(11-04-2011 10:58 AM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(11-04-2011 10:53 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I guess I didn't make that as clear as I should have. What I was trying to say is every year you are going to have 3 cross divisional games, with some years you having 2 of them at home and some years having 2 of them on the road. Sorry for the confusion.

Point taken and as it turns out is would be twice every 4 years now that I look at it but either way they only have to travel to each school once every 4 years.

Yes some years there might be more road games in the other division but then you would get more home games in other years.

Basically still the same point. Using your example Boise goes to UConn once every 4 years and UConn comes to Boise once every 4 years.

Also the eastern teams are going to love their trips to texas to help with recruiting and the same goes for the western teams into FL.

How about in 2013 we simply drop AQs altogether! Simply set a rule that a league needs to have a team ranked in the top 12 (as an example) in order to ensure inclusion. Any open slots leftover then go through the at-large process. So simple and inclusive to EVERYONE who plays D1-A (or whatever they call it now).

The SEC, Big Ten, Big XII, and PAC12 needs to be on-board, as such a rule should be no threat to them. The ACC and the Big East (whatever their makeup may be) are the ones wanting the favoritism. But they need to be outvoted by the other Big Boys and the currently non-AQ conferences. A bowl of prestige is something that should be earned, rather than an entitlement due to your "country club" status.

(11-04-2011 05:00 AM)AnnapolisPirate Wrote:  

(11-04-2011 04:22 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Im going to break this down for everyone since im sick and tired of people saying that the Big East is likely to lose its BCS status.

Boise St. has better BCS numbers than WVU.

Houston has better BCS numbers than Pitt.

UCF has better BCS numbers than 'Cuse.

Now throw in decent numbers from Navy, SMU and Air Force and you have a better conference than the current BE. There is even a possibility of adding BYU which would make those numbers even greater.

This new conference would be even more attractive to BCS bowls since they would be adding teams who travel well and are out west closer to the Fiesta Bowl than the East coast schools.

Common sense people, lets use it and not just shout espn talking points.

teams who travel well? Don't think any of this is about teams who travel well, but about markets and political moves. I'll give you Navy, who has a nationwide following, and Boise certainly gas gained National traction, but a fair number of these teams have a history of problematic home attendance, let alone travel attendance.

I like all the teams the Big East seems to be inviting, I just wish the northeastern schools could appreciate the value ECU brings to the table - but I also can't really argue that ECU has little in common culturally with the big east privates. ok ecu hijack over...

I think the Big East still has a very serious problem with the proposed makeup. It is so spread out, the schools will probably have a hard time developing rivalries and being true conference partners like you see in the more stable conferences. For that reason, the teams will likely maintain a wandering eye for a "better deal." The hand was admittedly forced upon the Big East, but the awkward makeup and questionable leadership hasn't helped things.

Each school has a rival in the current set up. Assuming BYU comes in as #12...

Louisville/Cincy
USF/UCF
Navy/AFA
SMU/Houston
UConn/Rutgers
BYU/Boise

Its a perfect set up.

(11-04-2011 12:30 PM)Okie Chippewa Wrote:  How about in 2013 we simply drop AQs altogether! Simply set a rule that a league needs to have a team ranked in the top 12 (as an example) in order to ensure inclusion. Any open slots leftover then go through the at-large process. So simple and inclusive to EVERYONE who plays D1-A (or whatever they call it now).

The SEC, Big Ten, Big XII, and PAC12 needs to be on-board, as such a rule should be no threat to them. The ACC and the Big East (whatever their makeup may be) are the ones wanting the favoritism. But they need to be outvoted by the other Big Boys and the currently non-AQ conferences. A bowl of prestige is something that should be earned, rather than an entitlement due to your "country club" status.

The ACC and East would be the only conferences that have a problem with that.

(11-04-2011 03:50 PM)Eagleweiser Wrote:  

(11-04-2011 12:30 PM)Okie Chippewa Wrote:  How about in 2013 we simply drop AQs altogether! Simply set a rule that a league needs to have a team ranked in the top 12 (as an example) in order to ensure inclusion. Any open slots leftover then go through the at-large process. So simple and inclusive to EVERYONE who plays D1-A (or whatever they call it now).

The SEC, Big Ten, Big XII, and PAC12 needs to be on-board, as such a rule should be no threat to them. The ACC and the Big East (whatever their makeup may be) are the ones wanting the favoritism. But they need to be outvoted by the other Big Boys and the currently non-AQ conferences. A bowl of prestige is something that should be earned, rather than an entitlement due to your "country club" status.

The ACC and East would be the only conferences that have a problem with that.

This was literally discussed and dismantled earlier today in this very thread.

Any conference with a CCG is going to have a problem with that. The Big Ten has #10 Nebraska and 4 teams in the race for one of the two spots sitting between 15 and 20 right now. The ACC leaders are #11 and #12, right on the edge. #18 Georgia is 2nd in the SEC East behind a paper tiger South Carolina without an offense. The PAC-12 South is lead by #19 Arizona State with 4-4 UCLA with an outside shot at it because they still host ASU. Because of two games, under your system, the Rose Bowl would have to pass over the Big Ten and Pac-12 champions because they aren't ranked high enough.

Too much crazy stuff happens in CCG's for AQ conferences to simply give away their BCS auto-bids.

(11-04-2011 03:50 PM)Eagleweiser Wrote:  

(11-04-2011 12:30 PM)Okie Chippewa Wrote:  How about in 2013 we simply drop AQs altogether! Simply set a rule that a league needs to have a team ranked in the top 12 (as an example) in order to ensure inclusion. Any open slots leftover then go through the at-large process. So simple and inclusive to EVERYONE who plays D1-A (or whatever they call it now).

The SEC, Big Ten, Big XII, and PAC12 needs to be on-board, as such a rule should be no threat to them. The ACC and the Big East (whatever their makeup may be) are the ones wanting the favoritism. But they need to be outvoted by the other Big Boys and the currently non-AQ conferences. A bowl of prestige is something that should be earned, rather than an entitlement due to your "country club" status.

The ACC and East would be the only conferences that have a problem with that.

They'd ALL have a problem with that. Every AQ conference has had at least one champ ranked lower than 12 in the BCS era except for the Big 12. The AQ power comes from GUARANTEED access. Why would they give up guaranteed access even once every 10 years? That's not how they work. Whether it's fair or not, "country club" status is EXACTLY what these conferences, bowls and TV networks want. The bowls don't care about getting the top 10 teams - they've shown that by passing over higher ranked teams all of the time in at-large selections in favor of more popular/TV friendly/ticket selling schools. If anything, the bowls and TV networks rather have the at-large pool expanded to the top 18 so they have better chances of getting extra Big Ten and SEC schools.

(11-04-2011 04:22 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Im going to break this down for everyone since im sick and tired of people saying that the Big East is likely to lose its BCS status.

Boise St. has better BCS numbers than WVU.

Houston has better BCS numbers than Pitt.

UCF has better BCS numbers than 'Cuse.

Now throw in decent numbers from Navy, SMU and Air Force and you have a better conference than the current BE. There is even a possibility of adding BYU which would make those numbers even greater.

This new conference would be even more attractive to BCS bowls since they would be adding teams who travel well and are out west closer to the Fiesta Bowl than the East coast schools.

Common sense people, lets use it and not just shout espn talking points.

I find it humorous when people think that AQ points actually have anything to do with being an AQ and that they have anything to do with the BE keeping their bid. The BE will keep the bid for as long as the other major conferences wish them to. They should be nervous about the next contract since team quality isn't what counts (or at least that is not an important cosideration it is more of a secondary or tertiary concern). The question is whether the other current AQ conferences care about any of the remaining teams in the BE (like they did about Miami, V-Tech, BC, Syracuse, Pitt, etc) and whether they have a better reason to let them keep it rather than taking the AQ away and keeping it for themselves.

Travel for cross-division games is not a big deal. These teams would only be playing each other twice every four years. Divisional play is what matters.

BIG EAST ATLANTIC
UConn & Rutgers
Cincy & Louisville
USF & UCF

BIG EAST PACIFIC
Houston & SMU
Navy & Air Force
BYU & Boise State

Navy getting shipped off to the Pacific Division makes the most sense. They are used to travel, like a national schedule, and want to be with Air Force.

(11-04-2011 06:33 AM)AnnapolisPirate Wrote:  

(11-04-2011 05:53 AM)NutmegStateofMind Wrote:  A hard time developing rivalries? You mean like UH/SMU, Boise/BYU, UL/UC, AFA/USNA, UConn/RU, USF/UCF?

LOL - that only means those schools may wish to stick together, not together in the Big East. As someone who has watched a team in a spread out conference, I know the difficulties it brings, and consequent lack of loyalty. You missed the overall point. The trouble is with more with SMU and UCONN, not SMU and Houston. Look at the SEC, ACC, Big 10. There is great interest in MOST conf games. But don't worry, the underwhelming fan interest of the matchups will ensure that you can get a good walk up ticket on game day at may of these stadiums. The present facts bear that out.

This isn't an issue for CUSA teams - because they are already used to it. and dunno that BYU will answer your call, so its best not to count the wives before the wedding days, so to speak. If they gave the B12 the cold shoulder, I doubt that they'll change their tune now. So take my words at face value and tell me what you think when your team is travelling around the country on game days. UCONN wouldn't support their team in a BCS bowl in AZ after all, what makes you think you'll be up for a trip to Colorado Springs in November?

Final parting shot, UCONN has been begging to go to the ACC - you think that will change now? The conf model is unstable. You'll see...

Oklahoma had as many unsold Fiesta Bowl tickets as UConn, even though they were 1,500 miles closer to Phoenix than UConn and there was a blizzard in Connecticut the week before the game.

The anti-Big East media didn't portray that situation accurately.

(11-04-2011 09:23 AM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(11-04-2011 06:33 AM)AnnapolisPirate Wrote:  

(11-04-2011 05:53 AM)NutmegStateofMind Wrote:  A hard time developing rivalries? You mean like UH/SMU, Boise/BYU, UL/UC, AFA/USNA, UConn/RU, USF/UCF?

LOL - that only means those schools may wish to stick together, not together in the Big East. As someone who has watched a team in a spread out conference, I know the difficulties it brings, and consequent lack of loyalty. You missed the overall point. The trouble is with more with SMU and UCONN, not SMU and Houston. Look at the SEC, ACC, Big 10. There is great interest in MOST conf games. But don't worry, the underwhelming fan interest of the matchups will ensure that you can get a good walk up ticket on game day at may of these stadiums. The present facts bear that out.

This isn't an issue for CUSA teams - because they are already used to it. and dunno that BYU will answer your call, so its best not to count the wives before the wedding days, so to speak. If they gave the B12 the cold shoulder, I doubt that they'll change their tune now. So take my words at face value and tell me what you think when your team is travelling around the country on game days. UCONN wouldn't support their team in a BCS bowl in AZ after all, what makes you think you'll be up for a trip to Colorado Springs in November?

Final parting shot, UCONN has been begging to go to the ACC - you think that will change now? The conf model is unstable. You'll see...

I can only speak for UH fans but we are chomping at the bit to play in the proposed western division that will include Boise State, BYU, Air Force, SMU, and Louisville!!!!

Playing this level of quality competition year in and year out will develop some nice rivalries. Much better than playing UTEP, Tulsa, and Tulane each year.

No offense to those schools but we could care less about playing them. Tulsa is kind of a nice game each year. They are a quality FB team don't get me wrong and they will be one of our late season tests this year but we just don't get fired up about Tulsa.

If Graham was still there maybe but any sort of "rivalry" that was developing left when he did.

Tulane is just a nice road trip. People only look forward to playing Tulane as an excuse to go to New Orleans not to get fired up about playing Tulane.

UTEP ehh. They play us tough every time but you won't find one UH fan that will miss playing them unless they have split loyalty already in playing UTEP. Once again a quality FB program but nothing we honestly are fired up to play or are upset about losing.

We will still play Rice OOC since it is a "rivalry" if you can call it that based on the all-time record. They have been better of late and it does make for a more interesting game. Even if it means we lose from time to time. I think we will still play them if for no other reason than it is essentially an extra home game for us. That and the fact that Reliant Stadium and the City of Houston seem interested in making this a much bigger deal in the years to come.

We are playing the next 2 years in Reliant Stadium and it will be promoted quite heavily for sure. If this shows any level of success you can bet this will probably become an annual thing.

Don't think ECU can say much to UH guys for a year, or at least until baseball season. Can't say that I'll miss playing UH and your career QB in the future. We won the one that mattered most, but seriously, Keenum has put a hurting on the Pirates a few times. BTW, hows that request for his 7th year of eligibility coming

My point was the the CUSA schedule is a good example of how a spread out conf doesn't exactly get people fired up. I agree that that western division looks like a big improvement. Wish you guys luck in the future and hope those stadium plans come to fruition.

(11-04-2011 10:26 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(11-04-2011 10:10 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(11-04-2011 10:02 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(11-04-2011 08:01 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(11-04-2011 07:20 AM)NutmegStateofMind Wrote:  You do understand that there is going to be an east and a west, correct?

Doesn't change his point. Also there are going to be crossover games, unless you are planning to add to a point where you don't need to play them. There will be years you have to make 2 trips west, and sure it sounds easy but it's tough on the team, fans, and makes it nearly impossible to get any sort of real connection or rivalry with the teams. The newness will make it exciting at first, but after a while when you're going out to Air Force on a Friday night, or Boise on a Wednesday you will start to think to yourself "why are we playing these teams, we have nothing in common with them and no conenction with them at all." Also whatever current BE team gets stuck in the west is not going to be very happy about it at all.

Yes, im sure a linebacker or fullback flying out to a game will be thinking "Why are we playing these team? We have nothing in common with them...we don't live the same geographic region!"

Look at how far UW and UA are apart, Nebraska and PSU, BC and Miami, WVU and Tech. These teams don;t care and after a while neither do their fan-bases. Not a lot of fans travel to every single away game. Also even if that is the case its only 2 trips tops. Wow, you dont get to go to 2 FB games? You mean you'll have to settle for going to 10+ a bowl game? Awww schucks. That sounds like some real issues someone has to deal with. Guess what? If you can travel to away games on a thurs or weds you dont have to worry about how much its going to cost in travel.

That's fine you don't have to believe me. Not to mention all those examples you mentioned are probably half the distance of UCONN to Boise. If you think being in a conference with members that you have zero in common with, no history, and no real common ground with is easy that's fine. Believe what you want to believe.

Dude, the Big East could bring in ECU, Southern Miss and temple and they would still have no history with UConn!!! When you add members from any part of the country you have zero history, you have to buold that. You can;t compare old conferences with new conferences in that way. You have to let those things develop. These kids playing have a lot in common. Kids travel all over the country to play for FB teams. Kids in TX go to Oregon, kids in FL go play in Jersey, kids in CA go play in Colorado. Why do you think that it would matter that they dont play teams they are in the same geographic region as the school is in? The travel for the Western division isnt any different than the current or past MWC.

You can believe that these kids or schools or fans give a flying frogs @$$ about history or common ground, but the truth is they are excited to be writing new history and forming common ground. If you followed this at all you would know that Houston, Boise, SMU and UCF have all worked together to get this deal done and all want to come in at the same time. They have been working in concert to make this happen. To me that sounds like something in common and building relationships.

Very well said.

(11-04-2011 09:40 PM)AnnapolisPirate Wrote:  

(11-04-2011 09:23 AM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(11-04-2011 06:33 AM)AnnapolisPirate Wrote:  

(11-04-2011 05:53 AM)NutmegStateofMind Wrote:  A hard time developing rivalries? You mean like UH/SMU, Boise/BYU, UL/UC, AFA/USNA, UConn/RU, USF/UCF?

LOL - that only means those schools may wish to stick together, not together in the Big East. As someone who has watched a team in a spread out conference, I know the difficulties it brings, and consequent lack of loyalty. You missed the overall point. The trouble is with more with SMU and UCONN, not SMU and Houston. Look at the SEC, ACC, Big 10. There is great interest in MOST conf games. But don't worry, the underwhelming fan interest of the matchups will ensure that you can get a good walk up ticket on game day at may of these stadiums. The present facts bear that out.

This isn't an issue for CUSA teams - because they are already used to it. and dunno that BYU will answer your call, so its best not to count the wives before the wedding days, so to speak. If they gave the B12 the cold shoulder, I doubt that they'll change their tune now. So take my words at face value and tell me what you think when your team is travelling around the country on game days. UCONN wouldn't support their team in a BCS bowl in AZ after all, what makes you think you'll be up for a trip to Colorado Springs in November?

Final parting shot, UCONN has been begging to go to the ACC - you think that will change now? The conf model is unstable. You'll see...

I can only speak for UH fans but we are chomping at the bit to play in the proposed western division that will include Boise State, BYU, Air Force, SMU, and Louisville!!!!

Playing this level of quality competition year in and year out will develop some nice rivalries. Much better than playing UTEP, Tulsa, and Tulane each year.

No offense to those schools but we could care less about playing them. Tulsa is kind of a nice game each year. They are a quality FB team don't get me wrong and they will be one of our late season tests this year but we just don't get fired up about Tulsa.

If Graham was still there maybe but any sort of "rivalry" that was developing left when he did.

Tulane is just a nice road trip. People only look forward to playing Tulane as an excuse to go to New Orleans not to get fired up about playing Tulane.

UTEP ehh. They play us tough every time but you won't find one UH fan that will miss playing them unless they have split loyalty already in playing UTEP. Once again a quality FB program but nothing we honestly are fired up to play or are upset about losing.

We will still play Rice OOC since it is a "rivalry" if you can call it that based on the all-time record. They have been better of late and it does make for a more interesting game. Even if it means we lose from time to time. I think we will still play them if for no other reason than it is essentially an extra home game for us. That and the fact that Reliant Stadium and the City of Houston seem interested in making this a much bigger deal in the years to come.

We are playing the next 2 years in Reliant Stadium and it will be promoted quite heavily for sure. If this shows any level of success you can bet this will probably become an annual thing.

Don't think ECU can say much to UH guys for a year, or at least until baseball season. Can't say that I'll miss playing UH and your career QB in the future. We won the one that mattered most, but seriously, Keenum has put a hurting on the Pirates a few times. BTW, hows that request for his 7th year of eligibility coming

My point was the the CUSA schedule is a good example of how a spread out conf doesn't exactly get people fired up. I agree that that western division looks like a big improvement. Wish you guys luck in the future and hope those stadium plans come to fruition.

The football stadium will get done...And after is finished is going to be one good looking one - hands down.

(11-04-2011 10:26 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(11-04-2011 10:10 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(11-04-2011 10:02 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(11-04-2011 08:01 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(11-04-2011 07:20 AM)NutmegStateofMind Wrote:  You do understand that there is going to be an east and a west, correct?

Doesn't change his point. Also there are going to be crossover games, unless you are planning to add to a point where you don't need to play them. There will be years you have to make 2 trips west, and sure it sounds easy but it's tough on the team, fans, and makes it nearly impossible to get any sort of real connection or rivalry with the teams. The newness will make it exciting at first, but after a while when you're going out to Air Force on a Friday night, or Boise on a Wednesday you will start to think to yourself "why are we playing these teams, we have nothing in common with them and no conenction with them at all." Also whatever current BE team gets stuck in the west is not going to be very happy about it at all.

Yes, im sure a linebacker or fullback flying out to a game will be thinking "Why are we playing these team? We have nothing in common with them...we don't live the same geographic region!"

Look at how far UW and UA are apart, Nebraska and PSU, BC and Miami, WVU and Tech. These teams don;t care and after a while neither do their fan-bases. Not a lot of fans travel to every single away game. Also even if that is the case its only 2 trips tops. Wow, you dont get to go to 2 FB games? You mean you'll have to settle for going to 10+ a bowl game? Awww schucks. That sounds like some real issues someone has to deal with. Guess what? If you can travel to away games on a thurs or weds you dont have to worry about how much its going to cost in travel.

That's fine you don't have to believe me. Not to mention all those examples you mentioned are probably half the distance of UCONN to Boise. If you think being in a conference with members that you have zero in common with, no history, and no real common ground with is easy that's fine. Believe what you want to believe.

Dude, the Big East could bring in ECU, Southern Miss and temple and they would still have no history with UConn!!! When you add members from any part of the country you have zero history, you have to buold that. You can;t compare old conferences with new conferences in that way. You have to let those things develop. These kids playing have a lot in common. Kids travel all over the country to play for FB teams. Kids in TX go to Oregon, kids in FL go play in Jersey, kids in CA go play in Colorado. Why do you think that it would matter that they dont play teams they are in the same geographic region as the school is in? The travel for the Western division isnt any different than the current or past MWC.

You can believe that these kids or schools or fans give a flying frogs @$$ about history or common ground, but the truth is they are excited to be writing new history and forming common ground. If you followed this at all you would know that Houston, Boise, SMU and UCF have all worked together to get this deal done and all want to come in at the same time. They have been working in concert to make this happen. To me that sounds like something in common and building relationships.

Got to start somewhere...

Heck...the only thing Utah had in common with Pac-10/12 schools like UCLA and USC is that the first letter of their school name began with the letter "U".

or

Only thing WVU has in common with fellow Big 12 members is that all fans use couches but for different reasons (fans of current teams use couches for sitting while WVU fans use them for burning).