Just a look at the current and previous BCS rankings the past 4 years.
This is from Jerry Palm CollegeBCS.com. And some of you insist they becomes members of the Big East.

Current BCS Weeking for the week of October 1-7 2005
46 UAB
33 Southern Miss
67 UCF
93 Marshall
79 Memphis
100 East Carolina
82 Tulane

Final 2004 BCS Ranking
34 Memphis
52 UAB
58 Southern Miss
82 Tulane
108 East Carolina
117 UCF

Final 2003 BCS Ranking
27 Southern Miss
58 Memphis
79 UAB
83 Tulane
113 East Carolina
105 UCF

Final 2002 BCS Ranking
66 Southern Miss
67 UCF
78 Tulane
91 UAB
89 East Carolina
104 Memphis

Final 2001 BCS Ranking
88 UAB
63 East Carolina
71 Southern Miss
86 Memphis
101 Tulane
75 UCF

Corrected my mistake and just looking at the numbers really only USM can help the Big East in case of expansion at this current time. Memphis needs a couple of more good years to be considered and please don't even bring up Tulane and UCF.

<a href='http://www.collegebcs.com/subs/' target='_blank'>http://www.collegebcs.com/subs/</a>

At USM we are committed. We avg decent around 30000 per game and we are upgrading our stadium to 40000 and it is going to be first class. Anybody who has ever played at the Rock will tell you it is already a great enviroment. We have 12 winning seasons in a row. many Many bowl games over and over so we are committed and have been. And we all bring a southern bowl market which is badly needed by the Big East schools. If we get in great and if not great. The BCS sucks either way. I was just reading this board lately and threw my 2 cents in.

S.Miss is not going to improve the BE.Its market place will not help the BE.The quality of this school academically and in sports is not sufficent for BE membership.

For Yoda FYI

The past final BCS rankings of your two favorite schools Boise State and Fresno

2001
54 Boise State
24 Fresno State

2002
18 Boise State
54 Fresno State

2003
17 Boise State
57 Fresno State

2004
09 Boise State
33 Fresno State

tigersharktwo Wrote:S.Miss is not going to improve the BE.Its market place will not help the BE.The quality of this school academically and in sports is not sufficent for BE membership.

I agree, I was strictly talking pure football wise. Other programs in Hattiesburg need major work and at UofL we still need to get some work done to get up to Big East standards.

I favor a modest expansion, but feel the need to make this point a repeating loop:

Under current conditions, the addition of any CUSA programs to a conference comprised of the BE football schools would translate into TV contracts that provide less money per school.


Beginning next year, the current BE 1-A members will receive as conference revenue roughly $6M per school even with next year's less-than-ideal bowl situation. Thus, the addition of four more teams would require the generation of $24M dollars to offset losses in the more diluted revenue stream.

A championship game would likely generate $4-7M: ACC gets $5M from ABC, SEC gets $8-9 from CBS. So at 12 members the four new members would need to generate about $19M in new revenue.

Beginning next year, the current CUSA members will receive roughly $2M, possibly less. Even with the new bowl lineups. Assuming the four members tapped for BE are responsible for the lions share of the CUSA contractual earnings, and lets face it they wouldn't bring 5 bowl berths with them, that would still translate into roughly $3M per side. Or, $7M short of the revenue needed for the former BE members to maintain their level of conference income.

If the BE is in danger of losing their BCS status then things change. But under the notion of simply improving the welfare of the conference such a move doesn't make financial sense right now.

GunnerFan Wrote:I favor a modest expansion, but feel the need to make this point a repeating loop:

Under current conditions, the addition of any CUSA programs to a conference comprised of the BE football schools would translate into TV contracts that provide less money per school.


Beginning next year, the current BE 1-A members will receive as conference revenue roughly $6M per school even with next year's less-than-ideal bowl situation. Thus, the addition of four more teams would require the generation of $24M dollars to offset losses in the more diluted revenue stream.

A championship game would likely generate $4-7M: ACC gets $5M from ABC, SEC gets $8-9 from CBS. So at 12 members each of the four new members would need to generate about $19M in new revenue.

Beginning next year, the current CUSA members will receive roughly $2M, possibly less. Even with the new bowl lineups. Assuming the four members tapped for BE are responsible for the lions share of the CUSA contractual earnings, and lets face it they wouldn't bring 5 bowl berths with them, that would still translate into roughly $3M per side. Or, $7M short of the revenue needed for the former BE members to maintain their level of conference income.

If the BE is in danger of losing their BCS status then things change. But under the notion of simply improving the welfare of the conference such a move doesn't make financial sense right now.

WOW, thanks Gunnerfan. That puts expansion into a "Dollars & Cents" equation. Very Understandeable. Now STOP all this "add C-USA" teams debate. A "9th" team that will help the conference financially, academically and competitively, until that candidate emerges, get off this topic! AAAHHHH headache....

Ty-Bull Wrote:

GunnerFan Wrote:I favor a modest expansion, but feel the need to make this point a repeating loop:

Under current conditions, the addition of any CUSA programs to a conference comprised of the BE football schools would translate into TV contracts that provide less money per school.


Beginning next year, the current BE 1-A members will receive as conference revenue roughly $6M per school even with next year's less-than-ideal bowl situation.&nbsp; Thus, the addition of four more teams would require the generation of $24M dollars to offset losses in the more diluted revenue stream.&nbsp;

A championship game would likely generate $4-7M: ACC gets $5M from ABC, SEC gets $8-9 from CBS.&nbsp; So at 12 members each of the four new members would need to generate about $19M in new revenue.

Beginning next year, the current CUSA members will receive roughly $2M, possibly less.&nbsp; Even with the new bowl lineups.&nbsp; Assuming the four members tapped for BE are responsible for the lions share of the CUSA contractual earnings, and lets face it they wouldn't bring 5 bowl berths with them, that would still translate into roughly $3M per side.&nbsp; Or, $7M short of the revenue needed for the former BE members to maintain their level of conference income.

If the BE is in danger of losing their BCS status then things change.&nbsp; But under the notion of simply improving the welfare of the conference such a move doesn't make financial sense right now.

WOW, thanks Gunnerfan. That puts expansion into a "Dollars & Cents" equation. Very Understandeable. Now STOP all this "add C-USA" teams debate. A "9th" team that will help the conference financially, academically and competitively, until that candidate emerges, get off this topic! AAAHHHH headache....

Again agree with you, wait it out and see what happens. But going to 12 just to go to 12 like I said is borderline retarded.

And thanks Gunner for breaking it down in dollars and cents. That is what it all boils down to.

Ty-Bull the reason why I say 10 is for schedule purposes. The Pac 10 is going to 9 conference games and I feel we need that same protection.

I agree, with only adding one. Especially in light of the 12th game scheduling nightmare. I know that there isn't a coach out there that likes an unbalanced home and away conf schedule.

a) De nada.

b) I fixed my error: Four new members would need to generate (roughly) $19M total, not each. Classic "Doh!" but doesn't change the net results.

Maize Wrote:Just a look at the current and previous BCS rankings the past 4 years.
This is from Jerry Palm CollegeBCS.com. And some of you insist they becomes members of the Big East.

Current BCS Weeking for the week of October 1-7 2005
46 UAB
33 Southern Miss
67 UCF
93 Marshall
79 Memphis
100 East Carolina
82 Tulane

Final 2004 BCS Ranking
34 Memphis
52 UAB
58 Southern Miss
82 Tulane
108 East Carolina
117 UCF

Final 2003 BCS Ranking
27 Southern Miss
58 Memphis
79 UAB
83 Tulane
113 East Carolina
105 UCF

Final 2002 BCS Ranking
66 Southern Miss
67 UCF
78 Tulane
91 UAB
89 East Carolina
104 Memphis

Final 2001 BCS Ranking
88 UAB
63 East Carolina
71 Southern Miss
86 Memphis
101 Tulane
75 UCF

Corrected my mistake and just looking at the numbers really only USM can help the Big East in case of expansion at this current time. Memphis needs a couple of more good years to be considered and please don't even bring up Tulane and UCF.

<a href='http://www.collegebcs.com/subs/' target='_blank'>http://www.collegebcs.com/subs/</a>

Curious...what was Rutgers BCS Rankings during those same years?

KL

PS. Also...if a teams switches conferences...based on the majority of their schedules (which are Conference Games), a ranking can go UP or DOWN depending on which Conference you belong to.

Good Conference? Scores would inflate upwards.

Bad Conference? Scores would drop.

Rutgers the past 4 years.

2001 104th
2002 113th
2003 77th
2004 84th

BE also took USF based on potential and not BCS ranking or they would have been in the Sun Belt......schools like USM, Memphis, and UAB for example would thrive recruiting-wise in a BCS conference and their BCS ranking would easily rise within a few years.......as it is, a BCS ranking is not the end all be all nor is it extremely accurate - not with someone like Indiana in the teens.....not saying the above three would be right for the BE, only illustrating that it will not take that much effort to climb in the BCS rankings if a solid football program is bumped to BCS status.......

Side question, is even involved in the Heisman race any more? What happened to him? I liked the racecar they gave out to push for him.

HoopDreams Wrote:BE also took USF based on potential and not BCS ranking or they would have been in the Sun Belt......schools like USM, Memphis, and UAB for example would thrive recruiting-wise in a BCS conference and their BCS ranking would easily rise within a few years.......as it is, a BCS ranking is not the end all be all nor is it extremely accurate - not with someone like Indiana in the teens.....not saying the above three would be right for the BE, only illustrating that it will not take that much effort to climb in the BCS rankings if a solid football program is bumped to BCS status.......

It was more than just potential Hoopdreams, it was clear the big east wanted a florida market and at the time USF was a much better candidate than UCF, and what they have done in there short existance in my opinion is pretty remarkable. Do they bring more than Memphis "no" and I understand your beef, but at the same time I think there football potential is better than most think. Thats why i'm against adding anymore schools with potential. If the supposed 12 game schedule is a problem why not just sign another BCS team to everybody's schedules. We know how teams break scheduling contracts left and right, so i'm sure somebody's schedules will open up. I think people are just reaching for excuses to expand. The most common excuses are:
1. We have so much history with this or that team
2. We suck this year and need more teams to justify our BCS inclusion
3. We need another team to help with scheduling

1. Who cares history if those teams won't help you along the way.
2. I could of sworn we 5 games into the season
3. Why just annoint a team because you need somebody to schedule, if thats the case why not schedule a independent like Army or Navy.

All of these excuse are almost becoming lame, what we need to do is get better as a conference. This is the first year of the New Big EAst and bringing in new teams to a already young conference does nothing but set us back. The ACC and other newly formed conferences are all going through changes and it takes time. I realize that the ACC essentially added great teams but at the same time, it made the conference more competitive top to bottom and some teams are going to left out in the cold. We just need to develop the teams we have now, recruit better and work with what we have. I honestly can't ever see the Big East being any better than the 5th or 5th best conference anyway. In the end nothing matters anyways as long as you have the BCS bid. We just need to solidify our position and meet all the requirements. We have teams capable of winning big games. We all knew coming into the season what were up against, so why all of a sudden the panic attacks and the need for more teams?

I dont know how true this is, but Richard Ginanini Southern Mississippi's Athletic Director, told me in a conversation that Southern Miss normally had more media covering them than any other team at the C-USA media days. We had media from New Olreans, Slidell La, Mobile Alabama and throughout most of South Mississippi, So I guess when you add them all up you got a decent tv market. Alot better than you have in Oxford or Starkville

WOW,what a tv market for Smiss.Just what the BE does not need.

tigersharktwo Wrote:WOW,what a tv market for Smiss.Just what the BE does not need.

Just curious. What team do you follow?

HoopDreams Wrote:BE also took USF based on potential and not BCS ranking or they would have been in the Sun Belt......schools like USM, Memphis, and UAB for example would thrive recruiting-wise in a BCS conference and their BCS ranking would easily rise within a few years.......as it is, a BCS ranking is not the end all be all nor is it extremely accurate - not with someone like Indiana in the teens.....not saying the above three would be right for the BE, only illustrating that it will not take that much effort to climb in the BCS rankings if a solid football program is bumped to BCS status.......

I believe that you would find that USF had a BCS ranking of 24 the year we went 9-2. I believe that beats ALL the CUSA teams in that time period.

Here are USF's BCS Rankings
2005-31
2004-85
2003-67
2002-24
2001-75

So that stupid Sun Belt comment is just that plain stupid USF stacks up vs any of those CUSA teams.