(06-27-2012 04:02 PM)War Torn Ruston Wrote:  

(06-27-2012 03:59 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  What if the Boise and SDSU plans fall through? The BE already has Navy in for football-only; what would keep Air Force from going in as football-only as well? It would give them an even 12 teams and a chance to have a championship game.

But the thread is about not going to 12? Sometimes this place is like having a conversation with a bunch of hungry dolphins.

The problem with staying at 10, is that without BSU and SDSU the conference will have 11 teams (everyone seems to forget that Navy will be here before too long). So the question is does Navy back out? Does the Big East play with 11 teams ? Do they add one to get to 12 or three to get to 14.

Personally if Navy backed out I would be more than happy to stay at 10. From a financial standpoint only having 3 OOC games means one less MAC/Sunbelt school you have throw $500,000 every year. In a vacuum a 9 team round robin is the perfect number for football, but I understand that the fashion is to have a CCG and that's not going to change anytime soon.

I will add that I do believe that an undefeated Boise State that wins a CCG in the big east would get a card to the dance based on past BCS performance, but just being undefeated and not playing that CCG opens up ways for the process committee to award that spot to a one loss big four conference team.

Also, I truly believe that Boise has as good of a chance, or even better based on a CCG going undefeated in the MWC and getting the dance verses just being undefeated in the east.

(06-27-2012 04:12 PM)Eagleweiser Wrote:  I am most certainly not trying to unzip and pee farther than anyone else, I have honestly posted what I think is the case. I have major disdain and dislike for the talking heads in Providence, but such is life. As I have stated numerous times, I have the ultimate respect for Boise State as they did it on the field this past ten plus years, but as good as they have been over the past decade, I think truly the east invitation was based on a need to gain BCS points and try and maintain AQ status. I do believe that had the BCS committee met several months earlier and made a definitive statement that AQ was going away, the Providence brain trust would have not set their sights over to Idaho.

The addition of Temple and Memphis as retarded as it was for football, was honestly a good move for the basketball side of the conference and after all that is what the conference was from the start and what has always played a steering role in decisions. And as much as we have a long history with Memphis, honestly they have been about as relevant in college football as a turd in the punch bowl. They have had a few decent years, but go back 75 years and their record is abysmal at best. Temple was pretty well described as a dumpster fire, hard to add anything there. But when you step back and look at it, they are both very prominent and good basketball programs and fit very nicely with the basketball side of the league.

As far as staying at ten teams, I just can't see any way to have a chance at getting into the playoff system without a CCG. Even an undefeated east team with Boise State in the conference will get jumped over by a one loss big four conference team that wins their CCG. To have a reasonable shot at getting an invite into the money dance, the big east is going to have to play a CCG.

I couldnt agree more with the your thoughts on the championship game.

(06-27-2012 01:42 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I don't think we'd want to go to 20 basketball members just so the football schools could have a championship game. I don't see adding anyone else.

I think we'd let San Diego State stay--that would mean 12 teams and a CCG, without adding any more all-sports schools.

Bam, right there is the problem with the Big East. You have 8 basketball schools (half of them mediocre to terrible) holding back 10 all sports schools from maximizing the situation. Since 2002, Depaul, St. Johns, Providence, and Seton Hall have COMBINED for nine 20 win seasons. 5 of those were from 2002-2004. But they will howl at the thought of maximizing the opportunity for the conference if it interferes with the basketball while half of them have become irrelevant. In case you missed it, you basketball focus ran off a lot of the football teams that were better in basketball than you are.

(06-27-2012 03:22 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(06-27-2012 01:33 PM)War Torn Ruston Wrote:  If Boise and SDSU goes back to the MWC . . .

Remind me again - you have been against Boise joining the Big East for a couple of months now, correct?

Bump. I'll answer your question if you answer mine.

(06-27-2012 04:09 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  

(06-27-2012 03:55 PM)piratefan1975 Wrote:  Maybe the Big East will stay at 10 teams.

Since ya'll wouldn't be playing during championship week, I only ask that all the Big East fans tune in to watch ECU in the C-USA championship game. It would help our TV ratings.

I will continue to have interest in the CUSA teams after we leave. Im a Rice fan too. The way things are shaking out, the east of CUSA could be dominate for a long time to come.

Last I checked the east has always been dominate. 5 straight titles in the east despite all the hype behind teams like Houston, Tulsa, and SMU in that time period. In closing screw the west.

Actually on three championships going back to before divisions were won by current west teams, one by Houston, one by Tulsa and one by Tulane. Houston also shared one with Southern Miss. So probably pretty correct when saying the eastern side of the conference has won the majority of championships for sure.

If Boise and San Diego back out, why keep Navy? Navy was added just to entice Air Force. Obviously the western division would be scrapped at that point and Air Force would not join then. They add no value plus it was for football only anyway. Or keep Navy and add Army as football only as well. Either way I don't see it making a difference whether the Big East has 10 teams our 12 w/ a ccg. They know their place and its on the outside, looking in.

(06-27-2012 04:05 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  

(06-27-2012 03:49 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(06-27-2012 03:10 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  I think basketball was obviously a factor---but there was more to it IMO. Memphis is bringing a Bowl and a MAJOR basketball program and a big athletic budget. Its not like Memphis is an enternal football dog. They have had a few bad years, but I dont see them as a perma-dog in any way. Temple was more complicated. A mixture of decent football, excellent market, and good basketball. But the biggest thing about Temple, was that they could be there next year. The Big East was more than a little desperate after the W Virginia debacle, so I wouldnt jump to the anti-football conclusion that quickly.

attackfrog. You might want to research Memphis & Temple football history if you think they've just had "a few bad years".

Take away the DeAngelo Williams years and Memphis football history is complete dog . They've got 1 bowl after that span in the mid 2000's and I think a couple way back in ancient history.

The better part of Temple's football history they've been a complete dumpster fire. Temple has a 43% win %, 4 bowls all time, has practically zero fan support and was kicked out of the Big East once before because they were so horrible. Who was Temple's AD during this time span? RC Johnson. 2 of Temple's bowl games came in 2009 (9 wins) and 2011 (9 wins), the era of 30+ bowl games while padding their win total with games vs Nova, Army and a who's who of the MAC bottom feeders.

For somebody to say these 2 programs have "had a few bad years" is boarderline insanity and completely disconnected from reality. Either that or you simply have no idea what you're talking about. Like I said, they got invited because they're in an urban area, have good basketball and were available.

I dont think I made the "few bad years" comment about Temple. Temple was awful but they seem to have made a commitment to the program and seem to be a team on the rise.

Memphis made bowls 5 out 6 yeas from 2003-2008. Everyone seems to think football began 10 years ago. Memphis is 432-449-33 over the lifetime of their program. Thats a little under .500. Thier decline below .500 just occurred over the last 3 years. They really are not the long time dumpster fire you are making them out to be. As a comparison ECU is 390-357-11. They are a little above .500 (.522). Its not really all that different.

ECU's record is 396-364-11 .521 bowl record (major bowls) 5-7, last confrence title 2009 C-USA

Memphis is 437-470-33 .482 bowl record (major bowls) 3-3, last confrence title 1971 MVC

Those are the corrent numbers, additionally ECU holds a 13-6 record against Memphis, in addition ECU made 5 straight bowls from 06-10 and back2back confrence championships and 6 bowls over the past 10 years.

If I am not mistaken Southern Ms is 559-372-27, eight conference championships, two small college national championships, 18 consecutive winning seasons currently, one prior 17 consecutive winning season run, 11 bowl wins, 67 winning seasons, 4 top twenty final rankings in the last 30 years. Winning records verses all new big east teams played except for Cincy and that series is tied. Hard to imagine how Southern Miss might help the east's SOS.

(06-27-2012 01:33 PM)War Torn Ruston Wrote:  Just a thought.
If Boise and SDSU goes back to the MWC that gives the Big East 10 with Navy coming in later.
If strength of schedule and head to head is as big of a factor as it seems, would the Big East not put themselves in better position by playing more OOC games than to add 2 more teams? Even though ECU and Southern Miss are good schools and football programs I do not think a win over them will be as big as a win at NC State or Mississippi State in the eyes of a committee or a computer who sees MSU played Bama, Arkansas, and LSU and possible won one of the 3 games and finished with a winning record.
Maybe the Big East pulls a Big 12 and does not take a chance on a conference championship game where a 4 loss team can beat an undefeated and knock them out of the final four.
Like I said, just a thought......

Don't see that being a possibility at all WTR.

1. Winning a CCG right at the end of the season can usually push a team up in the polls (or now up in the eyes of the committee "supposedly")

2. Any team/conference not in the Big 4 need as many games/wins as they can get and a CCG and a 13-0 season is hard to ignore.

3. Just because the BE would want to schedule more OOC games doesn't mean those games are available. Many teams have most if not all of their OOC schedules coordinated and agreed 5-10 years out. So trying to schedule quality teams from the Big 4 (which is your point) becomes more difficult.

4. Bowls - Bowls - Bowls

By scheduling more elite OOC games, some teams may win and some will lose. Then you get into conference play and lose a few and now suddenly the BE ends up with 4 or 5 teams of 10, maybe eligible for a bowl or less. Who knows what would happen, but I think you get the point. Kind of a double edged sword. Play harder teams, lose and no bowls at all.


5. 3 Way Ties. See Big East 2010 and 2011.

6. Too many dollars involved in having a CCG. Like I said earlier. The Big 12 may be able to get away with for a few years, but they'll go to 12 eventually.

Anyway, I see you're point, just don't think it's feasible if the BE wants to make any noise ahead of the others.

(06-27-2012 08:08 PM)ECUPirated Wrote:  

(06-27-2012 01:33 PM)War Torn Ruston Wrote:  Just a thought.
If Boise and SDSU goes back to the MWC that gives the Big East 10 with Navy coming in later.
If strength of schedule and head to head is as big of a factor as it seems, would the Big East not put themselves in better position by playing more OOC games than to add 2 more teams? Even though ECU and Southern Miss are good schools and football programs I do not think a win over them will be as big as a win at NC State or Mississippi State in the eyes of a committee or a computer who sees MSU played Bama, Arkansas, and LSU and possible won one of the 3 games and finished with a winning record.
Maybe the Big East pulls a Big 12 and does not take a chance on a conference championship game where a 4 loss team can beat an undefeated and knock them out of the final four.
Like I said, just a thought......

Don't see that being a possibility at all WTR.

1. Winning a CCG right at the end of the season can usually push a team up in the polls (or now up in the eyes of the committee "supposedly")

2. Any team/conference not in the Big 4 need as many games/wins as they can get and a CCG and a 13-0 season is hard to ignore.

3. Just because the BE would want to schedule more OOC games doesn't mean those games are available. Many teams have most if not all of their OOC schedules coordinated and agreed 5-10 years out. So trying to schedule quality teams from the Big 4 (which is your point) becomes more difficult.
4. Bowls - Bowls - Bowls

By scheduling more elite OOC games, some teams may win and some will lose. Then you get into conference play and lose a few and now suddenly the BE ends up with 4 or 5 teams of 10, maybe eligible for a bowl or less. Who knows what would happen, but I think you get the point. Kind of a double edged sword. Play harder teams, lose and no bowls at all.


5. 3 Way Ties. See Big East 2010 and 2011.

6. Too many dollars involved in having a CCG. Like I said earlier. The Big 12 may be able to get away with for a few years, but they'll go to 12 eventually.

Anyway, I see you're point, just don't think it's feasible if the BE wants to make any noise ahead of the others.

Good post. Lots of good points. Number three is the one that has me most concerned. We already are not having alot of luck scheduling Big-12 teams, with the Big-12 at 9 conference games, I cant imagine it will get any easier.

No matter who ends up being in the east, a CCG is essential to many things, just can't see not doing it

(06-27-2012 08:40 PM)Eagleweiser Wrote:  No matter who ends up being in the east, a CCG is essential to many things, just can't see not doing it

This, CCG can be worth several million dollars and for the champ few spots in the polls that could be huge. But, that would make since and we are talking about the BE........

(06-27-2012 05:45 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(06-27-2012 03:22 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(06-27-2012 01:33 PM)War Torn Ruston Wrote:  If Boise and SDSU goes back to the MWC . . .

Remind me again - you have been against Boise joining the Big East for a couple of months now, correct?

Bump. I'll answer your question if you answer mine.

Yes. I wanted Boise in the MWC if they cannot get an all-sports invite. I am not happy with the Big West and sure as hell the WAC as it is today. I would rather just stay out west. At least then I can go to more than 2 away games a year.
And tonight McMurphy said he thinks Boise will put Olympic sports in the WAC yet this morning on Boise's talk show he said he had no clue what would happen.
And to make things worse, Idaho said that independence may not be an option after all and will make a choice about the Big Sky before football the players come back to campus.
If Boise stays in the Big East and then Idaho leaves the WAC? OH HELL NO.

(06-27-2012 11:27 PM)War Torn Ruston Wrote:  

(06-27-2012 05:45 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(06-27-2012 03:22 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(06-27-2012 01:33 PM)War Torn Ruston Wrote:  If Boise and SDSU goes back to the MWC . . .

Remind me again - you have been against Boise joining the Big East for a couple of months now, correct?

Bump. I'll answer your question if you answer mine.

Yes. I wanted Boise in the MWC if they cannot get an all-sports invite. I am not happy with the Big West and sure as hell the WAC as it is today. I would rather just stay out west. At least then I can go to more than 2 away games a year.
And tonight McMurphy said he thinks Boise will put Olympic sports in the WAC yet this morning on Boise's talk show he said he had no clue what would happen.
And to make things worse, Idaho said that independence may not be an option after all and will make a choice about the Big Sky before football the players come back to campus.
If Boise stays in the Big East and then Idaho leaves the WAC? OH HELL NO.

Like I said in a different thread, the WAC seems so weird. If Idaho leaves, the WAC is just Denver, Seattle, NMSU, and Boise. Could Boise be behind the scenes pushing Idaho out, then having a big glut of teams coming in for hoops, in what would be a solid non-football conference. With teams that have their hoops parked in the WAC and fb in BE. That Boise would think long term would then just convert over to the FB eventually. Without a Idaho dragging them down.

I don't for a minute think the NBE is better off at 10 schools. It will still continue to be the feeder for the other 5, The BE would be better off today if it had added a couple of schools 4 or 5 years ago. Those schools chosen, (UCF, Memphis, Houston) or who ever would be seen as much more like Cincy, Louisville, USF ect today. There is some degree of stability in #s at this point.

The last reports where that SDSU were in regardless. So if Boise State does stick out West and if SDSU still comes to the BIG EAST that would put the league @ 11 with Navy joining later.

No, the league should go ahead and offer ECU, USM & if BYU/AFA say no Fresno State. It the "Alliance" under the BIG EAST Banner.