Would You Call This AQ Worthy?

[TDenverFan]

Quote: Originally Posted by Madwolf

Too many people only remember what the Big East did last year and Cinci's terrible game against Florida after they lost their head coach. In truth, the Big East has done quite well against the other conferences in it's bowl games, and the Win/Loss columns back it up. The Big East is mainly down due to the vacancies at the head coaching spots caused over the last few years by bigger programs coming in and taking coaches from the "lowly" Big East. You also can't take TCU away to create a league that could take the Big East's AQ status without replacing it with an equal team. If you take TCU you have to give the Big East Boise State, which doesn't make as much sense as TCU. You also have to factor in the Big East is going to expand to 10 schools, may be 12. UCF is probably the team to be added, getting the Big East to 10 with TCU, then you'll probably see ECU, and may be a school like Houston to add a natural rival to TCU. That conference would be above the proposed MWC conference easily.

But over recent years the MWC has really been picking up... Adding on TCU helps, it also opens up the Big East to take virtually anybody regardless o geography (Or skills outside of 1 sport), but ECU and UCF? The Big East is gonna be a 20 some conference basketball abomination soon.

[dochalladay32]

Quote: Originally Posted by illwill10

I am not sure of BCS tie-ins(I watch it again). I did hear a vid that said that you can make MWC a AQ league and take Big East bowl tie-ins away

What do you mean you are not sure of BCS tie-ins? It has been confirmed in interviews and video that you can change who gets into the BCS and who goes where. You can either remove a tie-in altogether (at large replaces it), give a conference an at large bid (like the Big East now that gets in, but does not automatically go to a certain bowl), or lock a conference into a game (like SEC in the Sugar). You can't "take away tie-ins from a conference" in general; just the BCS. Sucks in some cases, but I'm hoping the number of at larges for bowls opens up, at least in my case. The ones doing 4 super conferences are going to get killed on it probably. The other conferences aren't necessarily smaller enough to ensure bowls are missing teams that can be filled by 9th place and beyond schools in the superconferences that still won 6-7 games.

[He1nousOne1]

Quote: Originally Posted by dochalladay32

What do you mean you are not sure of BCS tie-ins? It has been confirmed in interviews and video that you can change who gets into the BCS and who goes where. You can either remove a tie-in altogether (at large replaces it), give a conference an at large bid (like the Big East now that gets in, but does not automatically go to a certain bowl), or lock a conference into a game (like SEC in the Sugar). You can't "take away tie-ins from a conference" in general; just the BCS. Sucks in some cases, but I'm hoping the number of at larges for bowls opens up, at least in my case. The ones doing 4 super conferences are going to get killed on it probably. The other conferences aren't necessarily smaller enough to ensure bowls are missing teams that can be filled by 9th place and beyond schools in the superconferences that still won 6-7 games.

Yeah with the forced tie in's for the lesser bowls I am a little worried that the Super Conference idea may not work out well without that full control over all bowl tie ins. Will be a fun experiment though to find out. I will only be going with three super conferences.

If the idea doesn't work out so well then my second attempt may incorporate some form of relegation so that when teams remain at the bottom of the superconferences getting no bowls they can drop down to a lesser conference and rebuild with an easier schedule and better chance at getting in a bowl.