Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Jkel
It still goes back to money in the end......Most smaller school, if not all, play bigger schools for one reason....MONEY. North Texas, Kent State etc....receive upwards of a million dollars for playing Alabama and for a smaller school wanting to come up that is the best revenue generator in the world. Same with other conferences sceduling smaller schools etc.....all about the money. Sure it is non-competitive, but NOT all the time...See Al-La Monroe, Michigan- App State, sometimes they actually win on the field.
|
The small schools are willing to get led to slaughter for the money of course. Why else would they do it? It's rarely competitive. The small schools winning is an anomaly. The big schools schedule them to fill holes in their schedule with cupcakes so they don't hurt their rankings.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dr Jkel
This Big 12 issue is no different..From the outside looking in it appears that the conference members feel Texas has an unfair advantage with the LHN, and a decided financial edge. I really do not think it affects OU, Ok St, and the bigger schools but the smaller ones in the conference are feeling it the most.
|
Why should UT hamstring themselves when they're one of the most marketable and profitable brands in the country? The Big 12 didn't have the foresight to create a network, UT tried to get one started with other schools, they all said no, so UT made their own. Why should they have to share that money? They shouldn't, and they won't.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dr Jekl
In this BCS era teams are all about winning their conference, especially when their conferences are strong
|
College football has ALWAYS been about winning your conference. Before the BCS it was probably the most important thing. There are no biased polls to decide the winner, it was always decided on the field, and that's what mattered to teams.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dr Jekl
NONE of it is fair and don't make that mistake of thinking it is. Here is why I say that. Right now you have several conference championship games, but not all........Take the Big 12 this year, Big 10 and Pac 10 last year...they do not have a conference championship game......a decided advantage for them especially if they are in the running......The extra game is a BIG risk, for injuries etc....McElroy got his ribs broke in the game with Florida....and it was so obviuos that it affected him in the BCS N/C game.
|
I completely disagree. In fact, more times than not having a conference championship game helps more than it hurts. That extra week to bolster the winner's rankings while the other teams sit idle is a tremendous benefit. Take LSU for example. When they won the NC they had no shot of even playing in the NC game if they don't play that extra week and leapfrog over several teams to land at the #2 spot. The extra week also gives teams less of a layoff between the season and their bowl games.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dr Jekl
The new super conferences are coming and then you will basically have 64 teams fighting it out from 4 conferences......Do you really think that each conference will have the 64 best schools? Not even close.....SEE SEC this year....Ole Miss, Auburn, Miss St, Ole Miss.....Sure some of them have not lost...YET
But it will be interesting to see how it all plays out.....
|
I hope we don't go to 16 team conferences. We'll just have to wait and see.