BC and the other schools still waiting for their moment on the big stage

New Year's Day was different this year. The games had more meaning because of the new Playoff. One thing that wasn't different: no BC. As great as the Pinstripe Bowl experience was, BC still wasn't in a major bowl. And BC hasn't played in a true major bowl since the Cotton in 1985. As much as we want to blame it on travel reputation and fanbase size, there have been automatic qualifying opportunities for more than 20 years. First the Bowl Coalition, followed by the Bowl Alliance, then the BCS and now the Playoff. As a member of the Big East and the ACC, BC had access to all of these games. We just never played our way into any of them. We know the near misses: losing to WVU in '93, losing to Syracuse in '04 and dropping back-to-back ACC Championship Games. At this point it is almost bad luck. Other Power 5 teams have made it on fewer close calls.

Although only one year old, the Power 5 conferences of the Playoffs have put the majority of their teams into major bowls. Take a look at the teams that have yet to play in Playoffs and their forebears:

ACC Have Nots
Boston College
Duke
North Carolina
NC State

Virginia

Big Ten Have Nots
Indiana
Minnesota

Big XII Have Nots
Iowa State
Texas Tech

Pac 12 Have Nots
Cal

SEC Have Nots
Kentucky
Missouri
South Carolina
Vanderbilt

(Now I am only using bowl history and qualification based on the bowl's status at that time. Take Duke and the Peach Bowl as an example. The Blue Devils played in the Peach Bowl last year. It was a good bowl, but not defined as a Playoff/Major bowl at the time. This year, the elevated Peach Bowl is one of the official New Year's Six. So although Duke has played in a Peach Bowl recently, they have yet to earn or get selected into the Playoff/BCS/Bowl Alliance/Bowl Coalition games.)

Of course the ACC would have the most teams that have not played in a major bowl. Despite that fact, I don't worry that we are locked into some top heavy conference that will never enable a major bowl. As Georgia Tech showed this year, there will be many times when the ACC runner up also makes a major bowl (as long as the winner gets into the Playoff). As daunting as Florida State, Clemson and Louisville may seem right now, it only takes one down cycle for things to change.

The variety and number of schools that have made major bowls should be encouraging to BC fans. It shows that things can change quickly and every school will get its shot. I'm impatient for our shot, but believe it will be here soon. And hopefully by that time there are eight teams in the playoffs...because then we have a chance to win the whole thing.

Playoffs are real! What does it mean for BC?

The college presidents finally approved a four-team football playoff. It has been a long time coming and some details are still to be determined, but this will change the college postseason for the better. I also think that this system benefits a school like BC. First the good news.


1. We don't have to be perfect. Under the old system BC needed to go undefeated and hope that only one other BCS team also went undefeated. The polling system always favored the traditional powers. There will still be plenty of bias in the selection committee, but supposedly there will be a formula that incorporates win-loss, strength of schedule, and conference championships. In this world a 11-2 ACC Champion BC team might earn a playoff spot. This also means that any great BC team (13-0, 12-1) will surely be in.


2. We still have a seat at the table. The ACC has been damaged in this process. It's the Big Four and us. That will hurt in recruiting and in rankings. But at least we are still at the big table. The ACC will have its turn on the selection committee and we can still pitch access to the playoffs to recruits and fans. 


3. An expanded playoff is coming. Everyone is quick to point out that the Presidents don't want playoff creep and that it will be a four-team format for 12 years. I think it will stay at four teams for five years at the most. There will be too much public pressure to expand and too much money to ignore. An eight-team playoff is even better for BC financially and access wise.


4. The ACC will be rewarded for playing nine conference games. Strength of schedule is a factor in the selection. With the ACC playing nine games, we will get a SOS benefit that other conferences don't when they play patsies. This also might have BC rethink its annual FCS game. 


This is the bad news. 


1. The ACC is still poachable. Florida State or Clemson might have an easier path to the playoff from the ACC, but there is no built in advantage like there might have been under a strict conference champion provision. As long as other conferences offer more money, schools might leave.


2. There will be a human element to the selection committee. There will be bias and subjectivity. BC will always face an uphill battle against the power brokers. I know that we will be the "5th" team at least once in my lifetime. 


3. The bowl system lives on (sort of). The old boys running the playoff protected their cronies at the bowls. They're less important and will face new financial pressure, but the bowls still live on. And their distaste for BC and our travel reputation will not go away. So this means that is will always be playoff or bust for BC.

BCS changes and what it means for BC

The BCS meetings start this week and plenty of changes are being reviewed. While the degree of change is unknown, the direction of the meetings is great news for BC.

Semifinals Call it a Plus+1. Call it a playoff. It doesn't matter. It seems like there is finally consensus to have have a mini-postseason. A four team playoff will still be a political nightmare that would nearly always exclude a team like BC, but it is a start. Once Pandora's Box is open, the 4-team playoff will expand to an 8 or 16 team playoff. That format would give BC hope.

Home playoff games The bowls are fighting hard, but it looks like some portion of the playoff would be on campus. That would be huge for a team like BC. Bowls are never really neutral sites for us. We always travel far and don't bring fans. I know a home playoff game will be a rare occurrence at Alumni, but it is still better than playing in an empty pro stadium. I also think that home playoff games will lead to home Conference Championship games. Do you think 2007 and 2008 might have been different if the ACC Championship games were played at BC?

Minimizing the importance of "travel reputation" This movement sounds like it will kill the lower tier bowls. It also sounds like all ADs are tired of buying huge blocks of tickets. That means that the non-playoff bowl games that remain will need good TV. BC -- when playing well -- is a great TV draw. The culling of the smaller bowls, might mean BC plays in fewer bowls, but does anyone really care? I think excitement and travel related to a bowl would improve if it was a true honor.

More shared money The playoffs will mean more money. It will also be more evenly split among the major conferences. That's great news from BC and could allow us to upgrade our facilities.

The ACC sent Georgia Tech's Dan Radakovich as its representative so Gene won't have a seat at the table this week. But I hope he is a strong supporter of playoffs. It is the only solution for BC. And one day we will have a coach who can get us to the playoffs again.

Allow me to rant about the BCS and the ACC's role

I love college football but I really hate the current BCS and bowl system. There are a million reasons to dislike it but my major gripe is that there are now only 12 teams eligible for the national championship and they all happen to be in the SEC. Heck, Alabama showed tonight that you don't even have to win the SEC to win a national championship. This isn't me hating the SEC due to an ACC inferiority complex. It is me hating on a system that is not decided on the field and where one conference is now benefiting from money, marketing and media hype. It would be like the World Series was only decided between the Red Sox and Yankees every year. I want a playoff. I want home playoff games and I want automatic qualifiers from all the major conferences. If we keep this slow march towards a "plus 1" and keeping the bowls and allowing six or seven SEC teams in BCS games, then most of the ACC will be squeezed out. College football will only be a power group of 40 or so schools. We need a playoff and the ACC needs to lead the charge. The conference needs to do it for the money and do it for the survival of the other 120 schools playing FBS (DIA) football.

The ACC could lead the change but we have gutless apologizing leadership. The conference, its coaches and its media members are constantly defending ACC football. Who cares? We don't oversign like the SEC teams. We have more admission restrictions. Of course our football will suffer a bit. Because we are not a collection of tradition football powers and because we have a group of private schools, we will never travel as well to bowl games. I know all the ACC teams got rolled in bowl games, but once again it doesn't matter. The bowl games are quirky neutral site games after long layoffs. If we had a real playoff, I am sure a hot ACC team would make a run on occasion.

Instead our leaders sit by and allow ESPN to prop up the bowl system and the SEC to be the primary beneficiary simply because they deliver ratings and hype. The regular season doesn't matter. Alabama just proved that. History doesn't matter or else they wouldn't have ruined the bowls. Academics don't matter or else SEC's would try to graduate their players. Cheating doesn't even matter. Look at the slap on the wrist Ohio State got. So we ignore all these issues to keep the old boy network of bowl reps, coaches and ADs protected. Having 70 teams in bowls helps perception. Having say 16 playoff teams would ratchet up the pressure on coaches and ADs.

The ACC could lead for change. We could work with the other schools to get a playoff. We could lead by example and it would mean more money and a better chance at championships. Instead our gutless leaders will sit back and watch Alabama and LSU play for another title next year.

Edsall, UConn and what could have been

After the smoke cleared from the bowl scheduling I saw a few tweets and message board posts regarding Randy Edsall and UConn. There is a small contingent of media and opposing fans that like to remind BC that if we had stayed in the Big East we would have played in a BCS game by now. They also like to hint that we should have hired Randy Edsall. As a blogger and a critic I love to use and abuse hindsight, but in this case it doesn't matter. We've made plenty of mistakes along the way, but I have absolutely zero regrets about Edsall or the Big East.

Edsall the Bridesmaid
Randy Edsall was almost the BC head coach four different times. There are varied urban legends surrounding the BC-Edsall courtship. He was deemed to green to take over for Coughlin in 1994. The only admitted time he was offered the job was in 1996-97. Small problem though. Chet Gladchuk was a powerless lame duck so other people were offering the job to Kevin Gilbride and Tom O'Brien. Edsall was left with an empty promise yet no long-term bitterness towards BC. In fact he kept hoping for another chance at the Heights. Like a lot of people who have come through BC, Edsall appreciated what BC offered and saw what Coughlin did firsthand. Later, he was given a cursory look when TOB left. His folks had a more serious discussion when Jags was fired, but still Edsall was left hanging. Those failed flirtations were probably more about what Gene was looking for and less about what Randy brought to the table. Personally I think Edsall would have been fine at BC, but I've never seen anything that made me long for his leadership. I think his team's are decent, but boring. I don't particularly care for his sideline antics at times. It always looks like he is doing a bad Coughlin impression. Yet he lacks Coughlin's smarts and charm and the success that allows TC to get away with some of his ranting and raving. If Edsall had ever coached at BC I am sure he would have been fine, but I don't know if he ever would have helped us break our current ceiling.

The Big East's backdoor to the BCS
The irony of the current BCS format is that it is easier to get in from the Big East or a non-automatic qualifier school than it is to get in from the other power conferences. Add in the extra game that an SEC, Big XII or ACC team must win, and you are left with a real test, not some mini-hurdle like the Big East. But we didn't join the ACC to just to get into the BCS. The move was about money, stability, a future, partnering with like-minded schools and prestige. Staying in what became the Big East would have been a marketing, recruiting and ticket selling disaster. I still don't think the current configuration of the Big East will last. I know any current BCS team -- including UConn -- would glady trade their one trip to the BCS in exchange for a spot in the ACC. Besides, we had our chance at the Big East's joke bid and blew it.

I don't know when we will finally get into the BCS, but when we do, it won't be with an asterisk or by default. We will have earned it and the program will be better for it.

Baseball features, expansion news and other links

Three different BC baseball players were featured in various articles this weekend...

Mickey Wiswall is hoping to get drafted high and see it followed by a good offer. While I would love to see him come back for his SR year, you can't blame these kids for taking the money. School will always be there. You never know when the injury bug could hit.

John Spatola's rise to major league prospect was a little less predictable, but he is also hoping to get drafted and get a shot with some team.

Andrew Del Colle is hoping to end his tough luck cycle this summer in the NECBL summer league.

This article does not focus on BC but it was too good for me not to highlight. It's Yahoo's Dan Wetzel exposing the stupidity and hypocrisy of the BCS and how the participants leave hundreds of millions of dollars on the table by not having a playoff. I haven't harped on it lately but Gene should have been a leader in the playoff push long ago. BC has never and will never benefit from the current bowl system. The playoff only would have gained momentum if BCS participants were driving the conversation. BCS schools who were not benefiting from the BCS should have been leading the charge. Instead we find ourselves waiting for dominoes to fall again...not knowing what the future brings.

Evan Ravenel had a solid season last year, but not the break out performance we had hoped for. His transfer, while a disappointment, was not a surprise. Where he is transferring is a surprise! Evan will move on to Ohio State. I wish him luck and hope he does well. At least he is going to a strong program in a solid conference.

An outsider's perspective

We tend to see the world through gold and maroon colored glasses. I would also say our opinions on BC and the ACC are often more informed than some of the pundits who have seen BC play a game or two this year. Want a pretty impartial and fair look at the conference? Take a look at this recap by SMQ. I agree with his main point regarding BC:

Either way, the criteria will be the same for B.C. as it's been for would-be contenders from the Big East, which is now for all intents and purposes the ACC's equal: go undefeated, and hope there are no fellow unbeatens from any of the other five power conferences in line for the second spot.

We just need to take care of our business. The rest of college football will not matter until December 2. Right now we just need to beat Virginia Tech.

How have the other "3"s fared?

The fate of the third ranked team in the initial BCS poll is mixed. Take a look.

Year	No. 3 in first BCS poll	Played in championship game	Record	Final Ranking
2006	Michigan	No	11-2	9
2005	Virginia Tech	No	11-2	7
2004	Oklahoma	Yes	12-1	3
2003	Virginia Tech	No	8-5	unranked
2002	Notre Dame	No	10-3	17
2001	UCLA	No	7-4	unranked
2000	Virginia Tech	No	11-1	6
1999	Virginia Tech	Yes	11-1	3
1998	Tennessee	Yes	13-0	1

While three teams in the spot have gone on to the title game, two have stumbled all the way out of the rankings by season's end. Only the 1998 Tennessee team went on from the No. 3 slot in the first BCS ballot all the way to a national title.

What does this prove? There is a long road ahead. I'm parroting Jags here, but we should just focus on Virginia Tech.

Just where we want to be -- under the radar

Here are some posts of note regarding the first BCS and my reaction at the end.

Stewart Mandel doesn't think BC will hold our position.

Brad Edwards reminds us that the No. 1 team in the first BCS poll has not had great success winning it all.

Angry T thinks we are headed towards a doomsday scenario.

Sunday Morning QB captures the fallacy of the human polling and how the system is decidedly broken. Things should be decided on the field, not by polls.

So the consensus seems to be BC won't be a factor in the National Championship game. That's perfect. Let everyone yabber on about South Florida or if LSU will jump back in the game. BC can just focus on the next opponent.

"BC" S!

The first BCS rankings are out and BC is No. 3. Very exciting but a word of caution: don't get too caught up in this. None of the BCS stuff is in BC's control. The ACC is. Beat the teams on our schedule and I think everything will work itself out. (Now I will ignore my own advice and start pricing hotel rooms in New Orleans and when I am done, I'll start handicapping Ohio State and USF's future schedules.)