| 25 May 2012
Expansiopocolypse is everywhere on the interwebs these days...and the "breaking news" on this topic is nothing more than people repeating other people's misinformation and how it effects [insert school here]. We could write about it every day, but Chas over at PittBlather.com does such a fantastic job creating a daily digest post on the happenings that it would serve little purpose for us to do the same. It's the off season, we need a break too.
But if there is something to report, we will be on top of it. Steve Pederson speaking on how Expansiopocolypse will/won't effect Pitt? That's summer blog post worthy.
The conference commissioners, university presidents and even the pundits flirting with a four-team playoff based on four conference champions are fantasizing. Imagine the litigation. Or even legislation. If you thought senators fumed when Utah or Boise State were snubbed by the BCS, just wait until someone tries to close the door permanently on dozens of schools.
"No way," Pitt athletic director Steve Pederson responded Thursday when I raised the topic. "We don't know where a lot of this is headed, and we might still be looking at some form of the current BCS setup. But everyone absolutely will have access to the national championship."
As long as everyone has access to the national championship, doesn't an ACC team have an easier road to it? Dejan Kovacevic makes that argument in his article:
West Virginia will have to plow through some serious heavyweights — Texas, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State — just to stay afloat in the Big 12, much less contend. Pitt's ACC opponents come with some pedigree, particularly Virginia Tech, but won't be nearly as strong. A 13-0 or 12-1 record isn't easy anywhere, but it sure looks more feasible in the ACC than the Big 12.
Would 12-1 in the ACC be enough to make a four-team playoff?
"Oh, I would think so," Pederson said. "Look, it's pretty clear that there are five power conferences and that the ACC is one of them. We control the eastern seaboard, we've got the prestige, the athletics, the academics ... we're thrilled to be where we are."
Some people are assuming that because the B1G Ten, Pac-12, Big XII, and SEC bring in the most television money, they will always be the Top 4 conference champions (the model being pushed for by most all conference commissioners)...but that is certainly not the case. Let's look at the BCS's history since it was created in 1998.
Using the final regular season BCS rankings, here are the highest ranked four conference champions all-time:
1998: SEC, ACC, Big XII, B1G Ten
1999: ACC, BIG EAST, Big XII, SEC
2000: Big XII, ACC, BIG EAST, Pac-12
2001: BIG EAST, Big XII, Pac-12, SEC
2002: BIG EAST, B1G Ten, SEC, Pac-12
2003: Big XII, SEC, Pac-12, B1G Ten
2004: Pac-12, Big XII, SEC, MWC
2005: Pac-12, Big XII, B1G Ten, (Notre Dame), SEC*
2006: B1G Ten, SEC, Pac-12, BIG EAST
2007: B1G Ten, SEC, ACC, Big XII
2008: Big XII, SEC, Pac-12, MWC
2009: SEC, Big XII, BIG EAST, MWC
2010: SEC, Pac-12, MWC, B1G Ten
2011: SEC, Big XII, Pac-12, MWC
* Notre Dame was ranked #6 in the final 2005 BCS Standings, ahead of the 4th conference champion Georgia (SEC)
Only twice (2003, 2005) have the B1G Ten, Pac-12, Big XII, and SEC owned the Top 4 conference champion positions. If there there was a Notre Dame clause, as there is in the current BCS format, the Irish would have stolen the 4th spot in 2005.
When all is said and done, history dictates that there will at least be one opening a year in the Top 4 conference champion playoff model for a non-Big Four conference champion...and Pitt, if deserving, would have a shot at it.
(Editors Note: Chas needs to trademark the phrase Expansiopocolypse™, and then print t-shirts afterwords saying "I survived Expansiopocolypse™" in a nice royal blue and mustard colored script. I know I would buy one. He should probably do this before Chas down on the corner in Oakland steals his idea too.)
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
