What's odd about the American is that it is composed mostly of schools who were invited by others which are no longer in the league.

In 2003, Cincy and USF were invited to join the league for the 2005 season by no one who's still in the league.

In early 2012, UCF, Houston, SMU, Memphis, Navy football, and Temple were invited while UConn, Louisville, Rutgers, Notre Dame, and the C7 were still scheduled to be in the league.

ECU football and Tulane were invited while UConn and the C7 were still scheduled to be in the league. (This is true even though several C7 schools were very, very upset about it.)

Tulsa and ECU non football were invited only after the BE/AAC split was officially ready to happen. Wichita State was invited by the AAC itself.

One thing I'm curious about is whether the schools who were invited in early 2012 had any voting privileges about who was invited in late 2012 and thereafter.

These types of scenarios are never tethered to reality. They’re always built on all kinds of crazy assumptions.

(07-11-2020 04:58 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(07-11-2020 12:09 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-11-2020 09:41 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(07-11-2020 08:06 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  Here's a what-if:

What if the Catholic 7 was not able/allowed to split off from the football schools?

Going by memory of what happened in late 2012, this would have been the lineup for the Big East:

Providence
St. John's
Seton Hall
Villanova
Georgetown
DePaul
Marquette
UConn
Temple
Navy (FB only)
ECU (FB only)
UCF
USF
Cincinnati
Memphis
Tulane
Houston
SMU

11 for football, 16 for non football.

No telling if Tulsa would have gotten the green light by the C7 to join because they were already committed to separate from the FB schools by the time a vote was held on Tulsa.

Boise and SDSU still would have gone back to the MW due to the low paying contract that was being offered.

A better what-if:

Now knowing what we all know now, what if UConn and Cincinnati chose to depart with the C7, thus breaking up the Big East, keeping all of the exit fees, and reorganizing the Big East as a non-football entity once again. UConn and Cincinnati could have kept a larger portion of the exit fees, while maintaining a consistent and strong basketball payout to financially support them as FBS Independents in the immediate term. With the New Big East breakup, they could easily look to schedule alliances with Temple, Army and any other handful of (then) higher-up C-USA programs.

This prevents the Big East from inviting Xavier (as Cincinnati remains in tow), but still likely invites Butler to get to ten members. It is unclear, possibly unlikely, that the BE9 invite Creighton (as it remains outside the footprint). VCU and SLU remain possibilities. This also prevents the "demotion" in conferences of both UConn and UC for the (then) immediate term, and allows them to pivot as FBS Independents the same way BYU did (still considered a power program but not in a power conference).

For the football call-ups - UCF, Memphis, Houston, SMU, Tulane, ECU, Tulsa - as well as USF, they remain stuck in C-USA, with no higher conference to climb to. While the merger concept with the MWC still likely gets shot down, perhaps they move to an alliance, as previously discussed. This means that LA Tech, UTSA, North Texas, FIU, Old Dominion, FAU and MTSU do not get called up either (but Charlotte joins as a full member).

Interesting scenario.

So the Big East would have had (likely)

Providence
UConn
St. John's
Villanova
Seton Hall
Georgetown
Cincinnati
Marquette
DePaul

and ...

let's say Butler

As a Cincy fan, I would have been thrilled for Bearcat basketball but concerned for football.

So ....

Let's say we see one of two hypotheticals stem from this Big East move — assuming the strongest of the then-damaged C-USA do not want to be "stuck":

Scenario One

Memphis, Houston, SMU, Temple, UCF and South Florida band together and leave C-USA (obviously Temple was never in C-USA and USF would be leaving the Big East in this scenario).

The six go "indy" in football and arrange a football scheduling alliance with UConn, Cincy, Navy and perhaps UMass and/or Army. This was done in the 1990s before C-USA was formed. Or ... those schools create a football-only DI league (much like the Missouri Valley Football Conference is a football-only FCS league).

That takes care of football with a league (or affiliation) of at least eight schools.

So at this point, Memphis, Houston, SMU, Temple, UCF and South Florida need six or eight more to create a new 12- or 14-team conference for all sports but football with the emphasis being to create the best men's hoops league possible: They definitely invite Wichita and Creighton. So that's a strong eight. Then they invite four to six schools (with non-DI football programs) from the following group of 10: Saint Louis, Xavier, Dayton, VCU, UMass, Rhode Island, Davidson, Duquesne, Bradley and Loyola. If the Big East has already grabbed, say, Creighton, Saint Louis and Dayton in this hypothetical, there still remain nine quality options from which to choose six or eight.

Such a league in men's basketball would be, hypothetically, better than the current American in men's hoops and allow, specifically, Memphis, Houston, SMU and Temple (with their quality hoops programs) to keep recruiting at a high level.

Scenario Two

Houston, SMU, Memphis and a fourth school (perhaps Tulane) are offered as a "package deal" to the Mountain West, with that league accepting and thus going to 14. In the process, the MWC gravely injures C-USA and solidifies itself as the "best of the G4."

Both scenarios would have been unlikely but not beyond the realm of possibility.

To your first scenario, the then-BE callups would not have been able to break away from C-USA and form a new league/coalition. Firstly, they would not have had the qualifications to start a new non-football league and maintain an automatic bid to the NCAA Tournament (both in the number of teams, and the length that these teams would have been together); thus, Olympic sports (but mostly basketball) would have been negatively impacted significantly (not to mention increasing travel fees without the next financial point).

Secondly, it was due to the associations with UConn, Cincinnati and USF that the call-ups were able to get an increase in both payouts and TV exposure with the BE/AAC. Without those three programs (and the then association with a BCS conference), the callups do not get either (thus, eliminating any desire from a TV network paying/giving more for strictly a C-USA make-up). The money clearly would just not have been there (heck, the money was barely there to begin with at the start for the AAC). There would have been zero difference in content/perception than what it was in C-USA.

The second scenario is a possibility (as there were even rumors that UC/UConn were considering football membership in the MWC, after the C7 announced they were leaving). The Eastern BE/AAC/C-USA league just would not have had enough bodies or enough value to make it work at the time. The top of the ladder would have been C-USA in the East and the MWC in the West. The call-ups did prefer Eastern exposure, however; so it is still likely that Houston, Memphis, UCF and Tulane all choose to remain in C-USA.

As to your counter points to my first scenario, strong job. I hammered out that rather insane hypothetical after about four cups of coffee and with no food on the stomach. Was not thinking clearly. I was essentially bouncing off the walls on a caffeine high.

(07-10-2020 09:46 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-09-2020 07:51 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 04:30 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 12:46 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If this is the ACC:

Maryland, UVA, UNC, Duke, NC St, WF, Clemson, SC, GT, Miami

and this is the Metro (fb):

North: BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Temple, Rutgers, WVU
South: VT, Cincy, Louisville, Memphis, Tulane, USM

Do these get included in the Bowl Alliance/Bowl Coalition?

That imaginary Metro would not be in.

The whole point of the Bowl Coalition/Alliance was to prevent further occurrences of the split national titles of the 1990 and 1991 seasons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowl_Coalition

Quote:The Bowl Coalition was formed through an agreement among Division I-A college football bowl games and conferences for the purpose of forcing a national championship game between the top two teams and to provide quality bowl game matchups for the champions of its member conferences. It was established for the 1992 season after there were co-national champions for both the 1990 and 1991.

Quote:Following two consecutive seasons of split national championships in 1990 and 1991, there was a renewed effort in devising a system that would force a #1 vs. #2 national championship bowl game.

That's why Big East football was included -- only because they had Miami, who had finished in the top 3 in the final AP poll in each of the six years prior to the first year of the Bowl Coalition.

Not convinced that the logic about exclusion in the Bowl Coalition makes sense. No doubt that Miami in 1991 would have added a greater level of football gravitas to a new conference, but the 12 members detailed above already had better football performance than some of the conferences that signed-on to the Bowl Coalition. For example, reviewing the final AP rankings from 1986-1990: 1) Syracuse went undefeated in 1987 and was a legitimate national championship contender per the rankings, yet b) SWC had no teams finishing in the top 5 during the 5 year window (the SWC was included in the Bowl Coalition). The Bowl Coalition needed credibility in order to match top contenders in a ‘finals’ bowl...last thing you would is exclude a large conference with a recent history of championship level teams.

Miami's football resume at that point in time was far, far better than that of Syracuse or anyone else in that hypothetical league. That's why Tranghese said Big East football needed Miami -- he knew that just having Syracuse, Pitt, etc. wouldn't be enough to be recognized as a top-tier football conference. Had to have Miami. He was right.

As for the SWC, they had bigger "name brands" and there's no legitimate argument about that, though one could certainly argue, as you do, that on recent pre-Coalition performance alone the SWC didn't have a strong enough case for inclusion. But then again, that lone Syracuse team you mentioned, #4 in 1987, was the only time that any team in your group of 12 even finished in the top 10 from 1986-91.

If you look at the six conferences ultimately included in the BCS, along with ND, all of those conferences included at least one team that finished #1 in the AP and/or coaches' polls from the 1986 season through the 1992 season, and ND had one as well. And of course the only BE team in that #1 group was Miami.

In fact, the only final #1 from 1980-1999 not in those leagues was a WAC member, 1984 BYU. Are you going to argue the WAC should have been included in the Coalition and its successor groups?

Not arguing that Miami wouldn’t have been the biggest brand. But in this hypothetical Miami is not available in 1991.

Tranghese’s comment is irrelevant because the Big East is not sponsoring this 12 team fb conference. As stated repeatedly, the BE was structurally flawed...it was born as a basketball first conference, and could never fully transition to exploit the growth in football revenues.

In this scenario FBS members from the Metro (VT, Cincinnati, Louisville, Memphis, Tulane & USM) and A10 (WVU, Rutgers and Temple) join for an all sports conference, then they invite BE members (Syracuse, Pitt and BC) to join as football-only members. By going to twelve teams, this new conference would be joining the SEC as an early adopter of a Conference Championship Game. By having 12 teams, with some good brands and solid fan bases, The new conference should have garnered interest by an ACC-level bowl (e.g., Peach or Citrus or Sun ??)

Given that the Bowl Coalition was designed to prevent split FBS champions (as occurred in 1990 and 1991), this new conference would have deserved inclusion. Syracuse was in the 1987 title hunt; WVU was strong in 1988; Pitt was a solid brand with a national championship 15 years earlier; BC, VT and Louisville were having ranked teams.

Granted that it would have taken tremendous foresight to predict the growth of football revenues. But a 12 team conference in 1991 would have likely been able to grow its football brands while withstanding future poaching by the ACC. As football revenues grew, the BE FBS teams would likely consider joining all in.

(07-11-2020 10:53 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(07-10-2020 09:46 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-09-2020 07:51 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 04:30 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 12:46 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If this is the ACC:

Maryland, UVA, UNC, Duke, NC St, WF, Clemson, SC, GT, Miami

and this is the Metro (fb):

North: BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Temple, Rutgers, WVU
South: VT, Cincy, Louisville, Memphis, Tulane, USM

Do these get included in the Bowl Alliance/Bowl Coalition?

That imaginary Metro would not be in.

The whole point of the Bowl Coalition/Alliance was to prevent further occurrences of the split national titles of the 1990 and 1991 seasons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowl_Coalition

Quote:The Bowl Coalition was formed through an agreement among Division I-A college football bowl games and conferences for the purpose of forcing a national championship game between the top two teams and to provide quality bowl game matchups for the champions of its member conferences. It was established for the 1992 season after there were co-national champions for both the 1990 and 1991.

Quote:Following two consecutive seasons of split national championships in 1990 and 1991, there was a renewed effort in devising a system that would force a #1 vs. #2 national championship bowl game.

That's why Big East football was included -- only because they had Miami, who had finished in the top 3 in the final AP poll in each of the six years prior to the first year of the Bowl Coalition.

Not convinced that the logic about exclusion in the Bowl Coalition makes sense. No doubt that Miami in 1991 would have added a greater level of football gravitas to a new conference, but the 12 members detailed above already had better football performance than some of the conferences that signed-on to the Bowl Coalition. For example, reviewing the final AP rankings from 1986-1990: 1) Syracuse went undefeated in 1987 and was a legitimate national championship contender per the rankings, yet b) SWC had no teams finishing in the top 5 during the 5 year window (the SWC was included in the Bowl Coalition). The Bowl Coalition needed credibility in order to match top contenders in a ‘finals’ bowl...last thing you would is exclude a large conference with a recent history of championship level teams.

Miami's football resume at that point in time was far, far better than that of Syracuse or anyone else in that hypothetical league. That's why Tranghese said Big East football needed Miami -- he knew that just having Syracuse, Pitt, etc. wouldn't be enough to be recognized as a top-tier football conference. Had to have Miami. He was right.

As for the SWC, they had bigger "name brands" and there's no legitimate argument about that, though one could certainly argue, as you do, that on recent pre-Coalition performance alone the SWC didn't have a strong enough case for inclusion. But then again, that lone Syracuse team you mentioned, #4 in 1987, was the only time that any team in your group of 12 even finished in the top 10 from 1986-91.

If you look at the six conferences ultimately included in the BCS, along with ND, all of those conferences included at least one team that finished #1 in the AP and/or coaches' polls from the 1986 season through the 1992 season, and ND had one as well. And of course the only BE team in that #1 group was Miami.

In fact, the only final #1 from 1980-1999 not in those leagues was a WAC member, 1984 BYU. Are you going to argue the WAC should have been included in the Coalition and its successor groups?

Not arguing that Miami wouldn’t have been the biggest brand. But in this hypothetical Miami is not available in 1991.

Tranghese’s comment is irrelevant because the Big East is not sponsoring this 12 team fb conference. As stated repeatedly, the BE was structurally flawed...it was born as a basketball first conference, and could never fully transition to exploit the growth in football revenues.

In this scenario FBS members from the Metro (VT, Cincinnati, Louisville, Memphis, Tulane & USM) and A10 (WVU, Rutgers and Temple) join for an all sports conference, then they invite BE members (Syracuse, Pitt and BC) to join as football-only members. By going to twelve teams, this new conference would be joining the SEC as an early adopter of a Conference Championship Game. By having 12 teams, with some good brands and solid fan bases, The new conference should have garnered interest by an ACC-level bowl (e.g., Peach or Citrus or Sun ??)

Given that the Bowl Coalition was designed to prevent split FBS champions (as occurred in 1990 and 1991), this new conference would have deserved inclusion. Syracuse was in the 1987 title hunt; WVU was strong in 1988; Pitt was a solid brand with a national championship 15 years earlier; BC, VT and Louisville were having ranked teams.

Granted that it would have taken tremendous foresight to predict the growth of football revenues. But a 12 team conference in 1991 would have likely been able to grow its football brands while withstanding future poaching by the ACC. As football revenues grew, the BE FBS teams would likely consider joining all in.

Tranghese's comment is relevant because as he said, the Big East wouldn't have even been in the conversation for the Coalition, Alliance, BCS, etc. without Miami.

Your hypothetical Metro is simply the original Big East football lineup except that you have replaced Miami with Cincinnati, Louisville, Memphis, Tulane, and Southern Miss. In 1991-92, when the Coalition decisions were made, those five football teams at that time don't even come close to compensating for not having Miami given the run the Canes were on then.

Miami wasn't just a "brand" then; they had actual accomplishments that couldn't possibly be replaced by that group. Let's say it again -- Miami was top 3 in the final AP poll in each of the six years prior to the first year of the Bowl Coalition including 3 national titles in those 6 years. They were by far the best program in college football during that stretch.

Your real question should be, would Big East football have been just as good, and just as respected by the college football powers-that-be in 1991-92, if you replaced Miami's 3 national titles and 6 top-3 finishes in 6 years with Cincinnati, Louisville, Memphis, Tulane, and Southern Miss?

(07-12-2020 01:22 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-11-2020 10:53 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(07-10-2020 09:46 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-09-2020 07:51 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(07-08-2020 04:30 PM)Wedge Wrote:  That imaginary Metro would not be in.

The whole point of the Bowl Coalition/Alliance was to prevent further occurrences of the split national titles of the 1990 and 1991 seasons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowl_Coalition

That's why Big East football was included -- only because they had Miami, who had finished in the top 3 in the final AP poll in each of the six years prior to the first year of the Bowl Coalition.

Not convinced that the logic about exclusion in the Bowl Coalition makes sense. No doubt that Miami in 1991 would have added a greater level of football gravitas to a new conference, but the 12 members detailed above already had better football performance than some of the conferences that signed-on to the Bowl Coalition. For example, reviewing the final AP rankings from 1986-1990: 1) Syracuse went undefeated in 1987 and was a legitimate national championship contender per the rankings, yet b) SWC had no teams finishing in the top 5 during the 5 year window (the SWC was included in the Bowl Coalition). The Bowl Coalition needed credibility in order to match top contenders in a ‘finals’ bowl...last thing you would is exclude a large conference with a recent history of championship level teams.

Miami's football resume at that point in time was far, far better than that of Syracuse or anyone else in that hypothetical league. That's why Tranghese said Big East football needed Miami -- he knew that just having Syracuse, Pitt, etc. wouldn't be enough to be recognized as a top-tier football conference. Had to have Miami. He was right.

As for the SWC, they had bigger "name brands" and there's no legitimate argument about that, though one could certainly argue, as you do, that on recent pre-Coalition performance alone the SWC didn't have a strong enough case for inclusion. But then again, that lone Syracuse team you mentioned, #4 in 1987, was the only time that any team in your group of 12 even finished in the top 10 from 1986-91.

If you look at the six conferences ultimately included in the BCS, along with ND, all of those conferences included at least one team that finished #1 in the AP and/or coaches' polls from the 1986 season through the 1992 season, and ND had one as well. And of course the only BE team in that #1 group was Miami.

In fact, the only final #1 from 1980-1999 not in those leagues was a WAC member, 1984 BYU. Are you going to argue the WAC should have been included in the Coalition and its successor groups?

Not arguing that Miami wouldn’t have been the biggest brand. But in this hypothetical Miami is not available in 1991.

Tranghese’s comment is irrelevant because the Big East is not sponsoring this 12 team fb conference. As stated repeatedly, the BE was structurally flawed...it was born as a basketball first conference, and could never fully transition to exploit the growth in football revenues.

In this scenario FBS members from the Metro (VT, Cincinnati, Louisville, Memphis, Tulane & USM) and A10 (WVU, Rutgers and Temple) join for an all sports conference, then they invite BE members (Syracuse, Pitt and BC) to join as football-only members. By going to twelve teams, this new conference would be joining the SEC as an early adopter of a Conference Championship Game. By having 12 teams, with some good brands and solid fan bases, The new conference should have garnered interest by an ACC-level bowl (e.g., Peach or Citrus or Sun ??)

Given that the Bowl Coalition was designed to prevent split FBS champions (as occurred in 1990 and 1991), this new conference would have deserved inclusion. Syracuse was in the 1987 title hunt; WVU was strong in 1988; Pitt was a solid brand with a national championship 15 years earlier; BC, VT and Louisville were having ranked teams.

Granted that it would have taken tremendous foresight to predict the growth of football revenues. But a 12 team conference in 1991 would have likely been able to grow its football brands while withstanding future poaching by the ACC. As football revenues grew, the BE FBS teams would likely consider joining all in.

Tranghese's comment is relevant because as he said, the Big East wouldn't have even been in the conversation for the Coalition, Alliance, BCS, etc. without Miami.

Your hypothetical Metro is simply the original Big East football lineup except that you have replaced Miami with Cincinnati, Louisville, Memphis, Tulane, and Southern Miss. In 1991-92, when the Coalition decisions were made, those five football teams at that time don't even come close to compensating for not having Miami given the run the Canes were on then.

Miami wasn't just a "brand" then; they had actual accomplishments that couldn't possibly be replaced by that group. Let's say it again -- Miami was top 3 in the final AP poll in each of the six years prior to the first year of the Bowl Coalition including 3 national titles in those 6 years. They were by far the best program in college football during that stretch.

Your real question should be, would Big East football have been just as good, and just as respected by the college football powers-that-be in 1991-92, if you replaced Miami's 3 national titles and 6 top-3 finishes in 6 years with Cincinnati, Louisville, Memphis, Tulane, and Southern Miss?

Strictly conjecture, but...
It’s likely that Tranghese’s statement was internal BE political posturing. The BE was created for basketball and adding Miami was the first non-basketball driven decision. The basketball schools (G’town, Nova, Providence, etc.) likely didn’t have their strategy yet aligned on how to deal with the FBS playing members’ needs. Adding WVU, Rutgers, Temple and VT as football-only members gave the conference time to determine a long-term strategy. If Miami would have gone along with the partial member status, does Tranghese need to make the statement? Most likely, Pitt/Syracuse/BC were demanding a guarantee that Miami would be included in the BE. At that point, Tranghese’s exaggeration can help close the deal. Recognizing that it’s 15 years later...the BE didn’t lose BCS status with the loss of Miami (and VT and BC) football.

Agree with the direction of your final paragraph...the real question is whether the football prowess of five FBS programs can be as valuable as one outstanding program. The subsequent 30 years of experience has now proven that larger conferences are more valuable to Bowls and TV. The key is getting FBS schools to invest and prioritize on football. It is more difficult to balance the competing interests of 12 (versus 8) member schools, but time has confirmed the financial benefits of aligning in larger groups.

In another thread a while back we talked about what might have happened had the raid on the Big East not been prolonged by the Big Ten’s standoff with ND (remember the B10 waited until after they knew they weren’t getting ND to add M’land & Rutgers). In this scenario, within a few month in 2011 the Big East would lose Pitt, Cuse, WVU, ND, Rutgers, and Louisville in succession and their membership would be left at:

Cincinnati
USF
UConn
The Catholic 7

Your possibilities are:

Status Quo Rebuild—Go back to the old 8/8 balance (with an optional 1-4 fb affiliates). Butler comes in for basketball. UCF, SMU, Houston, Memphis, and Temple as full members; Navy fb only

Do Nothing; fb schools go Indy—this is totally feasible. The fb trio still asserts that they are better than the G5. Indy scheduling probably follows a 4-4-4 model: 4 P5’s, 4 FBS independents, and 4 G5/FCS opponents. BYU, Army, and Navy are all out there to schedule. Cincy can use the Ohio MAC schools to help full holes, UConn has MAC East’s Buffalo, UMass, and Temple our there; UCF gets instate UCF, FAU, and FIU on the schedule annually.

Do Nothing; fb schools affiliate w/G5—the MAC would probably be happy to have Cincinnati and UConn if they were interested; C-USA would probably take Cincinnati and USF

A fb/bb split—this would look a lot like what really happened; I could also see a variation of this being Cincinnati and USF becoming full members of C-USA while UConn stayed in the BE w/Indy or MAC fb.