The "we're waiting to announce all together" reason just doesn't pass the mustard anymore and quite honestly never made any sense. I think the recent news of possible BCS AQ changes have delayed Boise and the BE from moving forth.

1. It doesn't make sense for Boise or BYU to join a conference of eastern schools with no AQ status.

2. It doesn't make sense for the BB programs to agree to inviting UH, UCF, and SMU alone if AQ status is gone.

If the AQ tag is removed from the BCS, the BE will become nothing more than CUSA or the MWC. So lets stop with the whole "we're waiting to announce together" crap because this isn't a completely true or accurate comment.

(11-20-2011 06:44 AM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  The "we're waiting to announce all together" reason just doesn't pass the mustard anymore and quite honestly never made any sense. I think the recent news of possible BCS AQ changes have delayed Boise and the BE from moving forth.

1. It doesn't make sense for Boise or BYU to join a conference of eastern schools with no AQ status.

2. It doesn't make sense for the BB programs to agree to inviting UH, UCF, and SMU alone if AQ status is gone.

If the AQ tag is removed from the BCS, the BE will become nothing more than CUSA or the MWC. So lets stop with the whole "we're waiting to announce together" crap because this isn't a completely true or accurate comment.

Without the AQ status, it becomes even more important than ever to be in the strongest league possible. Undefeated Houston is getting no respect because UCLA, a middle of the pack team in the Pac-12 is the best win they have. Teams who want to get to a BCS bowl must have strength of schedule to get there, which is why the New Big East is likely to look the same regardless of AQ or not.

(11-20-2011 07:19 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(11-20-2011 06:44 AM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  The "we're waiting to announce all together" reason just doesn't pass the mustard anymore and quite honestly never made any sense. I think the recent news of possible BCS AQ changes have delayed Boise and the BE from moving forth.

1. It doesn't make sense for Boise or BYU to join a conference of eastern schools with no AQ status.

2. It doesn't make sense for the BB programs to agree to inviting UH, UCF, and SMU alone if AQ status is gone.

If the AQ tag is removed from the BCS, the BE will become nothing more than CUSA or the MWC. So lets stop with the whole "we're waiting to announce together" crap because this isn't a completely true or accurate comment.

Without the AQ status, it becomes even more important than ever to be in the strongest league possible. Undefeated Houston is getting no respect because UCLA, a middle of the pack team in the Pac-12 is the best win they have. Teams who want to get to a BCS bowl must have strength of schedule to get there, which is why the New Big East is likely to look the same regardless of AQ or not.

No respect? Houston has ridden CUSA to a Top ranking. If Houston played in PAC, it would probably be a 50/50 win/loss team as your statement, unintendedly, states. Houston is repeating Boise's past path to success. And the "prestigous power packed" BE is looking to WAC/MWC school like Boise and inferior CUSA for Houston....to get a couple top 25 teams, which it doesn't have now.

(11-20-2011 08:59 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(11-20-2011 07:19 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(11-20-2011 06:44 AM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  The "we're waiting to announce all together" reason just doesn't pass the mustard anymore and quite honestly never made any sense. I think the recent news of possible BCS AQ changes have delayed Boise and the BE from moving forth.

1. It doesn't make sense for Boise or BYU to join a conference of eastern schools with no AQ status.

2. It doesn't make sense for the BB programs to agree to inviting UH, UCF, and SMU alone if AQ status is gone.

If the AQ tag is removed from the BCS, the BE will become nothing more than CUSA or the MWC. So lets stop with the whole "we're waiting to announce together" crap because this isn't a completely true or accurate comment.

Without the AQ status, it becomes even more important than ever to be in the strongest league possible. Undefeated Houston is getting no respect because UCLA, a middle of the pack team in the Pac-12 is the best win they have. Teams who want to get to a BCS bowl must have strength of schedule to get there, which is why the New Big East is likely to look the same regardless of AQ or not.

No respect? Houston has ridden CUSA to a Top ranking. If Houston played in PAC, it would probably be a 50/50 win/loss team as your statement, unintendedly, states. Houston is repeating Boise's past path to success. And the "prestigous power packed" BE is looking to WAC/MWC school like Boise and inferior CUSA for Houston....to get a couple top 25 teams, which it doesn't have now.

no one knows how Houston would do if they were in the Pac 12, Big 12, or any other conference

BYU dragging there feet...(probably will not join) Which means Boise won't join w/out another Western team... Air Force probably always was a long shot. Navy needs a12 team leage. They want 8 conference games not 9...they need at least 4 OOC games.

I think in the end Houston, SMU, and UCF join with two eastern football only schools. best guess is the "Western initiative is Dead"

(11-20-2011 08:59 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(11-20-2011 07:19 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(11-20-2011 06:44 AM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  The "we're waiting to announce all together" reason just doesn't pass the mustard anymore and quite honestly never made any sense. I think the recent news of possible BCS AQ changes have delayed Boise and the BE from moving forth.

1. It doesn't make sense for Boise or BYU to join a conference of eastern schools with no AQ status.

2. It doesn't make sense for the BB programs to agree to inviting UH, UCF, and SMU alone if AQ status is gone.

If the AQ tag is removed from the BCS, the BE will become nothing more than CUSA or the MWC. So lets stop with the whole "we're waiting to announce together" crap because this isn't a completely true or accurate comment.

Without the AQ status, it becomes even more important than ever to be in the strongest league possible. Undefeated Houston is getting no respect because UCLA, a middle of the pack team in the Pac-12 is the best win they have. Teams who want to get to a BCS bowl must have strength of schedule to get there, which is why the New Big East is likely to look the same regardless of AQ or not.

No respect? Houston has ridden CUSA to a Top ranking. If Houston played in PAC, it would probably be a 50/50 win/loss team as your statement, unintendedly, states. Houston is repeating Boise's past path to success. And the "prestigous power packed" BE is looking to WAC/MWC school like Boise and inferior CUSA for Houston....to get a couple top 25 teams, which it doesn't have now.

They're undefeated! Right now they're not even in position to get into any of the BCS bowls, much less a championship game.

Yeah, they're getting no respect. If they want to get to the next level & to get into a bowl game commensurate with their record, they need to be in a stronger conference with a stronger SOS. CUSA isn't doing that for them.

Because the CUSA we know now isn't going anywhere. We are stronger at the top than the Big East. Plain and simple.

(11-20-2011 09:22 AM)No Bull Wrote:  BYU dragging there feet...(probably will not join) Which means Boise won't join w/out another Western team... Air Force probably always was a long shot. Navy needs a12 team leage. They want 8 conference games not 9...they need at least 4 OOC games.

I think in the end Houston, SMU, and UCF join with two eastern football only schools. best guess is the "Western initiative is Dead"

How does "dragging their feet" equal "dead"?

Even if BYU doesn't come, why does that mean that Boise doesn't? BYU is not the only western team. There have been San Diego State rumors circulating for some time.

(11-20-2011 09:24 AM)TampaKnight Wrote:  Because the CUSA we know now isn't going anywhere. We are stronger at the top than the Big East. Plain and simple.

UCF not going anywhere? SMU not going anywhere?

Nice try.

The whole point of the Big East's rebuilding plan is to make them stronger at the top with Boise, BYU, etc.

(11-20-2011 09:29 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(11-20-2011 09:22 AM)No Bull Wrote:  BYU dragging there feet...(probably will not join) Which means Boise won't join w/out another Western team... Air Force probably always was a long shot. Navy needs a12 team leage. They want 8 conference games not 9...they need at least 4 OOC games.

I think in the end Houston, SMU, and UCF join with two eastern football only schools. best guess is the "Western initiative is Dead"

How does "dragging their feet" equal "dead"?

Even if BYU doesn't come, why does that mean that Boise doesn't? BYU is not the only western team. There have been San Diego State rumors circulating for some time.

SD State is a long way from Boise Idaho...how they help Boise STI don't know.... I have not hear that Boise has signed on the dotted line. I don't know that the Western division with Boise is dead...but I think that it might be.

(11-20-2011 09:33 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(11-20-2011 09:24 AM)TampaKnight Wrote:  Because the CUSA we know now isn't going anywhere. We are stronger at the top than the Big East. Plain and simple.

UCF not going anywhere? SMU not going anywhere?

Nice try.

The whole point of the Big East's rebuilding plan is to make them stronger at the top with Boise, BYU, etc.

You do realize UCF is 4-7 in lowly CUSA right? Not putting UCF down...just laughing at the whole "making the BE stronger" comment....if they have to add a bunch of CUSA teams and A MWC and an Independant team to be stronger than CUSA something is not right with that picture...

It took Mizzou almost 2 months to get out of the Big12 and into the SEC.

Now imagine doing that with 7 schools

There is already an agreement in principle. Just knock out the details.

(11-20-2011 09:23 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(11-20-2011 08:59 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(11-20-2011 07:19 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(11-20-2011 06:44 AM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  The "we're waiting to announce all together" reason just doesn't pass the mustard anymore and quite honestly never made any sense. I think the recent news of possible BCS AQ changes have delayed Boise and the BE from moving forth.

1. It doesn't make sense for Boise or BYU to join a conference of eastern schools with no AQ status.

2. It doesn't make sense for the BB programs to agree to inviting UH, UCF, and SMU alone if AQ status is gone.

If the AQ tag is removed from the BCS, the BE will become nothing more than CUSA or the MWC. So lets stop with the whole "we're waiting to announce together" crap because this isn't a completely true or accurate comment.

Without the AQ status, it becomes even more important than ever to be in the strongest league possible. Undefeated Houston is getting no respect because UCLA, a middle of the pack team in the Pac-12 is the best win they have. Teams who want to get to a BCS bowl must have strength of schedule to get there, which is why the New Big East is likely to look the same regardless of AQ or not.

No respect? Houston has ridden CUSA to a Top ranking. If Houston played in PAC, it would probably be a 50/50 win/loss team as your statement, unintendedly, states. Houston is repeating Boise's past path to success. And the "prestigous power packed" BE is looking to WAC/MWC school like Boise and inferior CUSA for Houston....to get a couple top 25 teams, which it doesn't have now.

They're undefeated! Right now they're not even in position to get into any of the BCS bowls, much less a championship game.

Yeah, they're getting no respect. If they want to get to the next level & to get into a bowl game commensurate with their record, they need to be in a stronger conference with a stronger SOS. CUSA isn't doing that for them.

Where have you been? The Coogs will be in the Sugar Bowl if they win out. They are the highest ranked non-AQ conference champ if they win out and in the top 12 of BCS which means they go to a BCS bowl. You are so wrong.

(11-20-2011 09:45 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(11-20-2011 09:23 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(11-20-2011 08:59 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(11-20-2011 07:19 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(11-20-2011 06:44 AM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  The "we're waiting to announce all together" reason just doesn't pass the mustard anymore and quite honestly never made any sense. I think the recent news of possible BCS AQ changes have delayed Boise and the BE from moving forth.

1. It doesn't make sense for Boise or BYU to join a conference of eastern schools with no AQ status.

2. It doesn't make sense for the BB programs to agree to inviting UH, UCF, and SMU alone if AQ status is gone.

If the AQ tag is removed from the BCS, the BE will become nothing more than CUSA or the MWC. So lets stop with the whole "we're waiting to announce together" crap because this isn't a completely true or accurate comment.

Without the AQ status, it becomes even more important than ever to be in the strongest league possible. Undefeated Houston is getting no respect because UCLA, a middle of the pack team in the Pac-12 is the best win they have. Teams who want to get to a BCS bowl must have strength of schedule to get there, which is why the New Big East is likely to look the same regardless of AQ or not.

No respect? Houston has ridden CUSA to a Top ranking. If Houston played in PAC, it would probably be a 50/50 win/loss team as your statement, unintendedly, states. Houston is repeating Boise's past path to success. And the "prestigous power packed" BE is looking to WAC/MWC school like Boise and inferior CUSA for Houston....to get a couple top 25 teams, which it doesn't have now.

They're undefeated! Right now they're not even in position to get into any of the BCS bowls, much less a championship game.

Yeah, they're getting no respect. If they want to get to the next level & to get into a bowl game commensurate with their record, they need to be in a stronger conference with a stronger SOS. CUSA isn't doing that for them.

Where have you been? The Coogs will be in the Sugar Bowl if they win out. They are the highest ranked non-AQ conference champ if they win out and in the top 12 of BCS which means they go to a BCS bowl. You are so wrong.

You're so right. I stated my point poorly. I was referring to a non-AQ world. With bowl tie ins making some conference champs automatic, Houston would not get to one of the BCS bowls with their current ranking nor what any of the "experts" are projecting in the aftermath of this weekend's upsets.

My bad. In reference to this year, Houston is absolutely in.

(11-20-2011 09:38 AM)Usm_13 Wrote:  

(11-20-2011 09:33 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(11-20-2011 09:24 AM)TampaKnight Wrote:  Because the CUSA we know now isn't going anywhere. We are stronger at the top than the Big East. Plain and simple.

UCF not going anywhere? SMU not going anywhere?

Nice try.

The whole point of the Big East's rebuilding plan is to make them stronger at the top with Boise, BYU, etc.

You do realize UCF is 4-7 in lowly CUSA right? Not putting UCF down...just laughing at the whole "making the BE stronger" comment....if they have to add a bunch of CUSA teams and A MWC and an Independant team to be stronger than CUSA something is not right with that picture...

I notice that you ignored the point about Boise & BYU. The whole package with Big East restructuring is a "best of the rest" concept. It's essential to get better at the top, hence perennially ranked Boise & perennially competitive BYU. But it's also important to have conference depth for SOS, which the remaining BE teams already have. CUSA simply does not have that combination.

As for UCF, using this year's ranking is silly. They won't be in the Big East this year. Whether a team is way up as UCF was last year when they were nationally ranked or way down as they are this year, the measure of a program is not the snap shot of a single season.

Regardless of the situation with AQ status, schools that take football seriously are going to be far better off in the long run if they associate with other schools that take football seriously.

BSU and BYU are both a thousand miles from nowhere at this point, no matter what conferences they end up in. Once they have an answer for the rest of their sports, the Big East football-only portion of this musical chairs game will be over.

(11-20-2011 09:44 AM)ShockerBob Wrote:  It took Mizzou almost 2 months to get out of the Big12 and into the SEC.

Now imagine doing that with 7 schools

There is already an agreement in principle. Just knock out the details.

Apples to oranges. UCF, SMU, and UH are ready to join now. There should not be any need to wait for Boise, BYU, AFA, or whoever. You didn't see A&M waiting for Mizzou to join to make a joint announcement. And it is completely silly to put the future of these programs on hold to make some silly joint announcement.

(11-20-2011 10:13 AM)#1UABFan Wrote:  

(11-20-2011 09:44 AM)ShockerBob Wrote:  It took Mizzou almost 2 months to get out of the Big12 and into the SEC.

Now imagine doing that with 7 schools

There is already an agreement in principle. Just knock out the details.

Apples to oranges. UCF, SMU, and UH are ready to join now. There should not be any need to wait for Boise, BYU, AFA, or whoever. You didn't see A&M waiting for Mizzou to join to make a joint announcement. And it is completely silly to put the future of these programs on hold to make some silly joint announcement.

Well if you have been following this at all then you would know that all their lawyers and school reps are working together on the entrance contracts. As the UCF Prez JUST SAID "You get that many lawyers involved, and they're paid to find problems to make sure none of us get bit by anything we're signing."

Yes, it' frustrating but this is complicated matter. You just don't say yes and walk in. In loo of that it makes Pitt and Cuse look even worse because it means that those two were in talks with the ACC for a LOOOOONG time before they bailed. Possibly including when Pitt lead the charge to turn down the ESPN offer. Is it beyond reasonable doubt to think they did so to use it as an excuse for leaving?

(11-20-2011 10:05 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(11-20-2011 09:38 AM)Usm_13 Wrote:  

(11-20-2011 09:33 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(11-20-2011 09:24 AM)TampaKnight Wrote:  Because the CUSA we know now isn't going anywhere. We are stronger at the top than the Big East. Plain and simple.

UCF not going anywhere? SMU not going anywhere?

Nice try.

The whole point of the Big East's rebuilding plan is to make them stronger at the top with Boise, BYU, etc.

You do realize UCF is 4-7 in lowly CUSA right? Not putting UCF down...just laughing at the whole "making the BE stronger" comment....if they have to add a bunch of CUSA teams and A MWC and an Independant team to be stronger than CUSA something is not right with that picture...

I notice that you ignored the point about Boise & BYU. The whole package with Big East restructuring is a "best of the rest" concept. It's essential to get better at the top, hence perennially ranked Boise & perennially competitive BYU. But it's also important to have conference depth for SOS, which the remaining BE teams already have. CUSA simply does not have that combination.

As for UCF, using this year's ranking is silly. They won't be in the Big East this year. Whether a team is way up as UCF was last year when they were nationally ranked or way down as they are this year, the measure of a program is not the snap shot of a single season.

You are correct that a single season is a snap shot and not the measure of a program.

How about this as a measure of a program
- currently on probation
- new pending NCAA investigation which resulted in firing of AD and member of coaching staff
- school and coaching staff guilty in wrongful death suit of player
- current HC has losing record in 8 years there
- one bowl win in history
- losing record (currently 4-7) in 8th year of HC tenure
- despite having 56k students can't sell out 45k seat stadium

That's the BE's idea of adding depth to its football programs?

(11-20-2011 11:15 AM)piratelaw Wrote:  

(11-20-2011 10:05 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(11-20-2011 09:38 AM)Usm_13 Wrote:  

(11-20-2011 09:33 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(11-20-2011 09:24 AM)TampaKnight Wrote:  Because the CUSA we know now isn't going anywhere. We are stronger at the top than the Big East. Plain and simple.

UCF not going anywhere? SMU not going anywhere?

Nice try.

The whole point of the Big East's rebuilding plan is to make them stronger at the top with Boise, BYU, etc.

You do realize UCF is 4-7 in lowly CUSA right? Not putting UCF down...just laughing at the whole "making the BE stronger" comment....if they have to add a bunch of CUSA teams and A MWC and an Independant team to be stronger than CUSA something is not right with that picture...

I notice that you ignored the point about Boise & BYU. The whole package with Big East restructuring is a "best of the rest" concept. It's essential to get better at the top, hence perennially ranked Boise & perennially competitive BYU. But it's also important to have conference depth for SOS, which the remaining BE teams already have. CUSA simply does not have that combination.

As for UCF, using this year's ranking is silly. They won't be in the Big East this year. Whether a team is way up as UCF was last year when they were nationally ranked or way down as they are this year, the measure of a program is not the snap shot of a single season.

You are correct that a single season is a snap shot and not the measure of a program.

How about this as a measure of a program
- currently on probation
- new pending NCAA investigation which resulted in firing of AD and member of coaching staff
- school and coaching staff guilty in wrongful death suit of player
- current HC has losing record in 8 years there
- one bowl win in history
- losing record (currently 4-7) in 8th year of HC tenure
- despite having 56k students can't sell out 45k seat stadium

That's the BE's idea of adding depth to its football programs?

you forget to mention 193-181-1 since joining D1A....but he is gonna come back with those two BE keywords....potential and market...the same thing that has them in the situation they are currently in.