(06-28-2015 07:35 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 06:59 PM)chess Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 06:49 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 04:24 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 03:18 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  I SERIOUSLY doubt Houston is getting that last call... Memphis is ahead of you and isnt over saturating the Texas market. But hell I'm holding out hope Iowa St twists someone's arm and gets NIU in for instant rivalry and travel partner so you and i can dream on together

OU wants back in the Houston market for recruiting purposes, time will tell, I am just reading and following the twitter post of Oklahoma sports writers who have access to Boren and his mind think. We in Houston been knowing for along time OU is and has been an ally for entry into the B12, no news to us, maybe for others on this board, not for us at UH. We'll see how it all plays out.

If they serious about recruiting we would be talking about Florida.

You are kidding right? You do know that Houston could stock as many Div 1 football programs as needed. Florida, California, and Houston are the areas to nationally recruit for football.

No I'm not kidding, I do know that Florida has the most concentrated base of top quality recruits in the country, more than any other state in the nation producing "The best recruits." According to Athlon, Florida (153) Has produced more top 200 recruits since 2008 than any state in the nation followed by Texas (122). These figures include the entire state, not just Houston. I think you could probably fit Five Floridas into the landmass that Texas occupies making Florida the most talent rich concentrated state in the nation for top quality FBS recruits. Hence my original statement. Do you even understand how deep the talent in the Central Florida region alone is? Besides B-12 schools already recruit the hell out of Houston, I mean seriously if you are an athlete and receive offers from Texas, OU, even Texas Tech and UH, most recruits are already going with the P-5 offer. You are the one who appears to be kidding my friend, do a little research for yourself to confirm. May I suggest googling "which state produces the most FBS football players each year." I can't even believe I'm having this conversation, which was prefaced with "You are kidding right?"

Texas and Florida are close. Raw numbers go to Texas. Density goes to Florida. That said, density is misleading. Nobody lives west of San Antonio in Texas. That's empty space. The vast majority of the population basically is concentrated in the Austin-San Antonio area, the Dallas-Ft Worth area, and Houston-SE Texas area. Coaches hit those 3 areas for their recruiting trips. If you are a conference and want a strong presence in Texas---get a school in all 3 of those areas and you are good to go for recruiting. Im betting CUSA schools like their Texas recruiting set up.

Pretty interesting recruiting map below.
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...s-recruits

(06-28-2015 07:35 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 06:59 PM)chess Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 06:49 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 04:24 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 03:18 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  I SERIOUSLY doubt Houston is getting that last call... Memphis is ahead of you and isnt over saturating the Texas market. But hell I'm holding out hope Iowa St twists someone's arm and gets NIU in for instant rivalry and travel partner so you and i can dream on together

OU wants back in the Houston market for recruiting purposes, time will tell, I am just reading and following the twitter post of Oklahoma sports writers who have access to Boren and his mind think. We in Houston been knowing for along time OU is and has been an ally for entry into the B12, no news to us, maybe for others on this board, not for us at UH. We'll see how it all plays out.

If they serious about recruiting we would be talking about Florida.

You are kidding right? You do know that Houston could stock as many Div 1 football programs as needed. Florida, California, and Houston are the areas to nationally recruit for football.

No I'm not kidding, I do know that Florida has the most concentrated base of top quality recruits in the country, more than any other state in the nation producing "The best recruits." According to Athlon, Florida (153) Has produced more top 200 recruits since 2008 than any state in the nation followed by Texas (122). These figures include the entire state, not just Houston. I think you could probably fit Five Floridas into the landmass that Texas occupies making Florida the most talent rich concentrated state in the nation for top quality FBS recruits. Hence my original statement. Do you even understand how deep the talent in the Central Florida region alone is? Besides B-12 schools already recruit the hell out of Houston, I mean seriously if you are an athlete and receive offers from Texas, OU, even Texas Tech and UH, most recruits are already going with the P-5 offer. You are the one who appears to be kidding my friend, do a little research for yourself to confirm. May I suggest googling "which state produces the most FBS football players each year." I can't even believe I'm having this conversation, which was prefaced with "You are kidding right?"

Where do college football players come from? Oh- Florida, California, and Houston. http://mode.github.io/blog/2014-01-16-fo...ndex.html#

Quote:Conferences tend to focus heavily on recruiting locally. Only the area around Los Angeles is well-represented in nearly every conference.

The largest number of players come from LA, New York, South Florida, and Houston. Relative to the number of college-aged males in the region, however, the south produces the most players.

South Florida produces a lot of football players—except kickers and punters. http://blog.modeanalytics.com/where-foot...call-home/

(06-29-2015 07:02 AM)chess Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 07:35 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 06:59 PM)chess Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 06:49 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 04:24 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  OU wants back in the Houston market for recruiting purposes, time will tell, I am just reading and following the twitter post of Oklahoma sports writers who have access to Boren and his mind think. We in Houston been knowing for along time OU is and has been an ally for entry into the B12, no news to us, maybe for others on this board, not for us at UH. We'll see how it all plays out.

If they serious about recruiting we would be talking about Florida.

You are kidding right? You do know that Houston could stock as many Div 1 football programs as needed. Florida, California, and Houston are the areas to nationally recruit for football.

No I'm not kidding, I do know that Florida has the most concentrated base of top quality recruits in the country, more than any other state in the nation producing "The best recruits." According to Athlon, Florida (153) Has produced more top 200 recruits since 2008 than any state in the nation followed by Texas (122). These figures include the entire state, not just Houston. I think you could probably fit Five Floridas into the landmass that Texas occupies making Florida the most talent rich concentrated state in the nation for top quality FBS recruits. Hence my original statement. Do you even understand how deep the talent in the Central Florida region alone is? Besides B-12 schools already recruit the hell out of Houston, I mean seriously if you are an athlete and receive offers from Texas, OU, even Texas Tech and UH, most recruits are already going with the P-5 offer. You are the one who appears to be kidding my friend, do a little research for yourself to confirm. May I suggest googling "which state produces the most FBS football players each year." I can't even believe I'm having this conversation, which was prefaced with "You are kidding right?"

Where do college football players come from? Oh- Florida, California, Houston, and Dallas. http://mode.github.io/blog/2014-01-16-fo...ndex.html#

So why would I be kidding if I suggested if they were serious about recruiting they would be talking about Florida? All of this information doesn't rebut the fact that THE BEST recruits ie. The most top 200 rated recruits come more from Florida than any other state including Texas. How much more clear can I be? Porsche vs. Volkswagen, personally I'd take the Porsche, and that my friends is precisely my point.

(06-29-2015 07:16 AM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 07:02 AM)chess Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 07:35 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 06:59 PM)chess Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 06:49 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  If they serious about recruiting we would be talking about Florida.

You are kidding right? You do know that Houston could stock as many Div 1 football programs as needed. Florida, California, and Houston are the areas to nationally recruit for football.

No I'm not kidding, I do know that Florida has the most concentrated base of top quality recruits in the country, more than any other state in the nation producing "The best recruits." According to Athlon, Florida (153) Has produced more top 200 recruits since 2008 than any state in the nation followed by Texas (122). These figures include the entire state, not just Houston. I think you could probably fit Five Floridas into the landmass that Texas occupies making Florida the most talent rich concentrated state in the nation for top quality FBS recruits. Hence my original statement. Do you even understand how deep the talent in the Central Florida region alone is? Besides B-12 schools already recruit the hell out of Houston, I mean seriously if you are an athlete and receive offers from Texas, OU, even Texas Tech and UH, most recruits are already going with the P-5 offer. You are the one who appears to be kidding my friend, do a little research for yourself to confirm. May I suggest googling "which state produces the most FBS football players each year." I can't even believe I'm having this conversation, which was prefaced with "You are kidding right?"

Where do college football players come from? Oh- Florida, California, Houston, and Dallas. http://mode.github.io/blog/2014-01-16-fo...ndex.html#

So why would I be kidding if I suggested if they were serious about recruiting they would be talking about Florida? All of this information doesn't rebut the fact that THE BEST recruits ie. The most top 200 rated recruits come more from Florida than any other state including Texas. How much more clear can I be? Porsche vs. Volkswagen, personally I'd take the Porsche, and that my friends is precisely my point.

Have you checked the Atlanta metro #s?

(06-29-2015 08:32 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 07:16 AM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 07:02 AM)chess Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 07:35 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 06:59 PM)chess Wrote:  You are kidding right? You do know that Houston could stock as many Div 1 football programs as needed. Florida, California, and Houston are the areas to nationally recruit for football.

No I'm not kidding, I do know that Florida has the most concentrated base of top quality recruits in the country, more than any other state in the nation producing "The best recruits." According to Athlon, Florida (153) Has produced more top 200 recruits since 2008 than any state in the nation followed by Texas (122). These figures include the entire state, not just Houston. I think you could probably fit Five Floridas into the landmass that Texas occupies making Florida the most talent rich concentrated state in the nation for top quality FBS recruits. Hence my original statement. Do you even understand how deep the talent in the Central Florida region alone is? Besides B-12 schools already recruit the hell out of Houston, I mean seriously if you are an athlete and receive offers from Texas, OU, even Texas Tech and UH, most recruits are already going with the P-5 offer. You are the one who appears to be kidding my friend, do a little research for yourself to confirm. May I suggest googling "which state produces the most FBS football players each year." I can't even believe I'm having this conversation, which was prefaced with "You are kidding right?"

Where do college football players come from? Oh- Florida, California, Houston, and Dallas. http://mode.github.io/blog/2014-01-16-fo...ndex.html#

So why would I be kidding if I suggested if they were serious about recruiting they would be talking about Florida? All of this information doesn't rebut the fact that THE BEST recruits ie. The most top 200 rated recruits come more from Florida than any other state including Texas. How much more clear can I be? Porsche vs. Volkswagen, personally I'd take the Porsche, and that my friends is precisely my point.

Have you checked the Atlanta metro #s?

To be sure there are clusters around Atlanta, LA, Houston etc.. But I haven't been able to locate cluster specific details for top quality recruits (those listed as top 200 recruits in the nation). The only information I've found for top 200 recruits was broken down by states, not cities. I'm referring to 4 and 5 star recruits. I have a 5 star specific article but not a 4 and 5 star one. Both Orlando and Houston just missed making the cut for producing 5 star talent, with Tampa and Dallas making the rankings (limited to top eight).

There's a heat map out there which shows where SEC players come from. Memphis looked like a hot location for elite quality recruits.

Ian Fitzsimmons ‏@Ianfitzespn
@TTuberville dropped some bombs on us today on @SiriusXMCollege a/b the future of CFB. Thinks another realignment is coming & soon.

Ian Fitzsimmons ‏@Ianfitzespn
Tubs told us he has heard if the Big 12 doesn't expand as David Boren said it should it could be absorbed into the other Power 5 conferences

(06-29-2015 10:08 AM)Bearcat2012 Wrote:  Ian Fitzsimmons ‏@Ianfitzespn
@TTuberville dropped some bombs on us today on @SiriusXMCollege a/b the future of CFB. Thinks another realignment is coming & soon.

Ian Fitzsimmons ‏@Ianfitzespn
Tubs told us he has heard if the Big 12 doesn't expand as David Boren said it should it could be absorbed into the other Power 5 conferences

Here is what I'm thinking. The Big East made a huge mistake staying too small too long as the weakest of the power conferences. Had they expanded to 12 earlier, then the new members would have had time to strengthen and become part of the fabric of the AQ conferences. Then later, when the Big East is raided and loses Pitt, W Vir, Syracuse, Louisville, and Rutgers, they still have 7 BCS AQ members to rebuild with (the remaining conference is still largely BCS AQ schools instead of being majority newly added CUSA schools). Instead, the Big East had but 4 remaining members and is made up largely of CUSA replacements with just one season as BCS AQ schools (some with none).

If the Big-12 expands now, the new schools likely get over a decade (the remaining portion of the GOR) to become part of the fabric of the P5 and will be seen as more valuable properties 10 years from now when the B12 GOR runs out. Sort of like buying the Baltics in Monopoly (they suck, but once you own them awhile and put hotels on them they have value). Then, if the Big 12 is raided after the GOR expires, the remaining schools can still rebuild with some hope that they can remain a viable Big East" level power conference. As it currently stands, the Big-12 would not survive a raid as a P5 after losing a group of 4-6 schools which included Texas and Oklahoma.

My guess is support for expansion probably includes any member fearing being left behind---plus Oklahoma and Oklahoma St. Most (if not all of) TCU, Tech, Baylor will probably vote with Texas. Honestly, my guess is the conference is largely pro-expansion with Texas against it. My guess is Texas will probably let it go through now that Oklahoma is willing to go public with its displeasure.

Tech is not going to piss off Texas

I don't get why the big 12 would pick houston…maybe the only reason i can think of would be to bring in houston and BYU to ease for some with the 2 outpost in WVU and BYU. COuld have this setup:

Texas, Texas tech, TCU, Baylor, Houston, BYU

OU, OK state, KU, Kstate, I state, WVu

Yet, i don't think you bring in another texas school when you can add UCF or USF to get into the FL market. The bigger news is with tuberville. I think it makes sense for the pac 12 to jump to 20 with 8 big 12 school's.

(06-29-2015 10:20 AM)Pony94 Wrote:  Tech is not going to piss off Texas

I Agree. However if UT ever decided to jump for greener pastures, without Tech, TTU will certainly vote their own interests. But as long as TTU remains a shadow of UT, they will definitely vote lockstep with the Whorns. That's their P5 meal ticket.

(06-29-2015 10:20 AM)Pony94 Wrote:  Tech is not going to piss off Texas

Correct. But I think Texas is really the only anti-expansion vote at this point. Oklahoma going public probably means that its just a matter of time before Texas gives in to the rest of the conference. It really makes no difference for the UT long term plan anyway. The way I see it, expansion just gives the future B-12 (whoever they are) left behinds a better chance at surviving as something better than a good G5 conference. Basically, most of the conference wants that insurance policy as only Texas and Oklahoma are truly safe.

(06-29-2015 10:18 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Here is what I'm thinking. The Big East made a huge mistake staying too small too long as the weakest of the power conferences. Had they expanded to 12 earlier, then the new members would have had time to strengthen and become part of the fabric of the AQ conferences. Then later, when the Big East is raided and loses Pitt, W Vir, Syracuse, Louisville, and Rutgers, they still have 7 BCS AQ members to rebuild with (the remaining conference is still largely BCS AQ schools instead of being majority newly added CUSA schools). Instead, the Big East had but 4 remaining members and is made up largely of CUSA replacements with just one season as BCS AQ schools (some with none).

The problem with that theory is that even if that worked to plan, that only helped out three of the remaining teams, and hurt the other five: hence why they never did it. The Big East did remain too small: they needed to go to 9 or 10, But the infrastructure was never there to really allow for expansion, because until TCU came along at the end, no school outside of the BCS had enough "umph" that the Big East could really add without watering down it's already perceived lackluster football. If you are the PAC 12, you can absorb adding a Colorado team who is in the dumps. But when you are struggling just for acceptance, adding another team not seen as "good enough" really wouldn't help the Big East.

The Big East never recovered from the disastrous 2004 season when Cincy, Louisville, and USF were forced to stay in CUSA another year, and the seven team Big East, which included first year team UConn, on it's way out BC, and a then hapless Temple team had a miserable year. Even the years after that, in which the Big East had several good teams, and some BCS championship game contenders, never outlived the reputation earned in 2004 after Miami and Va Tech left. And every decision after that had to be made with that in mind.

(06-29-2015 10:59 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 10:18 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Here is what I'm thinking. The Big East made a huge mistake staying too small too long as the weakest of the power conferences. Had they expanded to 12 earlier, then the new members would have had time to strengthen and become part of the fabric of the AQ conferences. Then later, when the Big East is raided and loses Pitt, W Vir, Syracuse, Louisville, and Rutgers, they still have 7 BCS AQ members to rebuild with (the remaining conference is still largely BCS AQ schools instead of being majority newly added CUSA schools). Instead, the Big East had but 4 remaining members and is made up largely of CUSA replacements with just one season as BCS AQ schools (some with none).

The problem with that theory is that even if that worked to plan, that only helped out three of the remaining teams, and hurt the other five: hence why they never did it. The Big East did remain too small: they needed to go to 9 or 10, But the infrastructure was never there to really allow for expansion, because until TCU came along at the end, no school outside of the BCS had enough "umph" that the Big East could really add without watering down it's already perceived lackluster football. If you are the PAC 12, you can absorb adding a Colorado team who is in the dumps. But when you are struggling just for acceptance, adding another team not seen as "good enough" really wouldn't help the Big East.

The Big East never recovered from the disastrous 2004 season when Cincy, Louisville, and USF were forced to stay in CUSA another year, and the seven team Big East, which included first year team UConn, on it's way out BC, and a then hapless Temple team had a miserable year. Even the years after that, in which the Big East had several good teams, and some BCS championship game contenders, never outlived the reputation earned in 2004 after Miami and Va Tech left. And every decision after that had to be made with that in mind.

True--but its much like insurance. Yes it would have helped just 3 Big East teams----but nobody knew who those 3 teams would be---could have been any of them at that time. That's the way it is in the Big-12, other than Texas and OU---any of them could feasibly be left behind depending on how things fall. Expansion is cheap insurance largely paid by their media contract. By the time you figure entry fee payments---the cost is negligible (they may even make money).

(06-25-2015 11:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Texas and Oklahoma run the Big 12. If one of them talks publicly about the need to go to 12, that unsettles my belief that only an obvious disadvantage in making the CFP could cause them to expand in the next 5-10 years.

Consider me unsettled, LOL.

(06-27-2015 04:47 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(06-27-2015 11:27 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  SEC fans, humor me a second.

If Kansas and Oklahoma went to the Big Ten and Texas went independent in football (but to the ACC for other sports), which two teams would the SEC want to round themselves out with 16.

I think OkSt (new geographical area...strong presence in mbball and football) and Baylor (Texas expansion).

Am I wrong?

Wasting slots on those teams is nowhere near as good as being patient and getting into NC and VA.

but to play with your imaginary scenario, any western expansion by the SEC would be purely about creating stronger TV ratings in DFW.

The only two available B12 teams in your scenario that accomplish that are OSU and TCU.

OSU has the benefit of a strong athletic program and good alumni presence in DFW but also adding a new (if small) state to the SEC footprint

Likewise, TCU has a strong athletic program. Their alumni base is smaller but its also more heavily concentrated in DFW anyway. They wouldn't add a new state or any new cable but they would add a physical presence in the city itself which is invaluable for the SEC's stated reason of even better TV ratings and exposure in the local media.

Also, in the unlikely event that the Big 12 does decide to expand and try to cut into the SEC's ratings in Houston by offering UH, I could see the SEC responding by taking SMU. They offer all the same benefits TCU does as far as getting the SEC physically into DFW to improve our exposure and ratings there.

Seems like Tech would be a likely candidate in that scenario as they probably have more fans in DFW than TCU not to mention the huge advantage they have in alumni #'s. Having #2 and #3 schools in TX would be a pretty good combo for the SEC.

(06-29-2015 10:59 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 10:18 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Here is what I'm thinking. The Big East made a huge mistake staying too small too long as the weakest of the power conferences. Had they expanded to 12 earlier, then the new members would have had time to strengthen and become part of the fabric of the AQ conferences. Then later, when the Big East is raided and loses Pitt, W Vir, Syracuse, Louisville, and Rutgers, they still have 7 BCS AQ members to rebuild with (the remaining conference is still largely BCS AQ schools instead of being majority newly added CUSA schools). Instead, the Big East had but 4 remaining members and is made up largely of CUSA replacements with just one season as BCS AQ schools (some with none).

The problem with that theory is that even if that worked to plan, that only helped out three of the remaining teams, and hurt the other five: hence why they never did it. The Big East did remain too small: they needed to go to 9 or 10, But the infrastructure was never there to really allow for expansion, because until TCU came along at the end, no school outside of the BCS had enough "umph" that the Big East could really add without watering down it's already perceived lackluster football. If you are the PAC 12, you can absorb adding a Colorado team who is in the dumps. But when you are struggling just for acceptance, adding another team not seen as "good enough" really wouldn't help the Big East.

The problem was the C-7 schools didn't want to water down their basketball product. The were quite a few good candidate for the Big East in the football area, but nobody was good enough on the basketball side of the equation to appeal to the C-7 schools in which the conference would be pushing 18 or 20 schools. That is why no expansion happen on the football side because it affected 1/2 the conference who didn't play FBS football.

(06-29-2015 10:59 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 10:18 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Here is what I'm thinking. The Big East made a huge mistake staying too small too long as the weakest of the power conferences. Had they expanded to 12 earlier, then the new members would have had time to strengthen and become part of the fabric of the AQ conferences. Then later, when the Big East is raided and loses Pitt, W Vir, Syracuse, Louisville, and Rutgers, they still have 7 BCS AQ members to rebuild with (the remaining conference is still largely BCS AQ schools instead of being majority newly added CUSA schools). Instead, the Big East had but 4 remaining members and is made up largely of CUSA replacements with just one season as BCS AQ schools (some with none).

The problem with that theory is that even if that worked to plan, that only helped out three of the remaining teams, and hurt the other five: hence why they never did it. The Big East did remain too small: they needed to go to 9 or 10, But the infrastructure was never there to really allow for expansion, because until TCU came along at the end, no school outside of the BCS had enough "umph" that the Big East could really add without watering down it's already perceived lackluster football. ...

The invites to the Big East went out, and were accepted, in November, 2003. Looking back over the previous 5 seasons, the 5 remaining Big East teams averaged a MRatings Composite of 59.2 (excluding UConn who was still building up), with five top 30 appearances, no top 15 appearances.

The three added averaged 56.9 (including South Florida who was trending up) and collectively had two top 30 appearances, no top 15 appearances.

Available teams that averaged in the top 50 include Southern Miss (41.8), TCU (41.6), Marshall (34.4), Colorado St (36.8), Air Force (49.4), BYU (49.4), and Boise St (45). Add in East Carolina (54.6) who had good attendance and a top 30 finish, and you now have 16 very solid teams for a football only conference.

With hindsight, part of the goal would be having at least 14 teams to avoid having to reactively add two teams for a conference championship game when the raids would come. Further, South Florida had a great run initially, but have flamed out. So, they would have to go as well. All-sports invitees would include LVille and Cincy, also avoiding South Florida basketball. That would leave something like the following:

East: UConn, Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers, WVU, ECU, Louisville
West: BYU, Air Force, CSU, TCU, Boise St, Cincy, Southern Miss

Average Ranking of the non-chosen additions: 45.5
Number of top 30 rankings: 8 (including every team)
Number of top 15 rankings: 3 (TCU, Southern Miss, Air Force)

Average ranking of new Big East (excluding UConn): 51.9

Looking back, this would have been a really awesome conference. You would always have a quality BCS bowl participant, and TV would have loved it. Keeping the football separate from all sports would have kept Big East basketball happy, and reduced expenses for everyone. The ACC would have to pay much, much more to pry teams away, and it would have eliminated competition from all the smaller conferences.

(06-29-2015 01:09 PM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 10:59 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-29-2015 10:18 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Here is what I'm thinking. The Big East made a huge mistake staying too small too long as the weakest of the power conferences. Had they expanded to 12 earlier, then the new members would have had time to strengthen and become part of the fabric of the AQ conferences. Then later, when the Big East is raided and loses Pitt, W Vir, Syracuse, Louisville, and Rutgers, they still have 7 BCS AQ members to rebuild with (the remaining conference is still largely BCS AQ schools instead of being majority newly added CUSA schools). Instead, the Big East had but 4 remaining members and is made up largely of CUSA replacements with just one season as BCS AQ schools (some with none).

The problem with that theory is that even if that worked to plan, that only helped out three of the remaining teams, and hurt the other five: hence why they never did it. The Big East did remain too small: they needed to go to 9 or 10, But the infrastructure was never there to really allow for expansion, because until TCU came along at the end, no school outside of the BCS had enough "umph" that the Big East could really add without watering down it's already perceived lackluster football. ...

The invites to the Big East went out, and were accepted, in November, 2003. Looking back over the previous 5 seasons, the 5 remaining Big East teams averaged a MRatings Composite of 59.2 (excluding UConn who was still building up), with five top 30 appearances, no top 15 appearances.

The three added averaged 56.9 (including South Florida who was trending up) and collectively had two top 30 appearances, no top 15 appearances.

Available teams that averaged in the top 50 include Southern Miss (41.8), TCU (41.6), Marshall (34.4), Colorado St (36.8), Air Force (49.4), BYU (49.4), and Boise St (45). Add in East Carolina (54.6) who had good attendance and a top 30 finish, and you now have 16 very solid teams for a football only conference.

With hindsight, part of the goal would be having at least 14 teams to avoid having to reactively add two teams for a conference championship game when the raids would come. Further, South Florida had a great run initially, but have flamed out. So, they would have to go as well. All-sports invitees would include LVille and Cincy, also avoiding South Florida basketball. That would leave something like the following:

East: UConn, Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers, WVU, ECU, Louisville
West: BYU, Air Force, CSU, TCU, Boise St, Cincy, Southern Miss

Average Ranking of the non-chosen additions: 45.5
Number of top 30 rankings: 8 (including every team)
Number of top 15 rankings: 3 (TCU, Southern Miss, Air Force)

Average ranking of new Big East (excluding UConn): 51.9

Looking back, this would have been a really awesome conference. You would always have a quality BCS bowl participant, and TV would have loved it. Keeping the football separate from all sports would have kept Big East basketball happy, and reduced expenses for everyone. The ACC would have to pay much, much more to pry teams away, and it would have eliminated competition from all the smaller conferences.

Not to mention those schools probably would have all accepted a football only invite. Those football only schools would have been in a position to go indy with Olympics and play each other or create a full fledged Olympic sports conference.

(06-28-2015 10:35 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  If Houston and Tulane leave the American, the American takes Rice (backfills Houston's market and Tulane's academics) and one of Southern Miss, Louisiana, or Louisiana Tech to maintain at least a peripheral connection to the New Orleans market. I could also see UTEP getting a look as they will want to continue to play conference games in the Houston area and have history with most of the schools in the AAC.

Do we now?

The BE could have very easily had 5 leftovers. The Rutgers/Maryland deal came real late. Even with Rutgers and UL and Boise coming in, we would have lost the BCS/Access spot. It didn't make a lot of sense but it is what it is. Boise, UL, and Cincy would have had multible BCS bids and Uconn had 1.

Personally even if BE had added a couple earlier, I think they still would have lost the spot, but would have been a stronger sale for TV.


As for American adding USM, I don't ever see that happening. They have a great history, but bad location/market, and are one of the smallest budget schools in 1a.