Big East officially Non-AQ

[hookdown]

It does move 5 teams from the AQ to the non-AQ side in voting matters. I think that gives the non-AQs a slim majority now.

[PawDawg]

It does move 5 teams from the AQ to the non-AQ side in voting matters. I think that gives the non-AQs a slim majority now.

I assume you meant the remaining 2011 BE teams?

As you know there is no AQ now or voting so a majority doesn't matter.

Just as the BCS did the first go round years ago, the haves have left a few scraps out there and are forcing the have nots to take them to court. I just hope we have better leadership than we had last time in Cowen and Benson.

[hookdown]

I assume you meant the remaining 2011 BE teams?

As you know there is no AQ now or voting so a majority doesn't matter.

Just as the BCS did the first go round years ago, the haves have left a few scraps out there and are forcing the have nots to take them to court. I just hope we have better leadership than we had last time in Cowen and Benson.

Yeah, I did mean the remaining BE schools, but never mind. I just redid my math and we are still outnumbered 65-63, assuming that the Big 12 eventually ends up with 12 and counting newcomers UTSA, ODU, Georgia State and Charlotte. I was thinking that the BE schools dropping down would give non-power conference schools the advantage in numbers, but it does not. We are a bit closer though. Numbers will count on those issues where the entire membership votes. On the have vs. have-not issues it is very important. Of course the haves may bolt and form their own association before they let that happen.

[PawDawg]

Yeah, I did mean the remaining BE schools, but never mind. I just redid my math and we are still outnumbered 65-63, assuming that the Big 12 eventually ends up with 12 and counting newcomers UTSA, ODU, Georgia State and Charlotte. I was thinking that the BE schools dropping down would give non-power conference schools the advantage in numbers, but it does not. We are a bit closer though. Numbers will count on those issues where the entire membership votes. On the have vs. have-not issues it is very important. Of course the haves may bolt and form their own association before they let that happen.

The voting would only be on NCAA matters. The haves have already taken a stand away from the have nots. The NCAA had no control over the BCS and they won't have control over the new system. There are a few things that the have nots could stand together on, but I don't expect them to...

- limiting or not playing money games.
- get together on scheduling.
- vote for 7 wins to be bowl elgible.
- vote to not allow an FCS game to count toward 7 wins.

[hookdown]

The voting would only be on NCAA matters. The haves have already taken a stand away from the have nots. The NCAA had no control over the BCS and they won't have control over the new system. There are a few things that the have nots could stand together on, but I don't expect them to...

- limiting or not playing money games.
- get together on scheduling.
- vote for 7 wins to be bowl elgible.
- vote to not allow an FCS game to count toward 7 wins.

Yes, the NCAA needs find their backbone and get control of the football playoffs. I wish one or two of the "have-not" (for lack of a better term since non-AQ is going away) Presidents would stand up and lead the rest of them in working as a group and for common interests. But even showing a united front on the topics you listed would be a start.

[Brian96]

NCAA FBS football is turning into a money driven joke and may ruin the game we love.

Dude, that ship sailed like 75 years ago.