This is crap...Go Texas Go Big 12

[bbwvfan]

Fans have been wanting a playoff LONG before the Alabama vs LSU NCG. It's not as if people just suddenly up and said they want more than 2 teams. If the playoffs had been unpopular before 2011 and then suddenly people wanted it after 2011, then I could see that as a legitimate reason. But basically everyone BUT the few conferences that cornholed it all "to protect the rose bowl" and the Big12 who had not gotten left out before was in favor of it. People openly spoke about wanting to destroy the BCS. There were segments on shows and such about it. I can remember Brian Jones openly saying he was just putting Boise St ranked up high to try and destroy the BCS.

I saw no real difference in fans before and after that game. There weren't masses of fans that just up and suddenly changed their minds. It was like that before. Lower ratings was a given anyway because it was such a regional game.

The only thing that really changed in that game was the conversation changed from "Should Boise St" to "Should conferences get more than 1".

But conferences getting left out and not liking it - that got those people to change their votes. They are the ones with power. And of course they are going to publicly cite things like "fans" because it's good PR. Do you honestly think a conference is going to come out and say - "Well we are tired of the SEC getting in every year, so we are adding more spots so we have a change". Hell no.

You are unreal.

If it makes you feel better to believe it was a PR gimmick to credit the fans for the change, then so be it.

The presidents of the oversight committee were swayed by many factors. One that couldn't be ignored was the message sent by college football fans. The power of money. An easy concept to understand… fans weren't going to the games… fans weren't watching the games. If bowls can't get people in town to fill hotels and restaurants… one becomes receptive to change. When the BCS NCG fails to draw viewers, ESPN is faced with loss of revenue… they can't sell commercial time to sponsors for big bucks if the numbers aren't there.

Change to the BCS was coming… like you said… college fans had been screaming for quite some time. But, a game with such poor TV ratings and the controversy surrounding how it was pieced together was the catalyst that produced such a quick change.

And, that cannot be argued… there is too much written about the subject for you to be able to claim otherwise.

 

[4down20]

You are unreal.

If it makes you feel better to believe it was a PR gimmick to credit the fans for the change, then so be it.

The presidents of the oversight committee were swayed by many factors. One that couldn't be ignored was the message sent by college football fans. The power of money. An easy concept to understand… fans weren't going to the games… fans weren't watching the games. If bowls can't get people in town to fill hotels and restaurants… one becomes receptive to change. When the BCS NCG fails to draw viewers, ESPN is faced with loss of revenue… they can't sell commercial time to sponsors for big bucks if the numbers aren't there.

Change to the BCS was coming… like you said… college fans had been screaming for quite some time. But, a game with such poor TV ratings and the controversy surrounding how it was pieced together was the catalyst that produced such a quick change.

And, that cannot be argued… there is too much written about the subject for you to be able to claim otherwise.

I have no preference on the reason why they changed, I'm just glad they did. I just don't think fan opinion had very much to do with it, because people had already been bitching about it for years. Yet, I do believe it's a good PR excuse for any conference to say so.

Btw, how does that low game ratings for SEC vs SEC work into ESPN and the media being in on some conspiracy to promote the SEC over all others. Aren't you actually presenting proof that ESPN and the media would actually benefit less by SEC strength?

 

[Mac_Bridger]

How many good OOC games did WVU schedule this year? 1. Alabama. You also turned around and played a FCS school the week after. And yet for some reason, you feel you have ground to stand on to call out other teams/conferences for doing the exact same thing?

WVU only has 3 to schedule. WVU also beat a B1G team in 7-4 Maryland. Guess that doesn't count since they're not from the SEC.

 

[bbwvfan]

I have no preference on the reason why they changed, I'm just glad they did. I just don't think fan opinion had very much to do with it, because people had already been bitching about it for years. Yet, I do believe it's a good PR excuse for any conference to say so.

Btw, how does that low game ratings for SEC vs SEC work into ESPN and the media being in on some conspiracy to promote the SEC over all others. Aren't you actually presenting proof that ESPN and the media would actually benefit less by SEC strength?

You have an interesting SEC slant on this story… that is obvious. When did Slive start pushing for a playoff? Was it after the 2006 year when some thought the BCS might exclude the SEC champion? When Slive proposed the Plus 1 with the ACC commish, none of the other conferences were ready for it. So, we must assume they were OK with a rematch of tOSU and UofM game… right? I mean… the only people crying about a rematch were the SEC fan boys and crybaby Urban. In fact, the media and talking heads were pissed UofM didn't get a rematch.

Fast forward to 2012 when an undeserving Bama team makes the BCS NCG, and what is the fallout? Too funny…

Don't be confused by ESPN's interests here. It looks like you have difficulty understanding the difference between the regular season, and the BCS… which has become the College Playoff. ESPN has a huge interest in promoting the SEC brand… as they are an integral part of the SEC Network and the broadcasting of SEC games during the regular season. By dominating every facet of every show devoted to college football, SEC bias is established. Rankings ensures ratings.

The college football playoff… and the BCS NCG are a different animal. Fans sent a clear message. They had no interest in watching a rematch of a game that included an opponent deemed unworthy by most. You cannot fall on its interest was only regional. You can use that for the SEC Network. This was the BCS NCG, it is of interest to the entire country!! If you really think TV ratings reflect regional interest, why have SEC games been the highest rated college football broadcasts?

And with the dismal ratings of the LSU vs Bama BCS NCG, ESPN jumped all over the playoff idea. Coincidence?

 

[4down20]

You have an interesting SEC slant on this story… that is obvious. When did Slive start pushing for a playoff? Was it after the 2006 year when some thought the BCS might exclude the SEC champion? When Slive proposed the Plus 1 with the ACC commish, none of the other conferences were ready for it. So, we must assume they were OK with a rematch of tOSU and UofM game… right? I mean… the only people crying about a rematch were the SEC fan boys and crybaby Urban. In fact, the media and talking heads were pissed UofM didn't get a rematch.

Fast forward to 2012 when an undeserving Bama team makes the BCS NCG, and what is the fallout? Too funny…

Don't be confused by ESPN's interests here. It looks like you have difficulty understanding the difference between the regular season, and the BCS… which has become the College Playoff. ESPN has a huge interest in promoting the SEC brand… as they are an integral part of the SEC Network and the broadcasting of SEC games during the regular season. By dominating every facet of every show devoted to college football, SEC bias is established. Rankings ensures ratings.

The college football playoff… and the BCS NCG are a different animal. Fans sent a clear message. They had no interest in watching a rematch of a game that included an opponent deemed unworthy by most. You cannot fall on its interest was only regional. You can use that for the SEC Network. This was the BCS NCG, it is of interest to the entire country!! If you really think TV ratings reflect regional interest, why have SEC games been the highest rated college football broadcasts?

And with the dismal ratings of the LSU vs Bama BCS NCG, ESPN jumped all over the playoff idea. Coincidence?

How long you been watching college football. You don't know that the SEC(Auburn) was shut out of the National Championship for 2004? They were undefeated.

Michigan and Ohio St rematch didn't happen because of when the game was played. But, in the 4 playoff teams - I think both should be included in the 4 even though they were from the same conference, and I won't blame it on ESPN bias and other bullshit either.

As for ESPN comments, it's obvious you will believe what you want to believe.

And yes, as the game was only the 3rd worse in BCS history, #1 being USC vs Oklahoma and #2 lowest being Miami vs Nebraska, I do not really find the claim that fans made a big difference has much merit.

And before the game even happened or was announced, all of college football viewership for the year was down 8% from the previous year.

 

[mad2mc]

As for "weak" OOC games. The majority of the top SEC teams schedule 1 good OOC game per year - the same as 99% of college football. They also schedule 1 FCS school, the same as 99% of college football. The only difference is SEC fans don't call the other teams out for it, while fans of other teams like to pretend they themselves don't do it. Or even worse, some of them try to hold the SEC to a higher standard because "they should lead the way" or something dumb like that.

How many good OOC games did WVU schedule this year? 1. Alabama. You also turned around and played a FCS school the week after. And yet for some reason, you feel you have ground to stand on to call out other teams/conferences for doing the exact same thing?

It's really pathetic.

Differences that I see. UA played 4 OCC; WVU - 3. WVU played 2 on the road, UA played 3 at home and 1 three hours away from the campus. Now, all of this was set up long before the beginning of this season, but the fact that UA could have scheduled another conference game. I understand that it is all about money, so for UA to play at a smaller venue does not help their pockets. Others schools do it, but it appears that most in the SEC do not. Using this as an example so I don't loose you, playing a UT-Chattanooga would not bring in the revenue playing at their field versus playing at UA. But if this is the case, why not get a better/bigger opponent?

The SEC is considered best top to bottom because of wins. And the whole thing you cite about bottom feeders and such are arguments people from all teams and conferences make, right or wrong. Arkansas for example is a much better team then their record suggests. Missouri on the other hand - probably not.

Every conference has a team that is better than their record indicates. Do you really think Wake Forest is better VT? They were yesterday. Anybody can be viewed best from top to bottom if you play cream puffs every season. Why should anybody schedule harder teams if the SEC has the model for getting teams to the top.

What the hell are you talking about?

You seem to believe in moral victories while making a point. My point was that if the HC becomes bigger than the program, sometimes it is better to part ways. You mentioned that most UA fans were happy that RR was not hired. With hindsight being 20/20, I guess so. At the time of the courtship, somebody within the UA program took a stab at RR. While RR had our program heading in the right direction, he seemed to be developing himself into a brand, which would have made him bigger than the program. So it may have been better that WVU cut ties with him. I also believe that if our current AD was in place during this time period, RR would have still been the HC, but the RR brand would have been crushed. This AD had the foresight to move the program along in the direction that RR wanted.

[/QUOTE]I came to this forum actually to talk about WVU football. Excuse me for not joining in on the stupid SEC hate as part of that.[/QUOTE]

Your views, obviously, do not outweigh the views of the posters on a WVU board. You came to us, not us to you, so if you choose to engage in the way you did, "educating" us, absolutely stupid. No problem defending your views, the problem was your arrogance and backhanded comments. Get your ass bitten every time on this board.

Because the P5 mentality and all those "conference champion" type labels are dumb. Conference should not be a part of any process, but the teams that are played should be. And if Alabama could get the same quality schedule while playing teams across the country I think that would be pretty cool.

Which goes to the point of schools like the SEC who want to form these mega conferences screwing up that notion. Of course your view supports your wishes of UA not being in a conference. If you go your route, could add more to the SEC bias claim, whether right or wrong, as there is a current perception. But if I read you correctly, you are saying that you feel that the top 4 teams are in. I guess you will always have the who really is the 4th best team. While this has simplicity, not sure how it could be developed.

I stick up for teams/conferences regardless if I think something is right, not just the SEC. If someone came along and tried to claim that the Big12 was worse than the Big10 and the only reason people thought the Big12 was better was because of media bias and stuff like that, I'd stick up for the Big12 because it's BS.

We'll see when the spotlight is off of SEC if this is truly the case.

Yeah, except I actually pull against the other SEC teams once the year is over for Alabama. I sure as hell did not cheer for Auburn. I did not want to see them win. I also did not pull for Florida or LSU in those national championship games. Making Tebow cry was the most awesome thing ever. You still have to recruit and dumpster fires at a rivals school almost always turns out as a success for another. You kind of have to field a pretty good team to start with. Plus, I just like watching many of them lose.

All personal choices we make. What makes yours more right or wrong than mine. You do have a aurora about you that makes some think that only your opinion counts or fans shouldn't have an opinion.

 

[bbwvfan]

As for ESPN comments, it's obvious you will believe what you want to believe.

And yes, as the game was only the 3rd worse in BCS history, #1 being USC vs Oklahoma and #2 lowest being Miami vs Nebraska, I do not really find the claim that fans made a big difference has much merit.

Then you literally stand alone with this belief. Good for you…

 

[GNG]

TCU would kick the Longhorns ass. Just saying.

 

[Anotherwvufan]

Fact is that SEC teams get to schedule 4 OOC games rather than 3 like the rest of college football. Some teams play a rivalry or out of conference P5 team. All of you play 3 cupcakes. Rag on Baylor for not scheduling non P5 for 3 games. Guess what, that is what every SEC team does. Feel free to rag on the ole gold and blue for having one on the schedule this year and two next year.

With every SEC team guaranteed one extra free win, you only need two conference wins to make a bowl. If you had to play each other for another game, there would be more losses, hence lower rankings, fewer bowl teams and maybe you would be seen foe who your really are.

We talked about your mulligan earlier this year. Bama has one top 25 win and a loss to #18 Oregon, TCU, Ohio state, and Baylor all have more wins against Top 25 competition than Bama.

Face it, the SEC and Bama are down this year. Poor QB play, bad Defenses, inconsistent play all around. The mississippis are no better, it has been Auburn, LSU, Florida and even Bama that have been falling.

Yet ESPN will still proclaim you as best.

 

[4down20]

Differences that I see. UA played 4 OCC; WVU - 3. WVU played 2 on the road, UA played 3 at home and 1 three hours away from the campus. Now, all of this was set up long before the beginning of this season, but the fact that UA could have scheduled another conference game. I understand that it is all about money, so for UA to play at a smaller venue does not help their pockets. Others schools do it, but it appears that most in the SEC do not. Using this as an example so I don't loose you, playing a UT-Chattanooga would not bring in the revenue playing at their field versus playing at UA. But if this is the case, why not get a better/bigger opponent?

I'm sure there are multiple reasons, but it's near impossible to get an out of conference game that late in the season that isn't scheduled in every year(FSU, GT, Clemson, etc, OOC rival games).

As far as revenue, you don't really get revenue when you do home and home for 1 game. If you pay to bring in a team, then you get revenue both years. It's also why neutral site games are prefered if you can get them. Because neutral site = both teams paid that year, no return "free" trip. But to get neutral site games you have to be a team that has good pull. LSU did it's home and home with Wisconsin at neutral sites near each other, so I'm pretty sure they both get paid for both games.

Alabama has played the 5th toughest schedule this year according to Sagrin even with the FCS game. There is no lack of quality teams on the schedule. How much tougher do you think the schedule should be? Or is replacing the FCS school with some MAC team a bigger team?

Every conference has a team that is better than their record indicates. Do you really think Wake Forest is better VT? They were yesterday. Anybody can be viewed best from top to bottom if you play cream puffs every season. Why should anybody schedule harder teams if the SEC has the model for getting teams to the top.

Except the data doesn't support it. Here are the playoff contender SoS right now.

Alabama: #5
Baylor #59
Oregon #36
Miss St #39
TCU #37

Other SEC teams:

Auburn #1
Ole Miss #8

And btw, WVU has the #6 SoS this year, grats.

Nobody wants to play Arkansas right now, and it's not because of their OOC wins.

You seem to believe in moral victories while making a point. My point was that if the HC becomes bigger than the program, sometimes it is better to part ways. You mentioned that most UA fans were happy that RR was not hired. With hindsight being 20/20, I guess so. At the time of the courtship, somebody within the UA program took a stab at RR. While RR had our program heading in the right direction, he seemed to be developing himself into a brand, which would have made him bigger than the program. So it may have been better that WVU cut ties with him. I also believe that if our current AD was in place during this time period, RR would have still been the HC, but the RR brand would have been crushed. This AD had the foresight to move the program along in the direction that RR wanted.

Ummm, I don't need moral victories.

RR was leaving WVU no matter what. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but WVU is not a top destination. The cycle of coaches leaving teams like WVU for "Greener(Mo Money)" pastures is a large part of why college football top programs stay that way, while middle of the road teams stay that way as well. This is just a fact of college football. It's very unlikely that Dan Mullen stays at Miss St after this season. They just aren't a coaching destination school. Someone will throw money at him, he will take it.

Your views, obviously, do not outweigh the views of the posters on a WVU board. You came to us, not us to you, so if you choose to engage in the way you did, "educating" us, absolutely stupid. No problem defending your views, the problem was your arrogance and backhanded comments. Get your ass bitten every time on this board.

I think your panties are in a wad mostly. I haven't been hostile at all, nor have I even taken easy shots.

Which goes to the point of schools like the SEC who want to form these mega conferences screwing up that notion. Of course your view supports your wishes of UA not being in a conference. If you go your route, could add more to the SEC bias claim, whether right or wrong, as there is a current perception. But if I read you correctly, you are saying that you feel that the top 4 teams are in. I guess you will always have the who really is the 4th best team. While this has simplicity, not sure how it could be developed.

The perception isn't the same among those who actually matter in these things.

Not sure what you are talking about with 4 best teams.

We'll see when the spotlight is off of SEC if this is truly the case.

I've done it for over a year. It's not like things don't get said about other teams already.

All personal choices we make. What makes yours more right or wrong than mine. You do have a aurora about you that makes some think that only your opinion counts or fans shouldn't have an opinion.

If I thought I was wrong, I wouldn't post it....

 

[4down20]

Then you literally stand alone with this belief. Good for you…

No I'm not. Bottom line is there is no real evidence to support your theory.

These are facts:

1. Fans were already way upset with the BCS and wanted a playoff.
2. Certain conferences voted against it previously.
3. Those conferences voted for it after that game.

 

[4down20]

Fact is that SEC teams get to schedule 4 OOC games rather than 3 like the rest of college football. Some teams play a rivalry or out of conference P5 team. All of you play 3 cupcakes. Rag on Baylor for not scheduling non P5 for 3 games. Guess what, that is what every SEC team does. Feel free to rag on the ole gold and blue for having one on the schedule this year and two next year.

With every SEC team guaranteed one extra free win, you only need two conference wins to make a bowl. If you had to play each other for another game, there would be more losses, hence lower rankings, fewer bowl teams and maybe you would be seen foe who your really are.

We talked about your mulligan earlier this year. Bama has one top 25 win and a loss to #18 Oregon, TCU, Ohio state, and Baylor all have more wins against Top 25 competition than Bama.

Face it, the SEC and Bama are down this year. Poor QB play, bad Defenses, inconsistent play all around. The mississippis are no better, it has been Auburn, LSU, Florida and even Bama that have been falling.

Yet ESPN will still proclaim you as best.

Your conference is the dumb one for scheduling too many conference games if that is how you feel about it.

And, of the teams you mention.

SoS rankings:

Alabama #5
Oregon #36
Baylor #59
TCU #37
Ohio St #55

And btw, anyone can poke holes in other teams. What you can't do is make a legitimate argument about who is better. You want me to destroy the Big12 like that? It's easy. Not a single team without a loss. Your conference lost multiple games to the SEC, etc etc etc.

In order to play "cupcake" games, you have to first not be the cupcake. Hell Arkansas blew out Texas Tech, a team WVU only beat by 3 pts and Arkansas is the last place team in the SEC West.

 

[TexasExes98]

TCU would kick the Longhorns ass. Just saying.

Calm down Frog. You boys can barely compete w/KfuckinU, plus your defense sux. We'll see y'all in Austin....

 

[bbwvfan]

No I'm not. Bottom line is there is no real evidence to support your theory.

These are facts:

1. Fans were already way upset with the BCS and wanted a playoff.
2. Certain conferences voted against it previously.
3. Those conferences voted for it after that game.

Hello… I presented the facts. The powers in control of the change mentioned the fans' wishes. I can provide more links to support this if you really need them. I thought you were some kind of expert. I thought wrong… you should know how this played out… which surprises me why you'd want to argue it the way you have. Everyone who follows college football understands what lead to the change.

On the other hand, you have no facts to support your stance. And, that cannot be denied…

 

[4down20]

Hello… I presented the facts. The powers in control of the change mentioned the fans' wishes. I can provide more links to support this if you really need them. I thought you were some kind of expert. I thought wrong… you should know how this played out… which surprises me why you'd want to argue it the way you have. Everyone who follows college football understands what lead to the change.

On the other hand, you have no facts to support your stance. And, that cannot be denied…

Yeah, they claim that stuff because it's good for PR.

Here are the so called horrible TV ratings in 2011 compared to other years.

2012 - Alabama vs LSU - 14.0
2011 - Auburn vs Oregon - 15.2
2010 - Alabama vs Texas - 17.2
2009 - Florida vs Oklahoma 15.8
2008 - LSU vs Ohio St 14.2
2007 - Florida vs Ohio St 17.4
2006 - USC vs Texas 21.7 (highest in BCS history)
2005 - USC vs Oklahoma 13.7 (lowest in BCS history)
2004 - Oklahoma vs LSU - 14.5

There is no pattern of fans not watching that game as you like to claim. It's not even the lowest in BCS history, and it's no very much lower than the majority of the other games.

Next up in BCS bowls is usually the Rose Bowl, which draws an 10 or 11.

The other BCS bowls usually hang around between 6-10 depending on the teams.

Most bowl games? Only like a 4 or 5 on the top end. Many 1's and 2's.

I'm sorry, but I hardly call a 1% drop in the number of tv's watching the game as being credible evidence of fans sending a message. Especially when there are much bigger up and down swings in previous years, and ratings that were worse.

Hell, there was a 2% drop the previous year, from a 17.2 down to a 15.2. I guess the Oregon and Auburn game was really the game that broke things according to your logic. More than twice the drop off!

Face it, claiming it was for the fans is nothing but PR bullshit. There is no real evidence to support it. I guess next you'll have me believe every team Alabama ever plays, including the FCS team we played this past weekend is a high quality team that can do lots of things with success because he says that in every press conference during the week.

 

[bbwvfan]

Your opinion is pure BS. Sorry... there are enough links to say otherwise. Do you have anything to support your BS? No...

You lose...

 

[4down20]

Your opinion is pure BS. Sorry... there are enough links to say otherwise. Do you have anything to support your BS? No...

You lose...

Your claims have been debunked and shown otherwise. If you wish to hang on to the PR reasons conferences give, there is nothing I can do about that.

 

[TxHeat]

TCU would kick the Longhorns ass. Just saying.

hold that thought boy!!!

 

[bbwvfan]

Your claims have been debunked and shown otherwise. If you wish to hang on to the PR reasons conferences give, there is nothing I can do about that.

They have? How? With your opinion?

Too funny...

Where's your proof to support your BS?

 

[bbwvfan]

You need to provide me some proof... or shut the fuck up...