramifications would be, particularly after being given the criteria.

scott715

6/11/2010, 10:21:31 PM

We now need a BCS to get an invite. If it is there we got one until they change the rules.

CougarPeasant

6/11/2010, 10:29:09 PM

Since the changes don't occur until the next BCS evaluation, it's rather moot at this time. The MWC will have time to establish itself on the field as deserving a BCS AQ bid by then. BSU will mop up in the WAC the next two years with as young as that team is currently.

That being said, if somehow the MWC, without any changes other than adding BSU, is by passed even though it surpasses at least one AQ conference *cough*bigeast*cough*, then legal remedies might be in order.

CannonCougar85

6/11/2010, 11:31:26 PM

craigoscarson wrote:
Could the BCS pass us up and just give more to the Pac 16? I wonder what the legal ramifications would be, particularly after being given the criteria.

This is exactly why I do NOT want the Texas package to leave for the PAC. It is the first step to the 4 super conference playoff which will ruin college football, at least it will for me. The BCS will become even more exclusionary and hide behind the "hey it's a playoff system like you wanted" spin. This is why I am firmly in the belief that saving the Big 12 means saving college football.

But as it sits right now the MWC would slide into that 6th BCS spot if the Big 12 dissolves in 2011. That doesn't mean that they won't change the rules up to continue to exclude the MWC though.

Schmoe

6/12/2010, 12:42:15 AM

CougarPeasant wrote:
Since the changes don't occur until the next BCS evaluation, it's rather moot at this time.

Actually, if the other five take the invite to the PAC, the Big XII could be gone as soon as next season since the two year waiting period would be nullified, which would mean they would need replacing in their BCS contracts in 2011, a year before the reevaluation occurs.

CougarClaw

6/12/2010, 2:01:15 AM

Schmoe wrote:
Since the changes don't occur until the next BCS evaluation, it's rather moot at this time.

Actually, if the other five take the invite to the PAC, the Big XII could be gone as soon as next season since the two year waiting period would be nullified, which would mean they would need replacing in their BCS contracts in 2011, a year before the reevaluation occurs.

are you saying the MWC would simply take that slot? That doesn't sound like something the BCS would allow to happen, I must have misunderstood.

imuakahuku

6/12/2010, 2:47:57 AM

So if a few of the remaining B-12 move to the MWC and the MWC decides to be the B-12 are we in? And do we get out of the MTN contract?

My hope is that the rest stay in the B-12 and us and CSU or AF get invited to join. I would love TCU except the just don't have the $ to merit consideration. I am not sure AF would be better than CSU if CSU were to join. I do know that CSU would become much better and CU in a few years after joining so it would be a fairly good upgrade. As for AF, inclusion does virtually nothing for their recruiting so I don't think you would see a change but just a tougher schedule. I do think both these teams would finish in the middle of the North on a fairly consistent basis in a few years. And BYU would be a perrenial favorite to win the North.

Mars

6/12/2010, 2:56:27 AM

CougarPeasant wrote:
Since the changes don't occur until the next BCS evaluation, it's rather moot at this time. The MWC will have time to establish itself on the field as deserving a BCS AQ bid by then. BSU will mop up in the WAC the next two years with as young as that team is currently.

Boise State will only play 1 more year in the WAC, then in the MWC starting in 2011.

And right now I think it's a 95% chance that the MWC becomes a BCS conference (one or more of these 3 ways)...

1- We get in by petition, as we finish ahead of the Big Ten and ACC.

2- We get in automatically, as the Big XII disappears and we then meet all of the criteria.

3- We sign with the Fiesta bowl once the Big XII dissolves.

Florwood

6/12/2010, 4:38:57 AM

Mars wrote:
Boise State will only play 1 more year in the WAC, then in the MWC starting in 2012.

[/color]

I think that "one more year" is this year, and they start in the MWC in 2011. The press release says "The Mountain West Conference announced today that Boise State University has accepted an invitation to join the MWC as its 10th member institution, effective July 1, 2011. "

Schmoe

6/12/2010, 5:39:58 AM

CougarClaw wrote:
CougarPeasant wrote:
Since the changes don't occur until the next BCS evaluation, it's rather moot at this time.

Actually, if the other five take the invite to the PAC, the Big XII could be gone as soon as next season since the two year waiting period would be nullified, which would mean they would need replacing in their BCS contracts in 2011, a year before the reevaluation occurs.

are you saying the MWC would simply take that slot? That doesn't sound like something the BCS would allow to happen, I must have misunderstood.

If the Big XII dissolves then there will be an open spot on the BCS table, who the hell else are they going to give it to?

Mars

6/12/2010, 9:37:16 AM

Schmoe wrote:
If the Big XII dissolves then there will be an open spot on the BCS table, who the hell else are they going to give it to?

Technically there won't be, as the BCS certifies a minimum of 5 leagues. But the Big XII's overall conference numbers, which are ahead of the MWC's, will disappear, moving us up a spot into auto-qualifying grounds. And the Fiesta bowl will be looking for a new partner. And the Big east could disappear soon as well, and that WOULD create a space that would need to be filled.

CAFB_04-12

6/12/2010, 10:30:48 AM

I think that Texas and a new PAC-16 argues that it should have 2 automatic bids. And with Texas, and not now-disgraced USC calling the shots in the PAC-16, my money is on Texas.

craigoscarson

6/12/2010, 3:37:37 PM

CAFB_04-12 wrote:
I think that Texas and a new PAC-16 argues that it should have 2 automatic bids. And with Texas, and not now-disgraced USC calling the shots in the PAC-16, my money is on Texas.

Then at that point, the MWC has grounds for a mega $ lawsuit... once the BCS gave the mwc criteria and paperwork to join, they also entered into a contractual type of agreement. If the MWC meets that criteria and the BCS claims that the rules hacve changed, then there will be lawyers all over this.

Once the dust settles, the MWC needs to petition for an exclusion and threaten litigation if they dont' accept.

scott715

6/12/2010, 3:46:36 PM

The BCS folds and a new entity takes its place.

snoscythe

6/12/2010, 3:52:47 PM

craigoscarson wrote:
I think that Texas and a new PAC-16 argues that it should have 2 automatic bids. And with Texas, and not now-disgraced USC calling the shots in the PAC-16, my money is on Texas.

Then at that point, the MWC has grounds for a mega $ lawsuit... once the BCS gave the mwc criteria and paperwork to join, they also entered into a contractual type of agreement. If the MWC meets that criteria and the BCS claims that the rules hacve changed, then there will be lawyers all over this.

Once the dust settles, the MWC needs to petition for an exclusion and threaten litigation if they dont' accept.

I believe you meant to say IN-clusion--I doubt the BCS would refuse a petition for EX-clusion.

craigoscarson

6/12/2010, 4:23:50 PM

snoscythe wrote:
CAFB_04-12 wrote:
I think that Texas and a new PAC-16 argues that it should have 2 automatic bids. And with Texas, and not now-disgraced USC calling the shots in the PAC-16, my money is on Texas.

Then at that point, the MWC has grounds for a mega $ lawsuit... once the BCS gave the mwc criteria and paperwork to join, they also entered into a contractual type of agreement. If the MWC meets that criteria and the BCS claims that the rules hacve changed, then there will be lawyers all over this.

Once the dust settles, the MWC needs to petition for an exclusion and threaten litigation if they dont' accept.

I believe you meant to say IN-clusion--I doubt the BCS would refuse a petition for EX-clusion.

no, the petition was for an exclusion to the BCS criteria if we're close (read the entire paragraph)... which we've been discussing on this forum. (law students....) which in this case is the only way an exclusion would be something favorable....

I'll forgive you this time Brad, my baby brother is a Cornell educated silicon valley attorney (wilson sonsini) and he thought he was a know-it-all during law school too ;) Course, all I have to do is discuss neurophysiology around him and he shuts up.

CougarClaw

6/12/2010, 4:38:19 PM

scott715 wrote:
The BCS folds and a new entity takes its place.

This is what I think will happen.

Except the new BS entity will be run by virtually the same people, in virtually the same places. Sounds like Iran changing ship names to avoid UN embargoes. Why the hell not?

craigoscarson

6/12/2010, 4:47:01 PM

While I do agree with the above, that the big conferences would likely push to destroy the BCS and create a new system; I think that they'd be on very thin ice to attempt to exclude the MWC, particularly if TCU and BSU make national championship caliber pushes this year. (and both could do it since they're not playing each other)

The MWC will get credit for what Boise does this next season, in spite of not having to compete with us; the Pac 16 schools might not have a front runner. USC has some chinks in the armor (and has no post season chances.. does Lane Kiffin really not redshirt his freshmen studs? why waste them on a lame duck season?), Oklahoma is rebuilding, Texas is going to be strong, but is rebuilding some positions (in fact Nebraska and Missouri might have the most talent in the current Big 12), and there's not a single Pac 10 team that can survive their schedules.

Boise and TCU have a really good shot at being in the top 4-5 (or better) all season.

How do you exclude the MWC if Boise and TCU make NC runs next season and every team in the future Pac 16 finishes behind them? (think we can talk the Colts into letting TCU have Jerry Hughes back for a post grad year?)

If there ever was a year for all MWC teams to pull out all stops and win their OOC games, it'd be this upcoming season. We can cash in on all this upheaval. Nebraska and Missouri could also help make a mess (they'll both be very good next season)

blue42

6/12/2010, 5:14:32 PM

craigoscarson wrote:
While I do agree with the above, that the big conferences would likely push to destroy the BCS and create a new system;

USC has some chinks in the armor (and has no post season chances.. does Lane Kiffin really not redshirt his freshmen studs? why waste them on a lame duck season?),

I have had this fear from the beginning the scenario about creating a new system because of the super conferences and now the "playoff" they would have would give them even more power to exclude the non AQ schools.

Good point about USC redshirting all his freshmen, but he may not have the luxury to do it if there are enough juniors and seniors that jump ship, he may have to play his freshmen.

Jarhead

6/12/2010, 5:49:30 PM

So I keep seeing this online: "NCAA rules state that a conference must have at least six teams with five years of playing experience together, so the remaining five big twelve teams would likely have to separate to find homes."

Is there any reason why the Mountain West can't merge into the Big Twelve and dissolve the Mountain West? The Mountain West would provide the 6 teams of five years playing experience together.

I'm not sure I like the idea, but is this a possibility?

Page 1 of 2

This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.