Subject: College Football 2010
Posted by: BxBarracuda
Date: Jun 02 10
Welcome back to the College Football discussion, 2010 edition, the 2008 thread has been retired after an extended run. Thanks to all who took part in that thread.
Posted by: BxBarracuda
Date: Jun 02 10
Welcome back to the College Football discussion, 2010 edition, the 2008 thread has been retired after an extended run. Thanks to all who took part in that thread.
879 replies. On page 1 of 44 pages. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
BxBarracuda 
|
I know it’s a bit early to be talking College Football, but with the rumblings regarding conference expansions, I thought it merited a short discussion. First talk of conference expansions that made national news was from the Big 10 and their wishes to expand. The four teams mentioned as being in their sights were Notre Dame (Independent), Rutgers (Big East), Missouri (Big 12) and Nebraska (Big 12). Notre Dame, with the personal TV contract they have with NBC, has always been fiercely Independent and Rutgers would be by far the furthest East the Mid-Western based Big 10 has ventured for a team. Poaching from the Big 12 could be a big deal, and the two teams in question have been to the Conference Championships in the last two years. The only time I have seen two major conferences like the Big 10 and Big 12 have schools jump from one to the other in recent memory was the jumping of some schools to the ACC from the Big East. Both of those conferences are known more for their basketball teams and the teams involved, if I remember correctly, were known more for their football teams then basketball teams. I would be surprised if Notre Dame gave up their independence or an East Coast team like Rutgers switched to a Mid Western based conference. I would be surprised if either of the Big 12 teams moved to the Big 10 and if one or both of them did, I could see some other major conferences scrambling to pick up schools to match the Big 10s added power. The other, more recent and more intriguing rumors are of Boise State, Fresno State and Nevada possibly moving to the Mountain West Conference from the WAC. Boise State is a ranked team the last few years and Fresno State and Nevada are Bowl teams. Mountain West Conference has TCU, BYU and Utah as ranked teams and Wyoming and Air Force as added Bowl teams. The addition of these elite football programs of the WAC to the MWC should easily move the Mountain West Conference should easily make it a Automatic BCS Bowl conference and I would think better then the current ACC and Big East, who are Automatic BCS Bowl conferences. I would be sad to see the WAC lose a lot of the conferences football strength, basically, pardon the pun, leaving Hawaii out there on an island to lead the conference in Football. Any once else know of some other talk about teams changing their conference affiliations or have thoughts on these two, let’s hear them. Reply #1. Jun 02 10, 6:25 PM |
hovenaut
|
Plenty going on in the off-season. Clearly the top story being conference expansions - Big 10 the headliner - what, who, and when they decide upon will no doubt lay the domino effect on the other conferences. Wish Notre Dame (and NBC) seriously consider the Big 10, they're playing Big 10 schools regularly enough, and are a geographic and academic fit. I know Missouri, and to a lesser extent Nebraska, would fit just as well, just think ND is the better match. What/where Boise State does/goes should be followed, think they are a bona-fide title contender this year, imo. Eager to hear the NCAA's report on it's investigation into USC's football and basketball programs. Plenty of talk on the football side surrounding Reggie Bush and improper benefits he received while there - USC could find itself stripped of all wins in 04 and 05 - including the 04 National Championship. Findings could be released Friday. Reply #2. Jun 03 10, 1:31 PM |
| BxBarracuda
|
Looks like Boise State and some other WAC teams moving to Mountain West is not going to happen. That was the only merger I was looking forward to. The other conferences are all ready the cream of the crop. If the rest of the conferences don't make any changes after all the talk this offseason, the cynical side of me is going to think the big conferences involved in the expansion rumors were just trying to scare the MWC into not expanding by adding the WAC teams. If so it worked and it would show me that these conferences are scared of another conference getting a seat at the BCS table. Reply #3. Jun 08 10, 4:39 PM |
mikey40uf
|
The Mountain West said that they were not extending an invitation to Boise State - right now. It might still happen this year. It looks like the Big 12 gave Nebraska a Friday/Saturday deadline to decide what they are going to do. I kind of think it might be interesting if Nebraska & Missouri go to the Big 10 (and they will probably continue to call themselves the Big 10) and then six more go to the PAC10. Would the little old Mountain West just swallow up the rest of the Big 12 (including the automatic BCS bid)? Reply #4. Jun 08 10, 6:35 PM |
| mikey40uf
|
On the other hand, about 98% of conference realignment issues never amount to anything. Reply #5. Jun 08 10, 6:36 PM |
| BxBarracuda
|
Not sure, would be a shame for to see a major conference be picked apart. SEC might look for some new teams, but they might target the best teams from the ACC to join them. SEC has been unusually quiet so far, while all the other major conferences have been talking expansion. These ideas of restructuring seem to be all about the money and T.V. contracts, which is sad but a fact of life. The SEC, Big 10, Big 12 and PAC 10 are the best Football Conferences. The ACC, Big East and as of late the MWC are the second tier, with the rest, other then a few select individual schools like Boise State, of the Conferences in Division 1 Football being a far third tier. If they do these expansions there will be larger gaps between the talent of the "Super Conferences" and the lower tiers of Division 1 Football conferences, which isn't a good thing. Still waiting for the ruling on USC to come in, they had expected it last Friday. Reply #6. Jun 09 10, 6:44 AM |
longcoolwoman2
|
Ah, the rumour mill. In today's paper we learn of a sportswriter in Birmingham, AL, wanting the SEC to kick out Arkansas and South Carolina and return to ten SEC teams. Pshaw, I say! Arkansas has nothing to prove to the SEC. We brought a national championship to the league and a runner-up finish the next year in basketball. We have played in 3 Sec championship games in football and that is as many as Georgia, LSU, and Auburn. Granted, we are long overdue for some success but we have done more than most for the conference. I think the SEC is more concerned with adding four teams than subtracting any. The president of the conference is closed-mouthed about any procedings but the rumours are flying about which teams to invite. The obvious choice would be Texas but I think the Longhorns have their sights set on the Pac-10 and would likely take Texas A&M and Texas Tech with them. So that leaves Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Missouri, and Kansas up for grabs so it may as well be the SEC that takes them. Reply #7. Jun 09 10, 8:11 AM |
| BxBarracuda
|
I think it would be a lousy idea to even think of getting rid of Arkansas and South Carolina from the SEC, these are consistently good teams and on any given Saturday can spoil a National Championship hopefuls dreams. It would be great for SEC to get powerhouses like Texas or Oklahoma, but I think it would be more likely for them to get Florida State, Miami, maybe even Va Tech, who have never really seemed to fit into the ACC and it's greater emphasis on Basketball Teams. Reply #8. Jun 09 10, 9:27 AM |
| longcoolwoman2
|
Bx, the teams you mentioned would be a great fit for the SEC and I would prefer them to the ones I mentioned. However, I think the powers that be are looking to the dis-solution of the Big 12 and taking from that pool. Just my thought, nothing in concrete. Reply #9. Jun 09 10, 12:40 PM |
| mikey40uf
|
There's an interesting article in the Orlando Sentinel about how Florida State deliberately chose to be in the ACC over joining the SEC. http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/os-bianchi-florida-state-sec-0609-20100608,0,5384199.column It basically implies that FSU will always be the biggest fish in the little ACC pond, while if they joined the SEC, they would always be a second tier team (like Auburn)- Without the budget or facilities to compete with Alabama, Georgia, Florida, or Tennessee. Reply #10. Jun 10 10, 7:45 AM |
| BxBarracuda
|
FSU has to worry about thier pond become a puddle, then what do they do? There can be just a year or two between second tiers becoming first tiers and vice versa. Money is driving the current moves and will do so in the future. You can really see how Football drives the bus in many of these conferences as they reallign for all sports programs, by whats the best deal for their Football teams. Reply #11. Jun 10 10, 9:02 AM |
| BxBarracuda
|
On another note, I was saddened to see Masoli, the Oregon QB who had a great season last year, get himself kicked off the team for off field actions. Reply #12. Jun 10 10, 9:03 AM |
| mikey40uf
|
I absolutely agree with the idea that money rules all of these decisions. That is totally the reason for Colorado's decision to join the PAC10 (announcement on espn today). The DenverPost had a good article about how Colorado joining the Mountain West would make sense. Regardless of natural rivalries, travel, and competitiveness (they will be bottom tier in the PAC10 nearly every year), MONEY is what it comes down to. http://www.denverpost.com/kiszla/ci_15236809 Reply #13. Jun 10 10, 10:19 AM |
| BxBarracuda
|
The writer makes a lot of sense in terms of what would fit better for Colorado. It has always annoyed the heck out of me that Auburn didn't get a chance to play for the National Title in 2004, because USC, Oklahoma, Utah and them all had undefeated records. Auburn had a low starting position in the polls and has never been a team known to run up scores. So they didn't get into the title game and Oklahoma got waxed by USC. If they take away the victories and National Championship from USC for violations, like it is expected today, does the National Championship go vacant, does Auburn who finished 2nd in all polls for the year get it, or Oklahoma who played USC in the National Championship game get it. Any outcome if it's stripped from USC will not mean the same. The stripping goes for the Heisman Trophy as well, does that go vacant too? Reply #14. Jun 10 10, 10:50 AM |
| mikey40uf
|
I hope they do yank the championship and Heisman from them. It bugs me that the punishment handed down from infractions five years ago, only affects today's players - they did none of the deeds of which they are being punished for. If they cheated back then, then the records and accomplishments of those players/coaches from that time period should be affected. There is no easy answer though about who should be the National Champion or Heisman winner from those years. It's not as simple as giving it to whoever came second. On the other hand, Reggie Bush totally pushed Matt Leinart over the goal line (which should have been a penalty) to defeat Notre Dame in 2005. At least give Notre Dame that win. Otherwise Notre Dame is still on an extended losing streaking against those cheats at USC and Charley Weis will have never had the privelege of beating those cheats at USC. Reply #15. Jun 10 10, 11:17 AM |
| BxBarracuda
|
No more moves as of yet, only Colorado to the Pac 10. USC has been hit hard, 2 years of no post season play. It will be tough for Kiffin to keep all the recruits he would have gotten if they could play in Bowl games. The National Title may be vacated by the BCS and if they do, it will just be vacant for 2004. Reply #16. Jun 10 10, 5:39 PM |
Dizart
|
Nebraska has joined the Big 10, and Boise State have been accepted into the Mountain West. Reply #17. Jun 12 10, 7:18 AM |
| BxBarracuda
|
The Big 12 seems to have stabilized, with 10 team remaining. Big 12 lost Nebraska and Colorado, making it a 10 team league now. To have a conference championship game a conference needs 12 teams. The Big 10 picked up Nebraska and they now have 12 teams. The pack 10 moved up to 11 teams by gaining Colorado. Boise State joined up with the Mountain West to make that conference stonger and in my opinion automatic BCS bowl eligible. The price to keep Texas seems a bit high from some of hte rumors out there, including Texas being allowed to have it's own "Longhorn" TV Network. The reason to give so much to Texas is that they bring so much to the table in terms of the next, and teh conference banking on this, TV deal which will benefit the whole conference greatly. Reply #18. Jun 14 10, 5:48 PM |
| hovenaut
|
Hoping that with Utah officially joining the Pac 10 earlier today quiets down the reshuffle talk for awhile. Thought Utah, with Colorado, is a good fit for the Pac 10 -and keeps the Big 12 intact. Think the focus now should be on the proper renaming of conferences: Big 10 - twelve teams Pac 10 - ditto Big 12 - with ten teams pass the aspirin..... Reply #19. Jun 17 10, 6:35 PM |
| BxBarracuda
|
I second the motion for aspirin Hovenaut. I am mixed on Utah moving, a great pickup for the Pac-10, as Utah has quality teams in multiple sports. Sad to see the Mountain West lose a quality school Utah, just as they gained Boise State. Reply #20. Jun 17 10, 9:38 PM |
879 replies. On page 1 of 44 pages. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
Legal / Conditions of Use
|
|
: