+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: AACbbs (/forum-460.html)
+---- Forum: Archives (/forum-400.html)
+----- Forum: AACbbs Archives (/forum-418.html)
+----- Thread: Okay omni. Intrepret the new BCS criteria for me (/thread-53283.html)
- UABGrad - 04-27-2005 05:01 PM
You and ScottVib seem to be able to see through the fog usually. The notes do say the current line up is in place for the 2005, 2006 and 2007 regular seasons and then there could be 5, 6 or 7 auto qualifiers.
It's hard to tell but it sounds like they are adding qualifications to the top 12 criteria. After 4 years they do some kind of review that I don't understand.
Looks like ND gets a cool million payoff every year.
<a href='http://www.bcsfootball.org/news.cfm?headline=91' target='_blank'>http://www.bcsfootball.org/news.cfm?headline=91</a>
- omniorange - 04-27-2005 06:17 PM
Quote:We did spend more time today on the automatic qualification standards and I think we are pretty much in agreement that we will advance to our presidents and chancellors the framework that I talked to you about, and let me remind you what that is so you have it. We will be evaluating conferences over a four-year period based on the average rank of the highest ranked team, and that's pretty similar to the standard that existed previously. In addition, we will look at a conference's overall strength. We'll be looking at every member of the conference and determining an average of the conference based on that overall strength. Those two pieces form the primary evaluation.
So, the top 2 criteria are:
Average rank of the Top ranked team
An overall conference average to determine its strength top to bottom.
Again, I have to believe they will use the BCS rankings they have always used, which are the rankings prior to the picking of teams for BCS Bowl games.
And since we also know that no matter where a team played in 2004, their record is going to be part of whatever conference they belong to in 2007 which means right now last year's adjusted rankings would be:
Conference, Top Ranked Team, BCS Conference Ranking
ACC, 8, 40.08
Big 12, 2, 40.17
Pac 10, 1, 45.30
SEC, 3, 47.17
BE, 10, 48.25
B10, 12, 50.55
MW, 6, 63.00
CUSA, 34, 78.08
Looks like the BE belongs based on 2004. How well they keep this up over the next three years will be interesting. Mountain West would need to make a case. And C-USA is starting behind the 8-ball.
Quote:If conferences are among the top six in that evaluation then they'll be held up in comparison to make sure all conferences look alike. In other words, how many teams in the top 25 and how they compare to one another. There's kind of a two-step process here. One is to look at average rank and overall strength, and if you're clearly among the top six in that approach, then there will be a further evaluation of top 25 comparison. Even with that structure, there will be a provision that would allow a conference to be considered if it was not clearly similar to five of the others. It will be some sort of opportunity for a conference to make its case
If you are clearly Top 6 (huh? why even have a # here) in the first phase of the evaluation, then there will basically be a second phase that looks at # of Top 25 teams just to be sure you are similar to the others.
Again, using 2004 data:
Conference # Teams in Top 25/ # Teams in Conference
ACC - 4/12 33%
Big 12 - 5/12 42%
Pac 10 - 3/10 30%
SEC - 5/12 42%
Big 10 - 4/11 36%
BE - 2/8 25%
MW - 1/9 11%
So will 25% be good enough to be considered like the other 5?
Will the BE maintain a 25% or above percentage in this second criteria. I, myself, think it will be.
But only time will tell.
It seems to me the BCS Cartel is going out of its way to give the BE every opportunity to remain as a partner at the table while giving lip service to the other non-auto berth conferences.
Just one man's opinion.
Cheers,
Neil
- UABGrad - 04-27-2005 07:11 PM
What I didn't see was how high that top ranked team needed to be. I wonder if the top 12 is in or out. If they want to make it similar to the top 5 conference it may be in still which will be the hardest nut to crack over a 4 year period.
Letting every team count as of the 2007 season would seem to encourage the MWC inviting Boise or Fresno by 6-06 if they have a good year in 2005. Same would go for USF or ECU for the BE.
I was hoping to see clear cut standards so we wouldn't be wondering about the BE and MW status for 3 more years, but these standards with the unknown top ranking requirement, the unknown top 25 requirement, the similar to others requirement and the petition thing looks like total chaos to me.
- SO#1 - 04-27-2005 11:35 PM
BCS changes may keep Big East in fold
By MIKE KNOBLER
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 04/27/05
PHOENIX — Now that the ACC has taken Miami, Virginia Tech and Boston College from the Big East, will the Bowl Championship Series take away the Big East's automatic berth?
Possibly, but not until the 2008 season at the earliest.
The BCS adopted new rules Wednesday that could change which leagues' champions are guaranteed berths in one of college football's five biggest bowl games. So far, those automatic berths have been reserved for the ACC, the Big East, the Big Ten, the Big 12, the Pac-10 and the SEC.
<span style='color:blue'>Conferences will be measured in three ways over a four-year stretch from 2004-07:
• Average ranking in the BCS standings for the conference's highest-rated team.
• Average ranking in the BCS computer standings for every member of the conference.
• Number of Top 25 teams.</span>
The measurements will be based on a conference's 2008 membership; the Big East gets credit for what Louisville did last fall, and the ACC gets credit for Boston College.
Five to seven top-performing conferences will get automatic qualification for the 2008 and 2009 seasons, BCS coordinator Kevin Weiberg said. But there's a human element, too. A committee of eight university presidents will be empowered to grant automatic qualification based on other criteria, including the conference's market size, its tradition, its television ratings and its history of selling bowl tickets.
Those committee criteria appear to favor the Big East, with its large population base. But Big East commissioner Mike Tranghese said his league — now led by Louisville, Pittsburgh, West Virginia and Syracuse — should be able to perform well enough on the field that it doesn't need help from the committee.
"I think they're fair [numerical measurements] and they're attainable," Tranghese said. "I don't have a crystal ball, but neither do the other conferences."
The committee criteria reflect a fact about the BCS and bowls in general: They're not only about on-the-field performance. They're also about fan bases, ticket sales and TV ratings, all of which have been strengths of the original BCS members.
"It gets back to the reason those conferences are the ones that started the BCS," ACC commissioner John Swofford said. "That's who the bowls wanted. That's who television wanted."
The conference commissioner with the biggest smile on Wednesday was the Mountain West's Craig Thompson. His nine-team league — think Utah, BYU and starting this fall TCU — covets an automatic berth.
"I think this is a very progressive step," Thompson said of the new automatic qualification standards. "Now it's up to us to produce."
Also Wednesday, the BCS changed the way it handles Notre Dame, a football independent.
<span style='color:green'>Beginning with the 2006 season, Notre Dame gets an automatic BCS berth if it finishes in the top eight in the BCS standings and is eligible for consideration if it finishes in the top 12.</span>
Notre Dame also gets a yearly payoff from the BCS even if it doesn't play in a BCS game. That payoff will be similar to what a member of a BCS conference would receive, a bit over $1 million a year. If Notre Dame appears in a BCS game, it will receive what an at-large team from a BCS conference would earn, about $4.5 million. In the past, Notre Dame got $14 million when it appeared in a BCS game and nothing when it didn't.
Also, starting in 2006, there's a new qualification provision for leagues that don't have automatic berths. A champion from one of those leagues is guaranteed a BCS spot is it finishes in the top 12 of the BCS standings or if it finishes in the top 16 and above the lowest-ranked champion in a league with an automatic berth.
<a href='http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/0405/28bcs.html?UrAuth=`N' target='_blank'>BCS changes may keep Big East in fold</a>
- TexanMark - 04-28-2005 08:12 AM
If that article is correct IMHO they are basically telling the Big East not to worry. In fact I think we might even see the MWC get a bid by 2008.
The BE needs to take care of business and can't rest on its laurels though. A few marquee players every year is needed in this league to generate excitement. Any Jim Brown's out there?
- knight_01 - 04-28-2005 09:49 AM
omnicarrier Wrote:omni,Quote:We did spend more time today on the automatic qualification standards and I think we are pretty much in agreement that we will advance to our presidents and chancellors the framework that I talked to you about, and let me remind you what that is so you have it. We will be evaluating conferences over a four-year period based on the average rank of the highest ranked team, and that's pretty similar to the standard that existed previously. In addition, we will look at a conference's overall strength. We'll be looking at every member of the conference and determining an average of the conference based on that overall strength. Those two pieces form the primary evaluation.
So, the top 2 criteria are:
Average rank of the Top ranked team
An overall conference average to determine its strength top to bottom.
Again, I have to believe they will use the BCS rankings they have always used, which are the rankings prior to the picking of teams for BCS Bowl games.
And since we also know that no matter where a team played in 2004, their record is going to be part of whatever conference they belong to in 2007 which means right now last year's adjusted rankings would be:
Conference, Top Ranked Team, BCS Conference Ranking
ACC, 8, 40.08
Big 12, 2, 40.17
Pac 10, 1, 45.30
SEC, 3, 47.17
BE, 10, 48.25
B10, 12, 50.55
MW, 6, 63.00
CUSA, 34, 78.08
Looks like the BE belongs based on 2004. How well they keep this up over the next three years will be interesting. Mountain West would need to make a case. And C-USA is starting behind the 8-ball.
Quote:If conferences are among the top six in that evaluation then they'll be held up in comparison to make sure all conferences look alike. In other words, how many teams in the top 25 and how they compare to one another. There's kind of a two-step process here. One is to look at average rank and overall strength, and if you're clearly among the top six in that approach, then there will be a further evaluation of top 25 comparison. Even with that structure, there will be a provision that would allow a conference to be considered if it was not clearly similar to five of the others. It will be some sort of opportunity for a conference to make its case
If you are clearly Top 6 (huh? why even have a # here) in the first phase of the evaluation, then there will basically be a second phase that looks at # of Top 25 teams just to be sure you are similar to the others.
Again, using 2004 data:
Conference # Teams in Top 25/ # Teams in Conference
ACC - 4/12 33%
Big 12 - 5/12 42%
Pac 10 - 3/10 30%
SEC - 5/12 42%
Big 10 - 4/11 36%
BE - 2/8 25%
MW - 1/9 11%
So will 25% be good enough to be considered like the other 5?
Will the BE maintain a 25% or above percentage in this second criteria. I, myself, think it will be.
But only time will tell.
It seems to me the BCS Cartel is going out of its way to give the BE every opportunity to remain as a partner at the table while giving lip service to the other non-auto berth conferences.
Just one man's opinion.
Cheers,
Neil
I think you're wrong for using a percentage formula for top 25 teams. The article said number of top 25 teams. So 2 is a little bit lower than the other conferences. I think the incentive is going to be for the NewBig East to expand. Also, they said they may factor in market size. I've heard the argument that excluding the Big East would shutter the Northeast from inclusion in college football. I agree a bit, but it would also make it seem like expanding the conference is a good way to gain market share. To me all these rules seem geared towards making the Big East go to more teams like the other BCS conferences.
- Maize - 04-28-2005 09:54 AM
knight 1, the Big East already has the largest market share of any BCS league. That is the advantage of being in a Northeast league.
Also do you know how many schools were ranked in the Top 25 in the Pac 10, it is 3 and they have 2 more schools.
In most Preseason Polls both the Pac 10-(with USC and Arizona State) and the Big East-(with Louisville and Pitt) have 2 teams ranked in the Top 25. Look at it like this:
BCS is Collecting the Following Data over a 4 yr period from 2004-2008
2004 Highest BCS Rank:
PAC 10: USC # 1
Big XII: Oklahoma # 2
SEC: Auburn # 3
ACC: Virginia Tech # 8
Big East: Louisville* # 10
Big Ten: Michigan # 13
2004 #Top 25s in BCS:
SEC: 5
Big XII: 5
ACC: 4
Big Ten: 4
PAC 10: 3
Big East: 2
2004 Final Conf BCS Avg:
Big XII: 39.10
ACC: 39.50
PAC 10: 46.80
Big Ten: 47.40
Big East: 47.87
SEC: 49.80
NON-BCS CONFERENCES
( * BCS counts Louisville for Big East and Memphis as highest ranked CUSA team left)
2004 Highest BCS Rank:
MWC: Utah #6
WAC: Boise State #9
CUSA: Memphis* #42
MAC: Toledo #59
2004 #Top 25s in BCS:
WAC: 2
MWC: 1
CUSA: 0
MAC: 0
2004 Final Conf BCS Avg:
MWC: 60.55
WAC: 69.40
CUSA: 78.00
MAC: 92.08
- rocketfootball - 04-28-2005 10:26 AM
Was Toledo really the highest ranked MAC team at #59? I would have thought that Bowling Green would have been ranked higher, despite losing to Toledo. If I remember correctly, BG wasn't too far out of the Top 25 polls.......like the 2nd or 3rd team out of the polls.
- rocketfootball - 04-28-2005 10:30 AM
BG finished 27th and Northern Illinois 29th in the Coaches poll last season. Same thing in the AP Poll. I think Toledo's #59 BCS ranking was the 3rd best in the MAC, maybe even 4th best if Miami University was ahead of them too.
BG and NIU had to be no worse than 30-35 range in BCS ranking if they were both in the Top 30 in the AP and Coaches Polls.
- Killerfrog in the Kitchen - 04-28-2005 12:05 PM
There is some question in my mind about the retroactive Louisville thing that is helping the BE. If in 2007 the MWC adds Fresno and Boise, do all of their finishes in the evaluation period of 2004-2007 count toward the MWC, even if they don't spend a day in the conference until then? Or is it only if a team has announced plans to change membership does their finish counts toward the future league data?
- UABGrad - 04-28-2005 12:18 PM
Killerfrog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:There is some question in my mind about the retroactive Louisville thing that is helping the BE. If in 2007 the MWC adds Fresno and Boise, do all of their finishes in the evaluation period of 2004-2007 count toward the MWC, even if they don't spend a day in the conference until then? Or is it only if a team has announced plans to change membership does their finish counts toward the future league data?The BCS guy said any team a member of the conference when the evaluation will be made after the 2007 regular season. I will be surprised if the MW doesn't announce adding FS and BS by June 30, 2006 so they will be included in the 2007 season. BS and FS would improve the MW in top 12 average, top 25 average and overall average. I also wouldn't be surprised to see UTEP join up too and make it an even 12 teams. With their on the field performance improving they might be pretty average in overall MWC ratings.
It would be nice to see the past four year comparison of the BE and MW including FS and BS. The BE doesn't have 2 teams like BS and FS to pick from. The C-USA east teams and Temple which were the teams considered in the BE meeting notes didn't perform on the field last year. Maybe that will change this year and UCF or ECU will break out of their funk.
- TexanMark - 04-28-2005 12:22 PM
The Louisville thing was brought about by the ACC's greed.
They probably would have a point to include the the new entrants record from the year prior but not 3-4 years. The won-lost records are easier to build 11-0, 10-1 seasons (therefore the rankings of teams are inflated) in lower ranked conferences so 3-4 years would skew the results too much.
- omniorange - 04-28-2005 01:04 PM
Quote: omni,
I think you're wrong for using a percentage formula for top 25 teams. The article said number of top 25 teams. So 2 is a little bit lower than the other conferences. I think the incentive is going to be for the NewBig East to expand. Also, they said they may factor in market size. I've heard the argument that excluding the Big East would shutter the Northeast from inclusion in college football. I agree a bit, but it would also make it seem like expanding the conference is a good way to gain market share. To me all these rules seem geared towards making the Big East go to more teams like the other BCS conferences.
Disagree Knight1.
The whole purpose of the two phases is to determine are the conferences receiving auto-berths similar.
When you compare you're #1 team against another conference's #1 team it doesn't matter how many teams are in the conference. Same is true when you use a top to bottom analysis to come out with an 'overall average' as long as there isn't a wide discrepancy between the numbers and 8-12 wouldn't constitute enough of a discrepancy to matter statisitcally in this case.
Only when you get to # of Top 25 teams does a strict numerical analysis create a problem. Otherwise, the Pac-10 wouldn't belong with the other 4 since they traditional have either 2 or 3 teams ranked in the Top 25.
No, for number of Top 25 teams to be comparable, a percentage would likely have to be used. And if it weren't and the BE were ruled out solely on that basis, a fair and reasonable appeal case could be made based upon comparable percentage of Top 25 teams to the other conferences.
As for going to more teams, as the criteria show, adding more teams to the conference will only lower most of those numbers and bring the BE more in line with the MW rather than the other 5 super-conferences.
The BE was smart in simply adding UL and UC, and had BC remained we would have been in even better shape. USF was forced upon us by BC's exit.
MW could meet the criteria by adding Fresno State and Boise State, but they should probably dump one of their bottom feeders when they do.
C-USA is in trouble. Adding all of those teams have put a huge anchor around its neck from which it may never recover
Cheers,
Neil
- Killerfrog in the Kitchen - 04-28-2005 01:11 PM
UABGrad Wrote:this quote seems to support your stance:Killerfrog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:There is some question in my mind about the retroactive Louisville thing that is helping the BE. If in 2007 the MWC adds Fresno and Boise, do all of their finishes in the evaluation period of 2004-2007 count toward the MWC, even if they don't spend a day in the conference until then? Or is it only if a team has announced plans to change membership does their finish counts toward the future league data?The BCS guy said any team a member of the conference when the evaluation will be made after the 2007 regular season. I will be surprised if the MW doesn't announce adding FS and BS by June 30, 2006 so they will be included in the 2007 season. BS and FS would improve the MW in top 12 average, top 25 average and overall average. I also wouldn't be surprised to see UTEP join up too and make it an even 12 teams. With their on the field performance improving they might be pretty average in overall MWC ratings.
It would be nice to see the past four year comparison of the BE and MW including FS and BS. The BE doesn't have 2 teams like BS and FS to pick from. The C-USA east teams and Temple which were the teams considered in the BE meeting notes didn't perform on the field last year. Maybe that will change this year and UCF or ECU will break out of their funk.
Quote:Weiberg said Louisville, which finished 10th in the BCS standings last year while playing in C-USA, will be included in the Big East's evaluation and should help the league retain its bid.
"The reason for that is that we're trying to get an assessment looking forward of the prospective strength of the conference, even though it will be based on past performance," Weiberg said.
So if it is based on the track record of the teams that are in the conference from the evaluation point foward, regardless of if the team was actually in the conference during the four years before, I would have to agree with your prediction.
In 2007, I suspect that the BE and the MWC (with Boise and Fresno) will either both be in or both out- it may be too difficult to "separate" the leagues and say one deserves to be in and the other doesn't.
- Maize - 04-28-2005 01:19 PM
Were it also stands is this, they will also look at the separation between leagues. This was in the ESPN.com article by Ivan Maisel if I am not mistaken. Taking Louisville, UC, TCU, Army and USF out of C-USA and adding the schools they put in really leave a pretty large gap between the two leagues.
Also in regards to the MWC as a whole this past year outside of Utah it was pretty weak as well and it also had a large gap between them and the Big East. Now if they were to add a Boise, Fresno and UTEP that gap would shrink.
Again JMO the BCS is about inclusion and they would again IMO expand AQ status to a conference like C-USA or the MWC then contract to 5 leagues.
- knight_01 - 04-28-2005 02:11 PM
omnicarrier Wrote:Well CUSA was never in the BCS so it's not a huge blow. They're not gonna lose BCS auto bid money. But they had to do something to protect TV money. So it's really not "trouble" for us.Quote: omni,
I think you're wrong for using a percentage formula for top 25 teams. The article said number of top 25 teams. So 2 is a little bit lower than the other conferences. I think the incentive is going to be for the NewBig East to expand. Also, they said they may factor in market size. I've heard the argument that excluding the Big East would shutter the Northeast from inclusion in college football. I agree a bit, but it would also make it seem like expanding the conference is a good way to gain market share. To me all these rules seem geared towards making the Big East go to more teams like the other BCS conferences.
Disagree Knight1.
The whole purpose of the two phases is to determine are the conferences receiving auto-berths similar.
When you compare you're #1 team against another conference's #1 team it doesn't matter how many teams are in the conference. Same is true when you use a top to bottom analysis to come out with an 'overall average' as long as there isn't a wide discrepancy between the numbers and 8-12 wouldn't constitute enough of a discrepancy to matter statisitcally in this case.
Only when you get to # of Top 25 teams does a strict numerical analysis create a problem. Otherwise, the Pac-10 wouldn't belong with the other 4 since they traditional have either 2 or 3 teams ranked in the Top 25.
No, for number of Top 25 teams to be comparable, a percentage would likely have to be used. And if it weren't and the BE were ruled out solely on that basis, a fair and reasonable appeal case could be made based upon comparable percentage of Top 25 teams to the other conferences.
As for going to more teams, as the criteria show, adding more teams to the conference will only lower most of those numbers and bring the BE more in line with the MW rather than the other 5 super-conferences.
The BE was smart in simply adding UL and UC, and had BC remained we would have been in even better shape. USF was forced upon us by BC's exit.
MW could meet the criteria by adding Fresno State and Boise State, but they should probably dump one of their bottom feeders when they do.
C-USA is in trouble. Adding all of those teams have put a huge anchor around its neck from which it may never recover
Cheers,
Neil
As for BCS leagues, the other weak sister in the group is the PAC-10. People have speculated for years that they should go to 12 members. The PAC-10 is enjoying USC's recent success, but other than that they don't do much. Sounds a lot like Miami and the Big East doesn't it? But USC hasn't left the PAC-10. You have the least number of top 25 teams, the lowest ranked conference champion, and the fewest teams of any BCS league. And you don't see the need to start thinking about expension in the near future? Really.
- nflsucks - 04-28-2005 03:44 PM
Quote:And you don't see the need to start thinking about expension in the near future? Really.No more than the Big East needs to expand. But like the Big East, there aren't a lot of desirable candidates in the footprint. Any realistic candidate is below them in terms of prestige, or already in a financially better situation (Colorado? Texas? Better off in the Big 12).
I believe they also have some sort of academic consortium that Utah and BYU don't meet the requirements of (not 100% sure).
- Cat's_Claw - 04-28-2005 05:41 PM
knight_01 Wrote:Well CUSA was never in the BCS so it's not a huge blow. They're not gonna lose BCS auto bid money. But they had to do something to protect TV money. So it's really not "trouble" for us.Yet the Big East would clearly be the 6th best conference in America statistically. There may not be a need for expansion just strengthening from inside.
As for BCS leagues, the other weak sister in the group is the PAC-10. People have speculated for years that they should go to 12 members. The PAC-10 is enjoying USC's recent success, but other than that they don't do much. Sounds a lot like Miami and the Big East doesn't it? But USC hasn't left the PAC-10. You have the least number of top 25 teams, the lowest ranked conference champion, and the fewest teams of any BCS league. And you don't see the need to start thinking about expension in the near future? Really.
- knight_01 - 04-29-2005 10:00 AM
Cat's_Claw Wrote:I don't think you guys have the ability to see this the way that every other conference will see it BCS or not. You are the weakest of BCS auto bid conferences, yet you get an equal paycheck from the BCS. And then you only split it 8 ways versus 12. How long do you think teams in other conferences are going to stand for that?knight_01 Wrote:Well CUSA was never in the BCS so it's not a huge blow. They're not gonna lose BCS auto bid money. But they had to do something to protect TV money. So it's really not "trouble" for us.Yet the Big East would clearly be the 6th best conference in America statistically. There may not be a need for expansion just strengthening from inside.
As for BCS leagues, the other weak sister in the group is the PAC-10. People have speculated for years that they should go to 12 members. The PAC-10 is enjoying USC's recent success, but other than that they don't do much. Sounds a lot like Miami and the Big East doesn't it? But USC hasn't left the PAC-10. You have the least number of top 25 teams, the lowest ranked conference champion, and the fewest teams of any BCS league. And you don't see the need to start thinking about expension in the near future? Really.
Think about it. You bring the least to the table in terms of BCS conferences. Then to add insult to injury you split the check fewer ways than any other conference. Individual teams in the Big East get larger individual shares of the BCS money. If you think that's gonna last, you're sadly mistaken. The Big East won't be completely removed so as not to alienate the Northeast from college football, but you're not going to enjoy this relationship as is for very long. Money talks, and bullsh!t walks.
- Maize - 04-29-2005 10:06 AM
knight_01 Wrote:One small problem with your assessment, the other leagues had ample opportunity to make such a change and they have not. We are past our weakest point and it would be even tougher to make any changes now towards the Big East.Cat's_Claw Wrote:I don't think you guys have the ability to see this the way that every other conference will see it BCS or not. You are the weakest of BCS auto bid conferences, yet you get an equal paycheck from the BCS. And then you only split it 8 ways versus 12. How long do you think teams in other conferences are going to stand for that?knight_01 Wrote:Well CUSA was never in the BCS so it's not a huge blow. They're not gonna lose BCS auto bid money. But they had to do something to protect TV money. So it's really not "trouble" for us.Yet the Big East would clearly be the 6th best conference in America statistically. There may not be a need for expansion just strengthening from inside.
As for BCS leagues, the other weak sister in the group is the PAC-10. People have speculated for years that they should go to 12 members. The PAC-10 is enjoying USC's recent success, but other than that they don't do much. Sounds a lot like Miami and the Big East doesn't it? But USC hasn't left the PAC-10. You have the least number of top 25 teams, the lowest ranked conference champion, and the fewest teams of any BCS league. And you don't see the need to start thinking about expension in the near future? Really.
Think about it. You bring the least to the table in terms of BCS conferences. Then to add insult to injury you split the check fewer ways than any other conference. Individual teams in the Big East get larger individual shares of the BCS money. If you think that's gonna last, you're sadly mistaken. The Big East won't be completely removed so as not to alienate the Northeast from college football, but you're not going to enjoy this relationship as is for very long. Money talks, and bullsh!t walks.