NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Wed Apr 16, 2014 6:06 am

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 100 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Big East - 12 team model
PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2004 3:37 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun May 25, 2003 10:29 am
Posts: 311
Location: West Monroe, Louisiana
Had the major northeastern schools formed a conference decades ago, much of this wouldn't be a problem. Penn State's membership in the Big Ten, which killed long-time rivalries with WVU and Pitt, and Boston College's upcoming departure to the ACC really crippled the possibility of a top-notch northeastern conference.

Let's face it: with Penn State in the original Big East, it is likely that few, if any, of the current dominos would be falling.

If the original line-up was:
    BC
    Miami
    Penn State
    Pittsburgh
    Rutgers
    Syracuse
    Temple
    Virginia Tech
    West Virginia

then the loss of VT and WVU wouldn't be so bad. With the addition of Cincy and L'ville, there likely is little talk about the BE losing any BCS bid.


Last edited by lsutootnanny on Sun Aug 01, 2004 3:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Big East - 12 team model
PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:42 am 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 1:17 pm
Posts: 822
Location: Dothan, AL for the time being.

Quote:
Had the major northeastern schools formed a conference decades ago, much of this wouldn't be a problem. Penn State's membership in the Big Ten, which killed long-time rivalries with WVU and Pitt, and Boston College's upcoming departure to the ACC really crippled the possibility of a top-notch northeastern conference.

I hate rehashing things, but it appears I am going to have to go over this matter again:
Penn State wanted to form an eastern all-sports conference, before they joined the Big Ten. Syracuse was firmly against the idea because the Orange's basketball rivalries with the mostly Catholic basketball only schools, and Syracuse had no intention of giving those up. Pittsburgh could have eventually forced Syracuse to join PSU's all-sports conference by agreeing to form this conference with Penn State, but their petty jealousy of Penn State prevented a truly great eastern all-sports conference from ever forming. Pittsburgh sided with Syracuse and the rest is history.


Last edited by dawgnduckfan on Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Big East - 12 team model
PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2004 12:19 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 2660
Location: Phoenix Arizona
DawgNDuckFan, depending on the point of view and the individual, any conference can be perceived to be messed up.

Other than revenue, the ACC messed up a format that was perfect with 9 members. Same true for the SEC. Rivals have been impacted in both football and basketball.

Basketball in 12 team conferences is like a major speed bump on an Interstate highway. At first it appears your are flying right along with round robin in your division and then the bump hits at about 75 MPH and you have to play an unbalanced cross division games with three at home and three away. If this is not messed up for basketball to benefit football, then the BE is the most perfert aligned conference in the nation.

Now, I for one am not promoting the BE as the best format, however, revenue is what will determine if an alingment is good or bad, if 12 teams is better than 8 or 10, etc.

This week my concetratin is on national perception and not if the new BE alignment is good or bad.

Keeping BCS membership was very important, however, the BE needs to do more in the future to sure up balance with the other 5 BCS conferences. The BE has always had the perception issue with Miami on board due to being the smaller of the BCS conferences. Same was true for the ACC. The old ACC and BE were always ranked 5 and 6 no matter that the champions of both conference played in more BCS championship games of all BCS conferences.

Sportsgeog, I do think the BE has to expand to 19. Football only members are an option and BE commish has opening stated this.

Experience will prove that 14 team conferences create an unbalance in schedule and 16 actually allow balance if a conference breaks into 8 team divisions.

The Atlantic 10 has two openings to bring the conference to much better alignment of 16.

It is entirly possible for the Atlantic 10 and Big East to remain seperate 16 team conferences and produce a valuable 12 team football conference.

Since the Atlantic 10 has already expanded with Charlotte, adding East Carolina could provide another in state rival and provide the Big East another football program.

To go along with St Louis, the Atlantic 10 could expand with Memphis and provide the Big East another football program.

Since Temple is already in the Atlantic 10 and has division 1 football in the Big East, the Atlantic 10 could have either UMass or Fordham football programs upgrade to 1A and you have a really good geographical football league of 12 members.

Memphis and East Carolina would have geogrphical ties with the new BE football schools and only South Florida would not border a Big East state.

Memphis would join a much better basketball conference in the Atlantic 10 and football would have BCS membership.

The Atlantic 10 and Big East would continue to operate as seperate conferences with four 8 team divisions that would rival all the other BCS conferences combined for basketball.

Yes is it possible for the BE to reach 12 football members without spliting the conference.













Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Big East - 12 team model
PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2004 1:00 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 10:22 am
Posts: 1030
DNDFan -

I always thought that PSU only tried to form an all-sports conference AFTER PSU was turned down by the BE. Did they ever try before?

Do you know which schools turned down PSUs entry into the BE - I think there were 4 schools (4-4 or 5-3?).

Even without the two BE schools (and Pitt later), PSU still aslo could have tried for an all sports conference in the mid-late 70s before the BE formed (or around that time) by taking a bunch of schools in "minor conferences" or independents in FB:

PSU
Miami
FSU
RU
WVU
VT
GT (prior to entry into ACC)
Louisville
South Carolina
Temple

- that's 10 schools. Even if they did it after 78 when GT went to the ACC that would still be 9 schools.

If you think that the distance would stretch too much for the 70s , think about this: the Pac-8 was formed in 1962 and the Pac-10 formed in 1978. Those schools aren't exactly "compact" either.

That would have essentially "locked" the ACC into 7-8 schools. Do you think Pitt, BC, and SU would have been able to hold out from joining the "Eastern Athletic Conference" - even if they went to the BE for BB?

Just some musings.....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Big East - 12 team model
PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2004 1:07 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 321
^I'm not doubting you, but do you have the quote from MT (the Big East commish), that says the Big East could realistically go to 19 conference members? -- meaning you would have 11 Football + Basketball+all other sports members, 8 basketball+other sports (no football) members, and Temple as an affilliate member? Did he actually say 19 members for bball and all other sports was possible? "Whoa Nellie!" That would be the "mother of all mothers basketball conference". That would most likely mean 27 conference basketball games, which is a whole season of games without OOC. Might as well throw Temple into the mix as the 20th member, while the BE is at it.

Do you have that quote?

Seems odd that a conference could pull that off. I suppose theoretically its possible, if they don't mind not playing OOC games.

Now the Atlantic 10 going to 16 is theoretically possible. But I wonder if a conference would be willing to assist another conference with giving them memberships to football only members? They most likely would be interested in Memphis, but I'm not sure about ECU. They might be more interested in UAB more than ECU if they were even talked into doing this. It would seem that they may not want to be too accommodating, because what if the Big East broke up, the non-football schools formed a new bball conference, and take a couple from the A-10 to form the new league? Wouldn't they view it as maybe contributing to something that may sometime down the road hurt their league? It seems somewhat unrealistic IMO.

IMO, as I described in other posts, I think its best that the BE just accept that they are in the "BCS Bubble" and that its possible that they could go in and out of the Automatic seeds through time. It doesn't necessarily mean when they are not auto, that they can't get a team in the BCS without the auto seed. But I think its important that they don't get into some dual with migrating and raiding memberships from other BCS Bubble Conference (esp on the geographic cusps of their region with CUSA and the MAC). These teams may switch back and forth from CUSA to BE through time, finding whichever conference suits them the best at the time for BCS purposes.

I think that they should just work on the Northeast Footprint for members, and look at A-10 basketball schools that play 1-A or 1-AA football. That or Army and Navy. Certainly Temple, UMass, Villanova, and other conferences: Delaware, Fordham and maybe Georgetown. URI, UNH, and UMaine probably don't have any likelyhood of reaching 1-A and shouldn't be considered. The reason is simply just do some "Homegrown Growth" and concentrate on that through time, and maybe in the end would come out being better off 15 to 20 years down the line. If the Big East is going to get involved with new members that fluctuate what conference they're in for their BCS purposes, then simply don't participate at all -- don't go down that road. If they are going to go back and forth with a BCS auto bid, either if they go after CUSA teams or they stay at 8, or they go after A-10 1-AA teams + Temple, they might as well just grow the conference and grow and secure the NE footprint for their very own.

I think it is also possible with Miami, VT, and BC leaving, that the Northeast football prospects may now turn their attention to WVU, Pitt, and Syracuse, as well as UConn and Rutgers (maybe) and actually makes those schools more apparent and they may replace Miami and VT as powerhouses, so they may rise as a result. They may be able to sustain the Big East's BCS bid without expanding at all.

Btw, I don't think the BE is messed up. Its just in a position that if it wanted to expand, it needs to offer All-sports memberships and not football-only memberships if it wants to choose from current 1-A members for expansion (except Temple, Army, and Navy, and of course Norte Dame). Otherwise 1-A teams are not going to sacrifice their other sports for a Big East football-only membership. Especially CUSA members that could work on increasing the average ranking of CUSA to get them a 7th or an 8th BCS auto bid in 2011.


Last edited by sportsgeog on Mon Aug 02, 2004 1:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Big East - 12 team model
PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2004 1:28 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 2660
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Sportsgeog, I was not clear in my last post. The BE would most likley never expand past 16 for all sports especially for football purposes.

The BE commish did quote the conference may look for 9th football school as a football only member. If you are looking at 9 why not 12 was my point. If you have 1 football only member why not 4 football only members if the other sports were sucure in another conference.

Reaching 12 football members could be acheived by having football only schools and other sports in the Atlantic 10. The Big East all sports would not have to expand.

Temple has a lot of pull in the Atlantic 10 and would most likly support expansion of A10 to 16 if the school's football program was allowed to remain in the BE as a football only member.

This is very execiting as the previous thought was the BE was not going to consider using football only schools in the future.



Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Big East - 12 team model
PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2004 1:46 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 321
^Yes, I used that quote in another post in this thread referring to the Big East looking for a football-only member. But the question is where?

Temple looks like they are being called by CUSA and/or the MAC at the moment. The Big East better pull them in right away or they are going to lose them.

And even if they do get Temple to stay as a 9th member (it almost sounds like they are still glad that they are leaving -- as recent articles speak as if it is a done deal, they are gone as of July 1, 2005), I'm not sure the A-10 would still want to do it. I mentioned the possibility of the Big East breakup. Lets say they agreed to take two more members, lets say Memphis (would be interested) and ECU (which I doubt they would be interested in them). Also they get Temple to stay and take in UMass, through some negotiate time frame of upgrading them.

Now what happens when you have the Big East-16 break up as a conference, split between 8 football +all sports members and 8 non-football (basketball) members?

First the A-10 would most likely lose Temple and UMass entirely, as they would follow their Big East football members into a new conference. Then the Big East BBall schools, being that they are all Catholic schools, swings out and grabs St. Joseph's, Fordham, or La Salle, or Richmond, or Dayton, or Xavier, or any other A-10 school. Lets say that they want 10 or 12 members in the conference. That means that the Atlantic 10 may actually be only 10 members, losing 6 power teams to these two new conferences from the Big East split. I'm sure that they would think about the long term and losing members from a Big East split as the two new conferences would raid the A-10 to build up their new conferences. I don't think this is realistic.

I don't see conferences that are content at being 14 or whatever their membership levels are, trying to accommodate another competing conference in such a way. Its possible but I don't see it. How does it benefit the A-10 both currently and the long run, and what could be the consequences of unintended circumstances for the A-10 (only -- that's their top priority after all) if such an affilation and arrangement with the Big East resulted in a complete new detrimental wave of conference realignment that could actually hurt their conference in the long run? I just don't see it, Temple influences or not.


Last edited by sportsgeog on Mon Aug 02, 2004 1:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Big East - 12 team model
PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2004 2:46 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:09 pm
Posts: 1540

Quote:
I always thought that PSU only tried to form an all-sports conference AFTER PSU was turned down by the BE. Did they ever try before?


There are 2 different stories out there on this subject. Syracuse AD Jake Crouthamelsays that The Big East rejected Penn State's application to join the conference. Penn State AD & fb coach Joe Paterno says that Penn State never applied for membership in The Big Eat & was never interested in membership. JoePa says that he initiated conversations with other Eastern schools only re an all-sports conference, i.e. one that would include football, which The Big East certainly did not at that time.

Both men are in a position to know what happened. Both are honorable men. I suspect that both are telling the truth. I believe that Penn State never made formal application. These things are typically handled informally anyway. Once Penn State initiated conversations, I believe that football members of the Big East decided to poll their colleagues to see if there would be interest in including them in the conversation. There was not - although it has been reported that the vote was close.

So, to answer your question, it would not appear that Penn State sought to form an all-sports conference after they were turned down. First, it would appear that they were never officially turned down. Second, it would appear that there were conversations going on both before & after any internal polling within The Big East. Even when a vote was taken, that never means that discussions are over. It just means that the seller couldn't close the deal. Miami, VPI, & BC were all turned down at one time by the ACC & yet they are all members today. The fact that a single vote at one time was not in favor of Penn State's admission to the conference is meaningless in terms of the developments over the next decade.

Ignored as well in all of this discussion is the fact that it was not the basketball schools that killed an all-sports conference. What killed an all-sports conference is the fact that the football schools at that time valued their football independence - much the way Notre Dame does today. Remember this . . . basketball conferences formed in the East out of perceived necessity. Schools had come to believe that there was more to be lost by remaining independent than there was to be gained. Schools in the East had come to believe that they were being treated unfairly by the NCAA tournament selection committee. Eastern schools lobbied hard for their place at the table to get their fair share - & won! Four Eastern sub-regions were formed under the umbrella of the ECAC, a loose affiliation that regulated Easter college sports. Winners of qualifying tournaments among independents in each of these four regions were each awarded an automatic bid to the NCAA tournament. But then came the backlash from other parts of the country. The NCAA began to introduce scheduling requirements, which in effect removed the independent status from ECAC schools in these four sub-regions. They lost control of their schedules. It was the desire to retain the automatic bid AND to have control over their schedules that led to the formation of Eastern basketball-based conferences.

While Penn State has been cast as the victim of the whims of the Big East in all of this & The Big East has been blamed for the destruction of an opportunity to form a true all-sports conference in the East, the truth is quite different. It was Penn State & its cohorts that formed the first Eastern basketball super-conference 2 years before The Big East was formed - the Eastern Eight, later to become the Atlantic Ten. It was they who eschewed an all-sports confeerence in favor of basketball benefits. In addition to Penn State, its members were West Virginia, Pitt, Duquesne, George Washington, Villanova, Rutgers, & UMass. If JoePa wanted an all-sports conference why did he include 2 basketball-only members? UMass & Villanova were D-I football at the time, so there were enough members to meet football conference requirements at the time. It isn't just Pitt that killed this opportunity, Villanova walked away from the Eastern Eight for The Big East before Pitt did. It was the Eastern Eight that had the football-playing members needed to form the core of an all-sports conference. Furthermore, if Penn State had provided different leadership, football might be very different at UMass & Villanova today.

Schools only join a conference if they believe that it will be in their best interests to do so. They are willing to trade off the benefits of independence to gain greater rewards. Back in the early '80s, none of the Eastern football schools saw any great rewards in joining a football conference. Perhaps JoePa was a visionary & saw the future. Perhaps he was simply trying to do what Miami did a decade later, i.e. compromise on football in order to upgrade basketball (which has not been able to sustain any high level success in my life time). He was offering a tradeoff that he thought would be beneficial to Penn State. The others didn't see enough benefit in it for them. It wasn't the basketball schools that killed it; it was the unwillingness of the football schools (BC & Syracuse - later Villanova & later still, Pitt) to give up their fb independence & to walk away from the early success of The Big East for the potential of a greater good.

Time is everything in life. In this case the timing wasn't right for a lot of people. It took another decade until circumstances would bring Eastern schools together into a conference & by then Penn State was off to greener pastures.


Last edited by friarfan on Mon Aug 02, 2004 2:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Big East - 12 team model
PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2004 2:55 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 2660
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Sportsgeog, first of all my views of how Conf USA expanded to 12 was one of the worst moves of all expansions last year and taking Temple for football only would only add to the negative or down side of that issue.

Second point, any expansion for BE football only membership would be very well planned and expandign with more than one team would not happen quickly. Good planning is why the BE is part of the Six major BCS conferences in the first place.

Accommodating football only members for a conference like the A10 should not be a problem since the football and baskeball are two seperate conference. The same is true for the Big East. Football and basketball are basically treated like two seperate conference for funding, revenue sharing, TV contracts, etc.

Both the Big East and Atlantic 10 just use the name for both the football and basketball/varsity sports while both are seperate entities.

I do agree that basketball does not need 12, 14, or 16.

Maybe the Atlantic 10 was planning for future defections when the conference expanded to 14. Charlotte and St Louis are both fairly good basketball programs in good markets, however, both do not justify expansion unless there is more to it that we all know. Maybe the A10 was unsure of St Bonaventure status or maybe there are future plans to work with the BE. The commish of the A10 use to work in the BE offices.

The BE could expand with football only members if the need is to get more than 8 members and decide on a split at a latter time. The conference has more options on expansion and a split does not prevent the conference from making any moves for football if that is what the conference wants to do. This does not imply the confernce is interested in more than a 9th football members. The point is there are different options on expanding and a split does not have to be part of those options regardless if we think all sports are better than a hybrid. Unlike Conf USA expansion, the BE, ACC and other BCS conferences use revenue potential to help determine the best method of expansion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Big East - 12 team model
PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2004 3:07 pm 
Offline
Sophomore
Sophomore

Joined: Tue May 06, 2003 6:19 pm
Posts: 68
Note that Penn State briefly left the Eastern 8 (1979-1982) before returning to the Atlantic 10. I've heard reports that both Rutgers (E-8) and Temple (East Coast Conference) declined opportunities to become charter members of the BIG EAST (1979) with an eye towards a proposed football-based alignment spearheaded by Penn State. Villanova was I-A (1978-1980, Howie Long) before terminating its football program prior to reinstatement in 1985. I believe that UMASS was in I-AA at this time, and that pre-1978 the Yankee Conference was still in D-II for football.

If this football-based conference would have come to fruition (proposal hampered by overnight success of BIG EAST), roster might have included...

Army
Boston College
Navy
Penn State
Pittsburgh
Rutgers
Syracuse
Temple/Villanova (or both?)
West Virginia

I think it's a reach to say that the Eastern schools would have aligned themselves with the "Metro Independents," ex-ACC member South Carolina, or a pre-Schnellenberger University of Miami...that being said I don't know if Army, Navy, Temple, or Villanova were members of the CFA (basically a proto-BCS inclusive of all "major" I-A programs minus the Big 10 & Pac-10). Remember that pre-1982, the Ivy League, Missouri Valley, Southern, and Southland were all I-A (and arguably comparable to the MAC and PCAA/Big West)...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Big East - 12 team model
PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2004 5:56 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 321
*Post 1 of 2*


Quote:
Sportsgeog, first of all my views of how Conf USA expanded to 12 was one of the worst moves of all expansions last year and taking Temple for football only would only add to the negative or down side of that issue.


CUSA was at 11 members for football. They almost went to 12 back in 2000 when they took TCU. They almost took SMU, their rival as well at that time, but there wasn't enough room, according to CUSA, as with taking TCU they had increased their league to 14 as a basketball league. To them, anything beyond that is too big (ala the WAC-16 debacle). Going to 12 was only 1 more member than they had in the prior year. The Big East didn't want Marshall, UCF, so why not?

Temple sounds like an odd pick up for CUSA. It may be a mistake for the reasons of making the conference to unwieldy. But what's probably a bigger mistake, IMO, is the Big East kicking them out in the first place. If they need a 9th football-only member, they have one already in their backyard. Again, the only failing that I can see that Temple couldn't deliver was a big enough attendance. Otherwise they are an underachiever on the field like Baylor, Vandy, the old Northwestern and the old Kansas State. Those teams didn't get kicked out, why should Temple?


Quote:
Second point, any expansion for BE football only membership would be very well planned and expandign with more than one team would not happen quickly. Good planning is why the BE is part of the Six major BCS conferences in the first place. Yep, I recognize this, but time is a ticking and those CUSA members are going to be working towards making the CUSA work, including securing a 7th or an 8th BCS automatic seed in 2011. The more time that goes by, the less compelled CUSA members may be to wanting to leave and join another league. The Big East can wait their time on non-CUSA members, but not CUSA members.

[quote author=Lash link=board=acc&thread=1090513787&start=38#2 date=1091480138]Accommodating football only members for a conference like the A10 should not be a problem since the football and baskeball are two seperate conference. The same is true for the Big East. Football and basketball are basically treated like two seperate conference for funding, revenue sharing, TV contracts, etc.

Both the Big East and Atlantic 10 just use the name for both the football and basketball/varsity sports while both are seperate entities.


Yes, I know this. But that doesn't mean that they are helping out the Big East overall, and it doesn't dismiss the possibilities of what could happen to the A-10 basketball conference, if both the Big East-16 Basketball, and the re-configured Big East - 9 to Big East-12/with affiliate football only A-10 members -- that those alliance would desentigrate in future years. If that would happen, the football-Big East conference would fold in the 1 to 4 A-10 football only members into being all-sports members, taking 1 to 4 teams away -- possibly big time bball powers of that conference, thus hurting the A-10. That on top of the bball Big East conference taking other A-10 bball powers, many of which are Catholic just like the Big East bball members into their new conference. This would not be advantageous. Why would the A-10 risk this?

History has shown that conferences bigger than 12, and certainly conferences bigger than 14 do not last, they become too crowded and too unwieldly. Its not advantageous to the A-10, IMO, and if its not advantageous to them, they will not do it. The most important priority is the A-10 to the A-10, not the Big East.

*Cont. on Post 2 of 2*



Last edited by sportsgeog on Mon Aug 02, 2004 6:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Big East - 12 team model
PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2004 5:58 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 321
*Post 2 of 2*


Quote:
I do agree that basketball does not need 12, 14, or 16.


I agree too, so why go from 14 to 16? That has to be some kind of benefit for the A-10 or they will not do it.


Quote:
Maybe the Atlantic 10 was planning for future defections when the conference expanded to 14. Charlotte and St Louis are both fairly good basketball programs in good markets, however, both do not justify expansion unless there is more to it that we all know. Maybe the A10 was unsure of St Bonaventure status or maybe there are future plans to work with the BE. The commish of the A10 use to work in the BE offices.


So what if the commish of the A10 used to work in the Big East offices. His most important priority is what is the most important for the A-10, not the Big East. Both in the short term and the long term.

If they are planning to work with the Big East, then why take Charlotte and St. Louis at all? Why go from 12 to 14 if they have these plans with the Big East? Seems to me if they had future plans to work with the Big East then they wouldn't have taken anyone. They would have 2 to 4 spaces reserved for teams that they could help the Big East out with (its hard for me to fathom them thinking of the Big East as the important factor in expansion). The point is that they took Charlotte and St. Louis because they could add to the quality of teams in their league. They did it for their own interests, not for another conferences. Going to 16 isn't necessarily going to be in the best interests of the A10 and that is the only reason why they would expand. If they were working with the Big East, they wouldn't have expanded in the first place, they would have reserved those spots for Big East teams.

It seems far fetched anyway, because the Big East had the picks of teams after the ACC took their 3 teams. If the Big East truely wanted more teams from the CUSA, they would have taken more at that time. You say its best to wait on growing. But they have left themselves w/o the ability to expand later, because they don't have all-sports membership available by taking DePaul and Marquette. They should have taken Memphis and ECU or UCF then. Teams are scarce after all this realignment, they must have known that no teams would be available for further near-term expansion, so why stop at UL, UCincy, and USF?

So what you are saying is almost that they A10 took Charlotte and St. Louis because they wanted to work with the BE, which doesn't make sense. I guess this is the BE secondary plan, get the A10 to work with you, so take Charlotte and St. Louis into your conference. If this is the case, they wouldn't have taking Charlotte and St. Louis in the first place.

It also seems a bit of a stretch that they are looking to kick out a team or two for the Big East, even if St. Bonnie didn't do too well. If this is the case, they would've kicked them out before their recent expansion, and, thus, made more room for Charlotte and St. Louis.

As far as being worried about other defections from the A10 (good teams I guess), where would they go to? The MAC? The CAA? The A10 is the best conference other than the Big East in the northeast. There's no room in the Big East, nor in CUSA, so where would St. Joseph go? The Patriot League? This doesn't make sense.


Quote:
The BE could expand with football only members if the need is to get more than 8 members and decide on a split at a latter time.


Yes, but right now the only teams available 1-A that do not need to move out of a conference (so their other sports still have a home) are Temple, Army, Navy, and Norte Dame. There also a number of 1-AA teams in the NE that could move up and it wouldn't impact their affialiation with conferences that they are members in for their other sports, including basketball. This includes UMass, UDelaware, Fordham, Villanova, and many others.

Your scenario where the A-10 provides spaces for 1 to 2 members for the Big East for the purposes of luring a CUSA team can only happen if the A10 wants to do it. The only way that the A10 would want to do it, is that such a move would benefit them in the short and long term. If it doesn't, they won't do it. They are not just going to do it to help out the Big East, they are only going to do it if it benefits them. To me it just overcrowds their league too much, so I don't see how it benefits the A10.

So to me the only really likely choices in the short term are Temple (unless they are already off to CUSA), Army, and Navy and that's it. The A10 thing is a possibility and so is Norte Dame, but IMO, both are unlikely.


Quote:
The conference has more options on expansion and a split does not prevent the conference from making any moves for football if that is what the conference wants to do. This does not imply the confernce is interested in more than a 9th football members. The point is there are different options on expanding and a split does not have to be part of those options regardless if we think all sports are better than a hybrid. Unlike Conf USA expansion, the BE, ACC and other BCS conferences use revenue potential to help determine the best method of expansion.


No, theoretically, "The Split" does not have to happen. Army, Navy, and Temple are viable and likely options for a short term 9th member candidates.

The A10 offering 2 memberships for other sports so 2 football only members could join (most likely CUSA members), is only possible if the A10 sees it benefiting them, otherwise they are not going to do it. Why? If there's nothing in it for them, and by doing it, there is potential harm they could do to their own league (overcrowding and possible mass future defections because of a possible Big East breakup), then they are not going to do it. IMO, this is not likely an option. Its theoretically an option, but not likely. I don't see it being a viable option for the long term either, as the longer that CUSA members are together and the more they are building towards a 7th or 8th BCS auto seed in 2011, the less compelled they would be to leave CUSA for the Big East.

The only other choice, for the long term, is to move-up 1-AA teams that will not lose their affiliation with conferences in which they are currently members of, by becoming a Big East football-only member. I think this is a possibility for the long term.

So the most likely options in the short term are Temple, Army, and Navy. For the long term, 1-AA move ups, IMO.

Unless the A10, or the Big East makes room for football-only members to join the Big East -- makes room for all their other sports, and do so very soon. If its not very soon, CUSA members moving to the Big East in future years is less likely, IMO.


Last edited by sportsgeog on Mon Aug 02, 2004 6:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Big East - 12 team model
PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2004 7:16 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 2660
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Sportsgeog, OK this is precisely why I am leaning to not posting specific expansion ideas because most of the expansion is over. All of us should only be looking at what if scenerios. None of us have any clue what the new 6 BCS conferences are going to do in the next five years and most likely nothing will happen.

Most of the new expansion post could qualify as dream threads including the so called BE split some day.

Regardless if you post what ifs, everyone assumes this is what you think is actually going to happen. Take the Atlantic 10 as a example, it was only a what if on allowing the BE to reach 12 football members.

If we go back to only posting facts, my next post will probably be in a year when Temple decides its next move on conference affilation for football. That will probably be independent status.

So, the BE will remain with 8 football members and 8 basketball members for the next five years. The Big East may look at a football only member sometime in the five years.

This is reality on Big East and every other post should be moved to the dream conference threads.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Big East - 12 team model
PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2004 7:35 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts: 321
^I agree with you, Lash, on the BE staying at 8 fball members and 8 bball members in the next 5 years. I don't think they are going to expand anymore.

But as far as me speculating, isn't that what everybody that has answered this thread has done and is doing?

Look at the title:

Big East - 12 team model

The Big East football conference in 2005 will have 8 members. A "12 Team Model" is an inherent question of speculating by anyone that posts here, is it not?

You have done speculating in this thread. I have done speculating in this thread.

There's also the How would you improve the Big East? thread, which is also inherently speculating.

I thought both of these thread titles asked fair questions, and so I decided to answer them. They are my opinions, and are speculations, but the questions are inherently asking for speculations.

So no one didn't do any harm here. We all offered our opnions and they are all legitimate opinions.

Is this not a forum that asks inherently discusses factual information, but the possibilities on future conference alignment?

The Grid of College Football Re-alignment Possibilities does exactly this. We are doing the same thing here, are we not?

Anybody else have opinions on a Big East 12 - team model? A very fair question, IMO.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Big East - 12 team model
PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2004 10:17 pm 

Quote:

Indeed, men's basketball is an important sport, Lash. However, the Big East is totally different animal from the rest of the BCS conferences. It can be argued that Big East football and Big East basketball are two separate conferences. It reminds me a lot of the old Southland Football League and the Southland Conference in I-AA. Those were two different conferences that were similar in name only and had some members common to both conferences. Most SEC, ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, and Pac 10 fans are not familiar with this concept. The conferences listed above have one conference for football and basketball. Therefore the average SEC fan like myself or DogsNC@cks looks at the Big East and says it's messed up. You look at it in a different way, and say that it isn't. And neither one of us is really wrong. The NCAA should have a rule about conferences that requires all-sports membership for all of the conference members. However, this does not necessarily eliminate basketball-only schools from the Big East. If a school does not have football, it would not be required to participate in football. It would, however, have to participate in all the conference's other sports. Teams that have non-scholarship football programs could be classified as basketball-only members and would have the same duties as them. That way, Georgetown wouldn't be forced to play BE football, simply because it has a football team, albeit a non-scholarship team. What this does do is force Notre Dame and Villanova to makes some decisions about conference membership, which should have been done a long time ago, IMO.


Very well said, D&D!

The concern is not necessarily a preference for fb over other sports. Rather, there are those of us who appreciate the "all sports" conferences. The SEC delivers fine baseball and basketball as well. When teams play each other in multiple and women's sports, it adds intensity to the rivalries in other sports.

By contrast, the BE is not "all sports" and that is understandable as its history has unfolded. It has had opportunties to go different directions in terms of its configurations. It made its recent decisions following the VPI, Miami, and BC departures with its fb and bb-oriented additions. Of course there will be debate and speculation concerning the wisdom related to certain expansion decisions, the relationship with Notre Dame, and prospects for future expansion. The BE additions in fb of Louisville, Cincy, and USF, were good. The merit and value of another Florida school will get measured. The bb schools, DePaul and Marquette are programs with fine history. But much of the discussion focusing on the BE has less to do with the respectable quality of each member institution, but that the diversity, size, and characteristics of the membership as a "group", and what the future holds for them in the context of temporary or permanent relationships within the conference and via interaction with other conferences and individual institutions.

The so-called "Catholic League" gets discussed when BE talk abounds. That, in itself, is a "common interest" sport, bb-grouping. It even gets mention as sort of an informal sub-group within a greater BE.

The BE has some uniqueness that will get examined:
1. The matter of balancing with 4 home and 4 away for fb conference games.
2. Membership at "8" in fb when fellow BCS conferences are larger, and certain non-BCS conferences have membership that could be a future challenge.
3. The bonding of conference membership---Are DePaul and WVU so similar and have long term common interests, for example? Competing interests in the conference (3 way) have been noted a very long time and certainly impacted the conference's configuration.
4. While BCS (and non-BCS) conferences turf overlap in a few geographical spots, there is the fact that EASTERN teams such as Penn State and Maryland (will say they are east at least) and now BC are located in other conferences. Despite their recent fb struggle, Penn State is the "biggie" where the lost opportunity happened many years ago. I see D&D wrote about it again earlier.
5. 1-AA eastern or southeastern teams will get mentioned. The east has some possibilites in this regard if that becomes a future direction, i. e. Atlantic 10 matter, Delaware, UMass, Villanova, etc.
6. C-USA was drawn upon with the BE's recent replacements/expansion. Its interaction and future potential with the BE in terms of further changes offer additional speculation, i. e. Memphis, UCF, ECU, & Marshall.
7. The BE's relationship/partial membership with Notre Dame is certainly going to cause strong opinions. There are those who view this relationship has not been good for BE fb, and the BE has made accommodations to Notre Dame that would not be allowed by any other BCS-type conference.
8. Temple a fb only member of the BE, got booted.
There is speculation if the decision was wise in light of recent changes. Apparently, the issue was not "cheating", but primarily poor attendance and too much losing.
There are others. All the above are not necessarily criticisms or negativity about the BE. They have been aspects, among others, as to the future direction, growth, and stability of the BE. It is THE BCS conference that has gone through the most recent change (OK, so has the ACC, but that was the source of the impact on the BE); and, it is a conference with characteristics that differ with certain comparisons. The scrutinizing of differences does not have to render value judgments for each instance.




Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 100 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 

cron




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group