(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.