Big East, MVC, Idaho, Montana, Big West, WAC, RMAC, Border Conference, SWC and Southern Conference were Power conferences at one time. Most of the P5 schools were a members of one of these conference in the past.
Tulane and SEC
Sewannee SEC
Arizona Border
Arizona State Border
Northern Arizona Border
Idaho Original member of the conference that is now PAC 12.
Montana same as Idaho
UTEP Border
West Texas A&M Border/MVC
New Mexico Border
New Mexico State Border/MVC
Texas Tech Border
Oklahoma MVC
Oklahoma State MVC
Kansas MVC
Kansas State MVC
Colorado RMAC
Colorado State RMAC
Wyoming RMAC
Iowa MVC
Iowa State MVC
Drake MVC
Grinnell MVC
Houston MVC/SWC
Cincinnati MVC/Big East
Memphis MVC/Big East
USF Big East
Nebraska MVC
Washburn MVC
You see where I am going? There were more schools that had the power in the older days, but greed by some have hurt the NCAA big time. I do not see some schools are better than others that are in P5 conferences. Sometimes the better schools are not the ones in the P5.
(01-04-2016 03:57 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: Actually Houston and Memphis were both in a BCS conference for one year (2013 when the AAC retained the BCS AQ bid from the old Big East).
Touché!
(01-04-2016 03:59 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: Houston was in the SWC. Saying they weren't in a BCS conference simply because their time in a major college conference predated a certain period in Bowl history is a bit unfair.
Bill Yeoman is angry for having just read that comment.
This, though, I wouldn't agree with. UConn was in a power conference two years ago. Houston was in a power conference 19 years ago.
I'm not saying that this is a fair metric. If it was up to me, I would want a promotion-and-relegation system like English football where Houston would have just earned their promotion.
I'm just speculating that the Big 12 presidents may actually value Cincinnati and UConn as a package duo.
The Big East 2.0 was a semi-power conference. It was a tweener. 10 years in a tweener conference isn't a big deal, especially when you were FCS before that.
In terms of wins and RPI and all the other metrics, that conference was well ahead of the ACC. BCS bowl victories as well (yes, I'm talking about the post-2003 BE that didn't have Virginia Tech and Miami).
(01-04-2016 04:05 PM)Big Frog II Wrote: UConn would make a good addition. They are certainly equal to Kansas in basketball, maybe better in football. They also bring in a good TV market.
How is that crazy? UConn football is better than Kansas football and so is UConn basketball. UConn has 4 national titles in men's basketball (1999, 2004, 2011, 2014) and Kansas only has 3 (1952, 1988, 2008). Note that all of UConn's happened in recent times. Being great in 1952 or 1988 is ancient history and doesn't mean all that much.
Unless you think that Indiana is a better program than Duke and Kansas, or that UCLA is clearly the best of all time, using purely NCAA Championships to determine this just doesn't work.
Here is a tale of the tape.
Code:
Description Kansas Uconn Winner
AP poll App* 649 319 Kan
AP Poll rank* 5 20 Kan
Avg rk* 7.9 9.4 Kan
ESPN Rk* 5 9 Kan
Titles 3 4 Uconn
Final Four 14 5 Kan
Wins 2153 1641 Kan
Winning PCt 0.722 0.643 Kan
NCAA Apperances** 44 32 Kan
games 139 78 Kan
wins 97 50 Kan
Sweet 16 28 17 Kan
Elite Eight 14 11 Kan
NCAA winning pct* 0.697 0.641 Kan
* Numbers good thru 2013
** Including 26 in a row and counting
Note the ESPN 50 for 50 was a ranking of all division I college basketball programs done in 2012 that evaluated programs based on wins, conference titles, NCAA performance, and NBA draft picks during that time. Note due to the time it was done, covering only 1962-2012, it does not include UConn's fourth championship, nor Kansas' first championship (or their first four final fours), so the two should be considered even in that regard.
Kansas also has 3 pre-tournament championships FWIW
Unless you count only tournament titles, this statement really doesn't hold up. Especially since, while you can never take away a title, two of UConn's were somewhat fluky, and not a representation of dominance that season. As for UConn football vs. Kansas football, Kansas football does have a BCS win the last decade, with two previous Orange Bowl appearances. UConn has an appearance, again by fluke, and got crushed.
I am not sure this argument works at all.
They ran through the tourney in 2014 from outsider status, but even so they were ranked in the top 20 prior to the tourney.
In 2014, UConn was the 4th most popular pick to win it all according to the ESPN brackets (50+ million brackets). They were ranked in the top 10 prior to the tournament. They ended up with a high seed. I struggle to understand why you find their win unlikely.
In fact, UConn had a murderer's row of a schedule outside the conference regular season, with big games against Kentucky, Michigan State, and many others.
UConn went 23-0 outside the BE regular season. Inside the BE they didn't have a great season because it was not a team built for maul ball. Kemba Walker couldn't buy a foul in the BE. Outside the BE and in the conference tourney, UConn was undefeated. And they were clearly the best team that year.
Since 1989, UConn made a living in the top 10. Won multiple BE tourney and conference championships, and it really dominated what was known as the best college basketball conference.
Kansas has a lot more history and longevity.
Since Calhoun arrived, only Duke has accomplished more than UConn on the hardcourt.
(This post was last modified: 01-04-2016 11:23 PM by upstater1.)
(01-04-2016 03:57 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: Actually Houston and Memphis were both in a BCS conference for one year (2013 when the AAC retained the BCS AQ bid from the old Big East).
Touché!
(01-04-2016 03:59 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: Houston was in the SWC. Saying they weren't in a BCS conference simply because their time in a major college conference predated a certain period in Bowl history is a bit unfair.
Bill Yeoman is angry for having just read that comment.
This, though, I wouldn't agree with. UConn was in a power conference two years ago. Houston was in a power conference 19 years ago.
I'm not saying that this is a fair metric. If it was up to me, I would want a promotion-and-relegation system like English football where Houston would have just earned their promotion.
I'm just speculating that the Big 12 presidents may actually value Cincinnati and UConn as a package duo.
The Big East 2.0 was a semi-power conference. It was a tweener. 10 years in a tweener conference isn't a big deal, especially when you were FCS before that.
In terms of wins and RPI and all the other metrics, that conference was well ahead of the ACC. BCS bowl victories as well (yes, I'm talking about the post-2003 BE that didn't have Virginia Tech and Miami).
(01-04-2016 03:57 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: Actually Houston and Memphis were both in a BCS conference for one year (2013 when the AAC retained the BCS AQ bid from the old Big East).
Touché!
(01-04-2016 03:59 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: Houston was in the SWC. Saying they weren't in a BCS conference simply because their time in a major college conference predated a certain period in Bowl history is a bit unfair.
Bill Yeoman is angry for having just read that comment.
This, though, I wouldn't agree with. UConn was in a power conference two years ago. Houston was in a power conference 19 years ago.
I'm not saying that this is a fair metric. If it was up to me, I would want a promotion-and-relegation system like English football where Houston would have just earned their promotion.
I'm just speculating that the Big 12 presidents may actually value Cincinnati and UConn as a package duo.
The Big East 2.0 was a semi-power conference. It was a tweener. 10 years in a tweener conference isn't a big deal, especially when you were FCS before that.
In terms of wins and RPI and all the other metrics, that conference was well ahead of the ACC. BCS bowl victories as well (yes, I'm talking about the post-2003 BE that didn't have Virginia Tech and Miami).
The ACC was at a post FSU addition low. But more important than that was perception. The BE had lost its top 2 programs and Syracuse and Pitt were the pits. WVU was all that was left that had any national recognition.
(01-04-2016 05:42 PM)UConnHusky Wrote: I think the reality is that this thread was posted too soon. Two weeks from today we will see if the Big 12 gets their exemption to stage a conference championship game with 10 teams or if they will be required to go to 12 in order to have one.
If they get their exemption, then this whole discussion was fruitless. If they don't, then we can all discuss it in earnest then.
A conference will get to hold a CCG with 10 teams but only if there are divisions per the Big 10 amendment.
Its not that feasible to do that type of setup with 10 teams unless they axed conference games. So really expansion is more or less necessary now.
Why isn't it feasible without axing conference games?
Because the purpose of having divisions is that you don't play everyone in the conference. If the Big 12 split into divisions and still played 9 games, then what is the point to hold a CCG. The whole reason that the rule was added in the first place was that a conference couldn't play everyone to decide a champion.
(01-05-2016 09:16 AM)bullet Wrote: The ACC was at a post FSU addition low. But more important than that was perception. The BE had lost its top 2 programs and Syracuse and Pitt were the pits. WVU was all that was left that had any national recognition.
What else do we have to compare to though?
We are talking about the Big East 2.0, which is the only period UConn was in the BE.
This is a 10 year period in which the BE outperformed the ACC. And it's the only period of the BE's 2.0 existence.
Heck, during this period, BC and VT actually appeared in ACC championships after moving out of the BE. BC had never once finished above 3rd in their entire time in the BE.
(01-04-2016 07:21 PM)RUScarlets Wrote: Houston scored a big win. It may put them over the top. I'm not saying one game is the swing, but when your options are as limited as they are, Houston is a solid bet. Large market, NFL stadium to host OU and UT. Not making travel more ridiculous unlike a BYU or a Florida school, and a better all around option than Memphis, which is a poor man's UL and an admission of defeat. Just solidify what you already have and make the new schools take a pay cut.
(01-04-2016 07:21 PM)RUScarlets Wrote: Houston scored a big win. It may put them over the top. I'm not saying one game is the swing, but when your options are as limited as they are, Houston is a solid bet. Large market, NFL stadium to host OU and UT. Not making travel more ridiculous unlike a BYU or a Florida school, and a better all around option than Memphis, which is a poor man's UL and an admission of defeat. Just solidify what you already have and make the new schools take a pay cut.
2013
replace Houston with UCF
twitter trolls love u guys
I never called for either USF/UCF to get in there alone/separate so look elsewhere.
(01-05-2016 12:58 PM)CougarRed Wrote: Kyle Allen, a Top 10 national QB recruit a couple of years ago, has announced he will transfer to Houston.
He will be eligible in 2017. Things that make you go hmmmmm.
Trust me we have been there. Every little thing that happens can be spun to fit an agenda. (See Kiel, Gunner..who was #1 according to some publications as our example)
(01-05-2016 09:16 AM)bullet Wrote: The ACC was at a post FSU addition low. But more important than that was perception. The BE had lost its top 2 programs and Syracuse and Pitt were the pits. WVU was all that was left that had any national recognition.
What else do we have to compare to though?
We are talking about the Big East 2.0, which is the only period UConn was in the BE.
This is a 10 year period in which the BE outperformed the ACC. And it's the only period of the BE's 2.0 existence.
Heck, during this period, BC and VT actually appeared in ACC championships after moving out of the BE. BC had never once finished above 3rd in their entire time in the BE.
Um, no. BC finished in a tie for the BE title in its last year in the BE in 2004. Granted, it was a 4-way tie, but they finished above third. They also finished in the Top 25 five times during their BE tenure.
(This post was last modified: 01-06-2016 12:48 PM by Eagle78.)
Well since TPTB are silly enough to put the playoffs on NYE and the afterthought games on NYD, they might do this. If you look at the comments, there are as many in favor of kicking out Rutgers and Maryland as there are for going to 18.
Beyond 14, you are no longer a conference. Its not a coincidence that every conference that has gone beyond 14 (for that matter beyond 12) has split. The Big 12, SEC, ACC, AAC and MWC are all products of such splits. The CUSA still exists, but lost all but two of its members after getting over 12.
So if the B12 has an opportunity to add Clemson, Florida State, Louisville and Miami, you'd say no because 14 is too big and that annual games against Iowa State and Kansas are simply too good to give up?
(This post was last modified: 01-06-2016 01:41 PM by 10thMountain.)
Not many posters there want the Big Ten to expand. Many want to shed schools to go back to ten.
B1G expansion into Texas is a fairytale anyways. People love to rant about the geographic obstacles of WVU and UConn but those same folks then turn around and say "oh yeah Texas would definantly travel 500 miles to play their nearest away game sans OU in Dallas. At least the Georgia Tech/Virginia stuff makes some sense with Maryland already in the conference.
If Texas wants to move the PAC-12 is by far their most logical destination, especially if that includes OU, OSU, and Tech.
/
UC and UH or UConn to Big 12?
if UConn and Cincy are off the table.![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media.giphy.com/media/xuqo6enlfCAeI/giphy.gif)
