Iowa St. AD issues official statement

[Nexus]

Because a poster above mentioned that schools with big sports traditions won't get left behind. It appears to me with what's being discussed that KU, KState, Iowa State, and either Baylor or CU will get left behind. Very few if any colleges have more basketball tradition than KU, yet they're getting left behind.

Then you misunderstood that poster. The conversation as it pertains to athletics is all about football. Basketball and the tradition of teams therein are not relevant to this discussion.

As it pertains to expansion, basketball isn't the catalyst driving these talks. On the other hand, basketball also has an advantage over football at the moment because it already has a playoff system in place to determine a true champion. So conference affiliation doesn't really matter in basketball.

Which makes them irrelevant to this conversation. Right?

 

See bolded comment above.

I saw it, and I asked because that's what I just said.

 

My comment was more or less to show that basketball conference affiliation isn't as important as football conference affiliation due to the playoff system. We could use Butler basketball as the latest example of such. Kansas basketball will be fine in whatever conference they land in.

[irafreak]

I don't think a playoff inherently determines a clear champ. First you have to make sure that access to the tournament is fair. Leaving K-State, KU, and most of the teams in the Big East in the dust is unfair, in my opinion. With a straight face, tell me Indiana deserves a shot at the national title more than K-State.

 

Tell me with a straight face that Indiana, because they're in an AQ conference, deserves a shot more than Boise St. We can play that game all day long.

 

Playoffs aren't perfect - they're just the most equitable solution to determining a champion.

That's just an opinion. Alabama did everything they were supposed to do and a playoff probably would've ruined that for them...how many think Duke was the best basketball team in the tournament this year?

[Lyons in the Sea of Red.]

Because a poster above mentioned that schools with big sports traditions won't get left behind. It appears to me with what's being discussed that KU, KState, Iowa State, and either Baylor or CU will get left behind. Very few if any colleges have more basketball tradition than KU, yet they're getting left behind.

Then you misunderstood that poster. The conversation as it pertains to athletics is all about football. Basketball and the tradition of teams therein are not relevant to this discussion.

As it pertains to expansion, basketball isn't the catalyst driving these talks. On the other hand, basketball also has an advantage over football at the moment because it already has a playoff system in place to determine a true champion. So conference affiliation doesn't really matter in basketball.

Which makes them irrelevant to this conversation. Right?

 

See bolded comment above.

I saw it, and I asked because that's what I just said.

 

[knapplc]

I don't think a playoff inherently determines a clear champ. First you have to make sure that access to the tournament is fair. Leaving K-State, KU, and most of the teams in the Big East in the dust is unfair, in my opinion. With a straight face, tell me Indiana deserves a shot at the national title more than K-State.

 

Tell me with a straight face that Indiana, because they're in an AQ conference, deserves a shot more than Boise St. We can play that game all day long.

 

Playoffs aren't perfect - they're just the most equitable solution to determining a champion.

That's just an opinion. Alabama did everything they were supposed to do and a playoff probably would've ruined that for them...how many think Duke was the best basketball team in the tournament this year?

It's the opinion of most every sport, major or minor, in the world.

[In the Deed the Glory]

Kansas seems to be getting left in the dust and I will debate anyone who claims Nebraska has more tradition in football than Kansas has in basketball.

I would say equal, but the Jayhawks certainly don't have more tradition in basketball than NU does football. Also as others have said, not the issue.

 

Sorry, I guess I'm just pissed at Texas...sorry junior for trying to pick a fight.

Edited June 7, 2010 by In the Deed the Glory

[irafreak]

Why ignore the rest of my comment? Maybe someone can tell me why it's a good thing to replace the current system with one that still doesn't always give us the true champion.

[knapplc]

Why ignore the rest of my comment? Maybe someone can tell me why it's a good thing to replace the current system with one that still doesn't always give us the true champion.

You're going to have to define a "true champion" before people can answer you. That's the million-dollar question - what method best crowns a "champion?" I don't think a method that doesn't give Boise St. a shot is the best method. The BCS essentially says that nearly half the teams in the division have no chance, no matter what they do, to win the title.

 

Boise St. went 14-0 last year and had no shot at the title. Same goes for TCU - undefeated regular season, no shot at the title. How is the BCS crowning a "true champion" when those schools can't even sniff the championship?

[brophog]

Why ignore the rest of my comment? Maybe someone can tell me why it's a good thing to replace the current system with one that still doesn't always give us the true champion.

 

You'll never get anything resembling a champion as long as you're playing with this many total FBS teams and in conferences this size, with the strong monetary desire to play a substantial portion of non-conference games outside of the overall set. There just isn't enough connections between the teams to generate adequate data to make the necessary comparisons. It is estimated that games between AP Top 25 opponents has been cut around 40% in the last 20 years, and if you go back another ten years that number goes up significantly again.

 

People can argue playoffs vs BCS until they are blue in the face and it just doesn't matter. Neither will work in the current (or proposed) state of top division college football. Money has driven away any possibility of improving that situation. Conferences long ago ceased to operate as effective subsets and became marketing coalitions. We can't even discuss the insanity of a "champion" when only one major conference plays a round robin and we have to resort to multiple bye tournament formats.

 

When television became the major driving force in collegiate athletics in the late 80's any hope of putting together a system to even poorly approximate a "champion" went right out the window.

[irafreak]

I don't believe boise or tcu deserved a shot at the title. Their schedule throughout the season wasn't anything to brag about. They can win big games when they play them but I want to see them punished week in and out in a real conference. If they weren't so afraid to schedule teams. I have more respect for fresno st than boise.

 

As far as a real champion...if it's all just up to each individual to define then I guess we could argue about this all day. A playoff has it's perks but I just don't like the way it's portrayed as the only real solution.

[WashingtonRed]

The problem with Boise St isn't that they are afraid to schedule teams, it is that teams are afraid to schedule Boise St. There is no money in it, and the only positive outcome is for Boise St.

[irafreak]

Perhaps I'm mistaken but didn't boise want a million to play us?

[WashingtonRed]

Perhaps I'm mistaken but didn't boise want a million to play us?

 

 

 

Yes, but that is the norm (I don't know if it is 1MM or less). Generally smaller conference teams generally get paid good money for a 1 and 1 against a larger prestige school.

 

I am trying to google the payouts, but I don't know if they are public.

 

 

[Nexus]

Perhaps I'm mistaken but didn't boise want a million to play us?

 

Yes

 

Ole Miss talked them down though and will pay them 900k in 2011.

[WashingtonRed]

Troy received $750,000 in 2006 according to the NY Times. I can't seem to find the numbers though for the rest of the teams.

[irafreak]

My point is that they want to be a big time player then they need to prove it and up the ante. You want the respect then screw the cash and play the games. Take a smaller deal and get it done or take the cash and play one road game. You can't have it both ways...enjoying the benefits of a smaller/weaker conference but demanding the same respect and opportunity that the big boys get.