Im going to break this down for everyone since im sick and tired of people saying that the Big East is likely to lose its BCS status.

Boise St. has better BCS numbers than WVU.

Houston has better BCS numbers than Pitt.

UCF has better BCS numbers than 'Cuse.

Now throw in decent numbers from Navy, SMU and Air Force and you have a better conference than the current BE. There is even a possibility of adding BYU which would make those numbers even greater.

This new conference would be even more attractive to BCS bowls since they would be adding teams who travel well and are out west closer to the Fiesta Bowl than the East coast schools.

Common sense people, lets use it and not just shout espn talking points.

(11-04-2011 04:22 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Im going to break this down for everyone since im sick and tired of people saying that the Big East is likely to lose its BCS status.

Boise St. has better BCS numbers than WVU.

Houston has better BCS numbers than Pitt.

UCF has better BCS numbers than 'Cuse.

Now throw in decent numbers from Navy, SMU and Air Force and you have a better conference than the current BE. There is even a possibility of adding BYU which would make those numbers even greater.

This new conference would be even more attractive to BCS bowls since they would be adding teams who travel well and are out west closer to the Fiesta Bowl than the East coast schools.

Common sense people, lets use it and not just shout espn talking points.

teams who travel well? Don't think any of this is about teams who travel well, but about markets and political moves. I'll give you Navy, who has a nationwide following, and Boise certainly gas gained National traction, but a fair number of these teams have a history of problematic home attendance, let alone travel attendance.

I like all the teams the Big East seems to be inviting, I just wish the northeastern schools could appreciate the value ECU brings to the table - but I also can't really argue that ECU has little in common culturally with the big east privates. ok ecu hijack over...

I think the Big East still has a very serious problem with the proposed makeup. It is so spread out, the schools will probably have a hard time developing rivalries and being true conference partners like you see in the more stable conferences. For that reason, the teams will likely maintain a wandering eye for a "better deal." The hand was admittedly forced upon the Big East, but the awkward makeup and questionable leadership hasn't helped things.

I guess we'll see how it all shakes out after 2013.

A hard time developing rivalries? You mean like UH/SMU, Boise/BYU, UL/UC, AFA/USNA, UConn/RU, USF/UCF?

(11-04-2011 05:19 AM)Dub591 Wrote:  I guess we'll see how it all shakes out after 2013.

If Boise and Houston continue this year, the BE will have more BCS points than the ACC does.

(11-04-2011 04:22 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Im going to break this down for everyone since im sick and tired of people saying that the Big East is likely to lose its BCS status.

Boise St. has better BCS numbers than WVU.

Houston has better BCS numbers than Pitt.

UCF has better BCS numbers than 'Cuse.

Now throw in decent numbers from Navy, SMU and Air Force and you have a better conference than the current BE. There is even a possibility of adding BYU which would make those numbers even greater.

This new conference would be even more attractive to BCS bowls since they would be adding teams who travel well and are out west closer to the Fiesta Bowl than the East coast schools.

Common sense people, lets use it and not just shout espn talking points.

Cool, thanks for "the big east isnt going to lose its AQ status breakdown" post #3976....

(11-04-2011 05:53 AM)NutmegStateofMind Wrote:  A hard time developing rivalries? You mean like UH/SMU, Boise/BYU, UL/UC, AFA/USNA, UConn/RU, USF/UCF?

LOL - that only means those schools may wish to stick together, not together in the Big East. As someone who has watched a team in a spread out conference, I know the difficulties it brings, and consequent lack of loyalty. You missed the overall point. The trouble is with more with SMU and UCONN, not SMU and Houston. Look at the SEC, ACC, Big 10. There is great interest in MOST conf games. But don't worry, the underwhelming fan interest of the matchups will ensure that you can get a good walk up ticket on game day at may of these stadiums. The present facts bear that out.

This isn't an issue for CUSA teams - because they are already used to it. and dunno that BYU will answer your call, so its best not to count the wives before the wedding days, so to speak. If they gave the B12 the cold shoulder, I doubt that they'll change their tune now. So take my words at face value and tell me what you think when your team is travelling around the country on game days. UCONN wouldn't support their team in a BCS bowl in AZ after all, what makes you think you'll be up for a trip to Colorado Springs in November?

Final parting shot, UCONN has been begging to go to the ACC - you think that will change now? The conf model is unstable. You'll see...

(11-04-2011 06:33 AM)AnnapolisPirate Wrote:  

(11-04-2011 05:53 AM)NutmegStateofMind Wrote:  A hard time developing rivalries? You mean like UH/SMU, Boise/BYU, UL/UC, AFA/USNA, UConn/RU, USF/UCF?

LOL - that only means those schools may wish to stick together, not together in the Big East. As someone who has watched a team in a spread out conference, I know the difficulties it brings, and consequent lack of loyalty. You missed the overall point. The trouble is with more with SMU and UCONN, not SMU and Houston. Look at the SEC, ACC, Big 10. There is great interest in MOST conf games. But don't worry, the underwhelming fan interest of the matchups will ensure that you can get a good walk up ticket on game day at may of these stadiums. The present facts bear that out.

This isn't an issue for CUSA teams - because they are already used to it. and dunno that BYU will answer your call, so its best not to count the wives before the wedding days, so to speak. If they gave the B12 the cold shoulder, I doubt that they'll change their tune now. So take my words at face value and tell me what you think when your team is travelling around the country on game days. UCONN wouldn't support their team in a BCS bowl in AZ after all, what makes you think you'll be up for a trip to Colorado Springs in November?

Final parting shot, UCONN has been begging to go to the ACC - you think that will change now? The conf model is unstable. You'll see...

You do understand that there is going to be an east and a west, correct?

The BE is in no danger of losing AQ. They are not going to set a precedent and kick out current members without giving them every opportunity to meet standard. This precedent already has been established.

(11-04-2011 07:20 AM)NutmegStateofMind Wrote:  

(11-04-2011 06:33 AM)AnnapolisPirate Wrote:  

(11-04-2011 05:53 AM)NutmegStateofMind Wrote:  A hard time developing rivalries? You mean like UH/SMU, Boise/BYU, UL/UC, AFA/USNA, UConn/RU, USF/UCF?

LOL - that only means those schools may wish to stick together, not together in the Big East. As someone who has watched a team in a spread out conference, I know the difficulties it brings, and consequent lack of loyalty. You missed the overall point. The trouble is with more with SMU and UCONN, not SMU and Houston. Look at the SEC, ACC, Big 10. There is great interest in MOST conf games. But don't worry, the underwhelming fan interest of the matchups will ensure that you can get a good walk up ticket on game day at may of these stadiums. The present facts bear that out.

This isn't an issue for CUSA teams - because they are already used to it. and dunno that BYU will answer your call, so its best not to count the wives before the wedding days, so to speak. If they gave the B12 the cold shoulder, I doubt that they'll change their tune now. So take my words at face value and tell me what you think when your team is travelling around the country on game days. UCONN wouldn't support their team in a BCS bowl in AZ after all, what makes you think you'll be up for a trip to Colorado Springs in November?

Final parting shot, UCONN has been begging to go to the ACC - you think that will change now? The conf model is unstable. You'll see...

You do understand that there is going to be an east and a west, correct?

Doesn't change his point. Also there are going to be crossover games, unless you are planning to add to a point where you don't need to play them. There will be years you have to make 2 trips west, and sure it sounds easy but it's tough on the team, fans, and makes it nearly impossible to get any sort of real connection or rivalry with the teams. The newness will make it exciting at first, but after a while when you're going out to Air Force on a Friday night, or Boise on a Wednesday you will start to think to yourself "why are we playing these teams, we have nothing in common with them and no conenction with them at all." Also whatever current BE team gets stuck in the west is not going to be very happy about it at all.

I agree that Louisville could potentially be upset with playing in the west. I think the Big East should consider adding another true Western team, so that Louisville can stay East.

I think 14 makes more sense for this league.

(11-04-2011 09:01 AM)NutmegStateofMind Wrote:  I agree that Louisville could potentially be upset with playing in the west. I think the Big East should consider adding another true Western team, so that Louisville can stay East.

I think 14 makes more sense for this league.

I agree. When you span the country, more schools equate to a tighter geographic fit.

The Big East AQ status is in danger.

(11-04-2011 08:01 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Doesn't change his point. Also there are going to be crossover games, unless you are planning to add to a point where you don't need to play them. There will be years you have to make 2 trips west, and sure it sounds easy but it's tough on the team, fans, and makes it nearly impossible to get any sort of real connection or rivalry with the teams. The newness will make it exciting at first, but after a while when you're going out to Air Force on a Friday night, or Boise on a Wednesday you will start to think to yourself "why are we playing these teams, we have nothing in common with them and no conenction with them at all." Also whatever current BE team gets stuck in the west is not going to be very happy about it at all.

I think most fans that have followed conference realignment understand the need to be practical. Yes, the new Big East is going to have disjointed geography and weak rivalries. However, the answer to the question of "Why are we playing these teams?" is very simple - preserving AQ status. Adding solely schools from east wouldn't be able to do that for the Big East, but adding schools from west will very likely accomplish that. The reason why so many people on are on this Expansion/Split board is because AQ status means EVERYTHING. To say anything otherwise is being disingenuous - the only non-AQ schools in a position to turn down AQ status are the service academies and BYU because of their very different school fan base profiles and there's NFW that current AQ schools are going to give up AQ status in order to be in a more geographically-friendly league. (Recall how Ken Starr and Baylor reacted when it looked like for a few weeks that the school was going to be left out of the AQ ranks. It means EVERYTHING to those athletic departments.)

It doesn't matter who the Big East adds or how they split their divisions. Nothing would stop Louisville from going to the Big 12 or UConn from going to the ACC. Absolutely nothing. That is almost certainly never going to change. However, none of them are ever going to be guaranteed a ticket out of the Big East, either, so it's in their self-interests to make the Big East as strong of an AQ home as possible. At the same time, ECU, USM, Tulane and every other non-AQ school that isn't a service academy or BYU is going to jump at any AQ invite that they can get, so it's not as if though the MWC or C-USA are any more stable than the Big East.

The Big East is unstable WITH AQ status. The MWC and C-USA are unstable WITHOUT AQ status. Unless you're in the Big Ten, Pac-12, SEC or ACC, there is no place to call the Big East unstable compared to any other conference. EVERYONE is looking to move up unless you're in one of those 4 leagues listed above.

(11-04-2011 09:01 AM)NutmegStateofMind Wrote:  I agree that Louisville could potentially be upset with playing in the west. I think the Big East should consider adding another true Western team, so that Louisville can stay East.

I think 14 makes more sense for this league.

I would agree that any time you add teams from C-USA it makes the Big East stronger.

It is in danger. Did either CUSA or MWC have a AQ bid before? The answer is clearly no. Did CUSA have an AQ when Louisville, Cincy and USF were there? Answer again is no. So you take non-AQ teams from CUSA (old and new) and MWC, mix in a bit of Rutgers and UConn, and you've got an AQ worthy league? I don't think so. The Big East will have it's AQ for 2 more years until the contract runs out. After that it will have the same path to get into the BCS games as CUSA/MWC/MAC/Sunbelt/WAC has. It will no longer be an AQ conference. JMO.

(11-04-2011 09:14 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-04-2011 08:01 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Doesn't change his point. Also there are going to be crossover games, unless you are planning to add to a point where you don't need to play them. There will be years you have to make 2 trips west, and sure it sounds easy but it's tough on the team, fans, and makes it nearly impossible to get any sort of real connection or rivalry with the teams. The newness will make it exciting at first, but after a while when you're going out to Air Force on a Friday night, or Boise on a Wednesday you will start to think to yourself "why are we playing these teams, we have nothing in common with them and no conenction with them at all." Also whatever current BE team gets stuck in the west is not going to be very happy about it at all.

I think most fans that have followed conference realignment understand the need to be practical. Yes, the new Big East is going to have disjointed geography and weak rivalries. However, the answer to the question of "Why are we playing these teams?" is very simple - preserving AQ status. Adding solely schools from east wouldn't be able to do that for the Big East, but adding schools from west will very likely accomplish that. The reason why so many people on are on this Expansion/Split board is because AQ status means EVERYTHING. To say anything otherwise is being disingenuous - the only non-AQ schools in a position to turn down AQ status are the service academies and BYU because of their very different school fan base profiles and there's NFW that current AQ schools are going to give up AQ status in order to be in a more geographically-friendly league. (Recall how Ken Starr and Baylor reacted when it looked like for a few weeks that the school was going to be left out of the AQ ranks. It means EVERYTHING to those athletic departments.)

It doesn't matter who the Big East adds or how they split their divisions. Nothing would stop Louisville from going to the Big 12 or UConn from going to the ACC. Absolutely nothing. That is almost certainly never going to change. However, none of them are ever going to be guaranteed a ticket out of the Big East, either, so it's in their self-interests to make the Big East as strong of an AQ home as possible. At the same time, ECU, USM, Tulane and every other non-AQ school that isn't a service academy or BYU is going to jump at any AQ invite that they can get, so it's not as if though the MWC or C-USA are any more stable than the Big East.

The Big East is unstable WITH AQ status. The MWC and C-USA are unstable WITHOUT AQ status. Unless you're in the Big Ten, Pac-12, SEC or ACC, there is no place to call the Big East unstable compared to any other conference. EVERYONE is looking to move up unless you're in one of those 4 leagues listed above.

So are you saying that the theory that there was no way the BE would lose it's AQ status as long as they exist was stupid? Obviously if that was the case I can't see why they would go this route of adding teams, so they must know their AQ spot was certainly in danger.

(11-04-2011 06:33 AM)AnnapolisPirate Wrote:  

(11-04-2011 05:53 AM)NutmegStateofMind Wrote:  A hard time developing rivalries? You mean like UH/SMU, Boise/BYU, UL/UC, AFA/USNA, UConn/RU, USF/UCF?

LOL - that only means those schools may wish to stick together, not together in the Big East. As someone who has watched a team in a spread out conference, I know the difficulties it brings, and consequent lack of loyalty. You missed the overall point. The trouble is with more with SMU and UCONN, not SMU and Houston. Look at the SEC, ACC, Big 10. There is great interest in MOST conf games. But don't worry, the underwhelming fan interest of the matchups will ensure that you can get a good walk up ticket on game day at may of these stadiums. The present facts bear that out.

This isn't an issue for CUSA teams - because they are already used to it. and dunno that BYU will answer your call, so its best not to count the wives before the wedding days, so to speak. If they gave the B12 the cold shoulder, I doubt that they'll change their tune now. So take my words at face value and tell me what you think when your team is travelling around the country on game days. UCONN wouldn't support their team in a BCS bowl in AZ after all, what makes you think you'll be up for a trip to Colorado Springs in November?

Final parting shot, UCONN has been begging to go to the ACC - you think that will change now? The conf model is unstable. You'll see...

I can only speak for UH fans but we are chomping at the bit to play in the proposed western division that will include Boise State, BYU, Air Force, SMU, and Louisville!!!!

Playing this level of quality competition year in and year out will develop some nice rivalries. Much better than playing UTEP, Tulsa, and Tulane each year.

No offense to those schools but we could care less about playing them. Tulsa is kind of a nice game each year. They are a quality FB team don't get me wrong and they will be one of our late season tests this year but we just don't get fired up about Tulsa.

If Graham was still there maybe but any sort of "rivalry" that was developing left when he did.

Tulane is just a nice road trip. People only look forward to playing Tulane as an excuse to go to New Orleans not to get fired up about playing Tulane.

UTEP ehh. They play us tough every time but you won't find one UH fan that will miss playing them unless they have split loyalty already in playing UTEP. Once again a quality FB program but nothing we honestly are fired up to play or are upset about losing.

We will still play Rice OOC since it is a "rivalry" if you can call it that based on the all-time record. They have been better of late and it does make for a more interesting game. Even if it means we lose from time to time. I think we will still play them if for no other reason than it is essentially an extra home game for us. That and the fact that Reliant Stadium and the City of Houston seem interested in making this a much bigger deal in the years to come.

We are playing the next 2 years in Reliant Stadium and it will be promoted quite heavily for sure. If this shows any level of success you can bet this will probably become an annual thing.

NJRedMan, you better see your doctor and get some medication, because you will not be able to handle the media attack that will start very soon.

(11-04-2011 09:18 AM)forphase1 Wrote:  It is in danger. Did either CUSA or MWC have a AQ bid before? The answer is clearly no. Did CUSA have an AQ when Louisville, Cincy and USF were there? Answer again is no. So you take non-AQ teams from CUSA (old and new) and MWC, mix in a bit of Rutgers and UConn, and you've got an AQ worthy league? I don't think so. The Big East will have it's AQ for 2 more years until the contract runs out. After that it will have the same path to get into the BCS games as CUSA/MWC/MAC/Sunbelt/WAC has. It will no longer be an AQ conference. JMO.

Think of it this way. For years, we've had threads upon threads on this form and the Big East board asking, "Why doesn't the Big East just kick out DePaul/Seton Hall/etc.?!" The answer is because unless an athletic department is being completely egregious in its *efforts* to compete (i.e. spending money while losing still counts as a good faith effort), NO ONE wants to set a precedent where on-the-field results can be used against them to kick members out. If you kick out DePaul for being bad in basketball for a few years, then that sets a precedent to kick out Seton Hall (or Providence or Marquette or anyone else) for being bad in basketball later on. So, unless an athletic department is legitimately shirking its obligations to invest in its programs in an abhorrent manner (i.e. Temple when it was a football-only member of the Big East), no one wants to kick another member out simply because they lose games because everyone will eventually go through bad stretches of losing lots of games at some point.

Well, it's the same case for the BCS and AQ status. No one wants to set a precedent where on-the-field results can be used against them to kick members out. That's why it's very clear that the AQ status numerical criteria only applies to ADDING a 7th AQ conference, NOT for REMOVING a current AQ status. As much as Big East fans think the ACC is out to kill the BE, as long as the BE lives, the ACC is going to want the BE to maintain AQ status. Why? Because the ACC could very well perform worse on-the-field than the new BE, so they don't want the Big Ten, SEC and Pac-12 to turn around in a few years and say, "Well, we kicked out the Big East for being bad. It looks like we need to kick out the ACC, too."

Furthermore, from an off-the-field standpoint, the Big East will be adding very important symbols. Boise State is the poster child for BCS busting, while Navy and Air Force are direct extensions of the federal government. At the very least, the other AQ conferences aren't going to just yank AQ status away from the Big East in 2013. The league is going to get at least one more contract cycle to see how they perform (as well as to see how much the TV networks and bowls like the setup). There's some very negative wishful thinking among those that are getting left out regarding the Big East's AQ status. They're going to at least maintain it until 2017 (or whenever the next contract cycle ends).

Those that know me from here and my blog know that I'm not some type of Big East apologist. I have been saying for years that any Big East school would instantly take an ACC invite (which was a point of view that got me a fair amount of criticism here) and didn't believe that it was a great idea for the Big East to turn down the ESPN offer from earlier this year. Some of the TV revenue projections for this new Big East configuration are also very rosy. However, there's no question in my mind that the Big East will maintain AQ status for the long-term. The new additions will absolutely accomplish that goal (and if BYU comes in, too, then the debate really ought to be dead for good). It's going to be a solid football league that will be materially better than what will remain of the 5 non-AQ conferences both on the field and in terms of brand names.