Well?

If the BE schools show they want to commit to rebuilding the conference....

They would be crazy to jump to.
CJ

If they can get proof or have strong evidence it will be an AQ conference next cycle, I think they go. Otherwise, no.

edit for clarification: next cycle meaning post 2013, as the BE is guaranteed AQ up til then.

at this point, no. What is the exit fee for MWC?

(10-26-2011 01:10 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  If they can get proof or have strong evidence it will be an AQ conference next cycle, I think they go. Otherwise, no.

Meaning post 2013? If so, I agree with you. Not sure how the Big East can guarantee that stability though. I voted yes any way.

No, I do not believe they will. What incentive do they have to leave essentially a guaranteed BCS game on the condition they play one team from a power conference yearly. The worse their own conference gets, the more likely they reach the BCS.

(10-26-2011 01:08 PM)Wooglin157 Wrote:  If the BE schools show they want to commit to rebuilding the conference....

What if the BE schools not only fall short of committing to rebuilding the conference; but they actively engage in lobbying other conferences for membership so that they can get out of the Big East?

....... oh wait.

Why would they right now??? They hold all the cards, and quite frankly, the BE needs them more than they need the BE. The BE leftovers are trying as hard as they can to jump ship, and more than likely the conference loses more than just one team before all is said and done.

Couple that with the enormous travel and weird conference matchups, and I can't see one real reason why'd they'd jump right now. The AQ is nice, but they'd be practically the only reason the BE kept it - if the even do - after 2013/15....

Boise should be putting pressure on Thompson to deliver something big that allows them to stay regional, have better access to the BCS, and make them more money than what they make now.....

Hmmmmm......

(10-26-2011 01:08 PM)Wooglin157 Wrote:  If the BE schools show they want to commit to rebuilding the conference....

I thought everyone was trying to get out of the conference?

(10-26-2011 01:15 PM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(10-26-2011 01:10 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  If they can get proof or have strong evidence it will be an AQ conference next cycle, I think they go. Otherwise, no.

Meaning post 2013? If so, I agree with you. Not sure how the Big East can guarantee that stability though. I voted yes any way.

Yeah, sorry, I meant post 2013. They are guaranteed up til then. And, if this quote from a BCS official is to be believe, Boise's previous BCS success can't be used to help the Big East for after 2013 if they commissioners care at all about the formula as they negotiate the new contract.

"When asked how conference realignment might affect these reviews, Maxey Parrish of the BCS said: “Since it's impossible to determine how a team would have played had they been a member of another conference, the rankings count for the conference schools [which] were members of [the conference] at that time.""

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigeast/post/_/i...sts-stance

I think if some other decent schools decide to go, then Boise will.

What Boise would do if it was smart would be to force the Big East to invite the teams that it wants and best ensure the Big East keeps its AQ bid after 2013. Essentially take the best 7 schools from the Alliance and join forces with the remaining 5 in the Big East.

(10-26-2011 01:26 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(10-26-2011 01:15 PM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(10-26-2011 01:10 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  If they can get proof or have strong evidence it will be an AQ conference next cycle, I think they go. Otherwise, no.

Meaning post 2013? If so, I agree with you. Not sure how the Big East can guarantee that stability though. I voted yes any way.

Yeah, sorry, I meant post 2013. They are guaranteed up til then. And, if this quote from a BCS official is to be believe, Boise's previous BCS success can't be used to help the Big East for after 2013 if they commissioners care at all about the formula as they negotiate the new contract.

"When asked how conference realignment might affect these reviews, Maxey Parrish of the BCS said: “Since it's impossible to determine how a team would have played had they been a member of another conference, the rankings count for the conference schools [which] were members of [the conference] at that time.""

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigeast/post/_/i...sts-stance

Here's what I don't understand. If the crux of this issue is whether the Big East has or has not met the criteria and what the BCS would or would not do in the case the Big East hasn't met it, then why can't the prospective schools meet with BCS representatives and get the straight definitive answer? Why do they get some scenarios from the Big East and and some from the Alliance? Why don't they get definitive answers about all of the scenarios directly from the horse's mouth???? This lady, Maxey Parrish seems to know what would happen in each scenario. What the hell Boise St., UCF, Houston, SMU, Navy, AFA, etc.??? Go talk to her and get your answers. If it sounds great, then join. If not, then don't. But let's stop with the listening to one side and then the other and guessing which one sounds more plausible.

100% lock they will join. The new Big East will make 3-10X's more revenue over the alliance. Not to mention some of the best teams are leaving the alliance.

(10-26-2011 01:42 PM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(10-26-2011 01:26 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  

(10-26-2011 01:15 PM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(10-26-2011 01:10 PM)d1owls4life Wrote:  If they can get proof or have strong evidence it will be an AQ conference next cycle, I think they go. Otherwise, no.

Meaning post 2013? If so, I agree with you. Not sure how the Big East can guarantee that stability though. I voted yes any way.

Yeah, sorry, I meant post 2013. They are guaranteed up til then. And, if this quote from a BCS official is to be believe, Boise's previous BCS success can't be used to help the Big East for after 2013 if they commissioners care at all about the formula as they negotiate the new contract.

"When asked how conference realignment might affect these reviews, Maxey Parrish of the BCS said: “Since it's impossible to determine how a team would have played had they been a member of another conference, the rankings count for the conference schools [which] were members of [the conference] at that time.""

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigeast/post/_/i...sts-stance

Here's what I don't understand. If the crux of this issue is whether the Big East has or has not met the criteria and what the BCS would or would not do in the case the Big East hasn't met it, then why can't the prospective schools meet with BCS representatives and get the straight definitive answer? Why do they get some scenarios from the Big East and and some from the Alliance? Why don't they get definitive answers about all of the scenarios directly from the horse's mouth???? This lady, Maxey Parrish seems to know what would happen in each scenario. What the hell Boise St., UCF, Houston, SMU, Navy, AFA, etc.??? Go talk to her and get your answers. If it sounds great, then join. If not, then don't. But let's stop with the listening to one side and then the other and guessing which one sounds more plausible.

Exactly. I don't know what is so hard about that.

If I were in charge at Boise, I'd tell the Big East, "We'll get back to you in three or four months after things have settled down."

The Big East won't say no if Boise decides in April that they want in.

I'm a Boise fan. 90% of us want the move.

Here is why:

We joined the MWC on the premise of TCU, Utah and BYU being there to build with. All 3 are gone. After a middle of the road Air Force team, the conference is trash on the football field. Complete trash. Nevada, Fresno and Hawaii come in next year but Nevada has no staying power and they have no fan support. Hawaii has their niche but it is no better than any other mid level non-BCS. Fresno could be really good but they have limited funding and apathy within their community...

1.) The MWC TV deal is bad for exposure and pays only 1.4 million per year.
2.) The conference schedule is a joke and only SDSU will offer any competition in the future. Not much competition....
3.) Fans are tired of blow outs at home. We already know the outcome of the games before they start.
4.) We need money to expand facilities.
5.) We need to move up in affiliation, even if the BEAST is just one step forward it is still better than the MWC as it will be going forward.
6.) Our president and our head coach are fully behind a move to the BEAST and travel would not be that big of a deal.
7.) Having an AQ nametag might change the mind of the PAC12 to actually schedule us for games. Previously a lose-lose situation for that conference. We have always gone east for OOC games anyways because 8 of the PAC schools will not play us.
8.) People on our home message board have ran the BCS numbers to an end. The BEAST is not going to lose AQ, especially with Navy and AF.
9.) Did I mention the money?
10.) State politics leave the academic standing of the school in a hard place to move up. Long story short, Univ. of Idaho is the tradition flagship school and anything medical went east to Idaho State. Boise State, with a higher affiliation stands to make a lot of progress within the states higher education system. With half of the states population in the Boise area and shrinking enrollment at the other 2 schools Boise with evolve into the school of choice over the next 10 to 15 years. The affiliation with the BEAST helps expedite the process.

We place a premium on our athletic department, as our teams are a gateway to the growth of the school. Being affiliated with the BEAST and in a western division of Houston, SMU, Air Force and 2 other good schools is far and away better than any situation we can be in. From a football, financial, viewership, respect (more than the current MWC) and growth standpoint.

(10-26-2011 01:07 PM)Chappy Wrote:  Well?

Yes - if they are invited.

(10-26-2011 01:56 PM)scounty Wrote:  We joined the MWC on the premise of TCU, Utah and BYU being there to build with. All 3 are gone.

I'm sure at the time Boise State started talking to the MWC that was the idea.

But by the time Boise accepted the invitation, Utah was already on its way out. Utah officially accepted its Pac-12 invitation only a few days after Boise State accepted its MWC invitation.

(10-26-2011 01:59 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-26-2011 01:56 PM)scounty Wrote:  We joined the MWC on the premise of TCU, Utah and BYU being there to build with. All 3 are gone.

I'm sure at the time Boise State started talking to the MWC that was the idea.

But by the time Boise accepted the invitation, Utah was already on its way out. Utah officially accepted its Pac-12 invitation only a few days after Boise State accepted its MWC invitation.

Yea but staying in the WAC would be no better.