The Big East expansion with 16 teams for basketball could also be used for football.

If the Big East struggles with meeting BCS criteria over the next four years and Notre Dame remains independent or moves to the Big 10, a possible alignment could be made with the eastern Conf USA teams. This has been discussed in previous threads, however, today the BCS criteria could make this a valid option for the Big East.

North: Syracuse, UConn, Rutgers, Pitt, WVU, Cincinnati, Louisville, South Florida

South: Memphis, Temple, Marshall, East Carolina, Central Florida, UAB, Southern Miss, Tulane

Both divisions could remain as seperate all sports conferences. The North division could continue to align with the other 8 BE basketball schools.

Temple would provide Memphis a good basketball rival. Since Conf USA is playing a 14 game schedule to help Memphis and others keep a strong SOS, this alignment could work for both groups.

The schools could play four cross over games and allow Memphis to continue rival games with Louisville and Cincinnati.

The conference would be based east of the Miss river and would be northeast and eastern/mid west to sw Florida and deep mid south.

This alignment would not follow the precise eastern seaboard of the ACC, however, would be similiar in the north to south and would pick up some very interesting TV markets.

Teams from the states of Pa, Florida, WV would be in a seperate division that could create an interesting championship match up for football. i.e UCF vs USF or Marshall vs WVU or Pitt vs Temple.

The alignment provides many options to the new 8 BE football schools should the BCS become an issue.

Unless Conf USA Texas schools make some progress which is doughtful and one of the eastern schools bring Conf USA up to BCS standards, this option would probably be supported by the eastern Conf USA teams and provide more friendly geographical closeness to the BE football schools.

I believe somewhere in that article it talked about strength of the whole conference, top to bottom. With this alignment you are witnessing a whole division of unproven teams, except two. Marshall and USM. There is a potential of this conference bringing Conference USA, um, I mean the Big East? Is that right? down. The better thing to do is simply just add Marshall and USM and forget about the rest.

UAB has talked about discontinuing 1-A ball. They may need to find a new stadium as Legion Field has become unsafe in parts. That's a tough toll, and UAB is averaging about 22,000 in attendance.

UCF, I've already talked about them. Intrusion into the USF market, not great or not good attendance. Tulane offers academics, but all these others aren't good, except ECU and USM switch back and forth on which being at least the minimal 3rd tier Universities, UAB as well. Memphis, UCF, and Marshall are not good academic schools. ECU I've already talked about.

The biggest problem is that the conference alignment submerges the BE into mid-major markets and become shadowed into ACC and SEC territory. ECU, and UCF are in the ACC territory. Tulane, Memphis, UAB, USM and UCF again are all in the SEC territory. This is not a major conference, nor does it really improve the overall strength of the conference. Only Marshall does, and USM -- although USM is way out of the NE footprint.

This alignment would not give an overall boost to the Big East.

This is some 3rd edition of the CUSA not the Big East, and is located primarily in secondary markets and has the tendancy to reform and realign into other forms later on, that could lead to the disolving of the core of the Big East teams.

Lash has a point in that the east division of C-USA may be the source of any possible, future BE expansion. However, while 16 teams can work in bb, in football it becomes fudamentally 2 separate conferences. The reason is basic, in bb a team may have regular season games in the mid to upper twenties, and in football, usually eleven regular season games of which eight are usually in conference. When a conference gets to the point that near half its members are not played by a particular member, it is just too big, championship game or not. Yes, a 16 model was tried in the old WAC and 14 in the MAC. It can be done, but does it make the most sense in terms of revenue sharing, scheduling, cultivating tight rivalries, etc.?
I have tended to advocate that the BE would benefit with at least one more "proven" addition for fb, so that BE scheduling could be balanced at 4 home, 4 away conference games for each school. This would also put the BE in line at having 8 conference games per season, this being the general scenario. The BE would not need more than 9 teams otherwise, unless it wanted a conference championship game. Until/If the PAC 10 and the Big 10 go with a championship game, the BE could afford to wait as well. This is, in BCS consistency context, of course.
Some have argued that having that extra OOC game allows a big name from another conference to be scheduled by each team. This could be true for in the BE who so decide, but it still does not balance conference play, and this may be more of an essential issue. Garnering another "good team" for regular play for all in conference, while rendering a balance, could prove more worthy overall. Also, another good team will strengthen the BE's BCS positioning in the future, and offer one more to challenge, or provide further in-conference competition.
Adding a ninth "all sports" member to the BE for fb purposes sounds simple, but the BE has this balancing act to do with bb oriented schools, so any change will be very difficult.
I am partial to 12 team "all sports" arrangements. However, with the BE's current structure, that is not practical at this time. I think the BE should be quite modest, right now, with future expansion, and again, just find a way to get a number "9" for fb play. Voices out of Syracuse have suggested similar.
The perfect solution for the BE would be for Notre Dame to simply pick up BE football. That will not happen due to Notre Dame's unwillingness. Notre Dame using the BE for bb, but not willing to offer their services in fb, bothers more than a few.
However, as to "9", I really do not see it as ideal for the BE to add just another team for fb only. If they did that, then they need to reverse their judgment about Temple. That would be the best option considering the availability, and despite the problems, the BE is use to playing Temple and they are in the area. Navy and/or Army could pose scheduling problems, and neither one can be depicted, right now, as offering long-term, high quality, competitiveness, though Navy just came off a great year. However, their name recognition and attendance, does exceed what Temple has shown in fb.
At least currently, the fb BE all play BE bb. I don't think it would be beneficial for the BE to bring in a host of fb only schools, though, I suppose their bb teams could be organized into a special division. However, the type of teams that would accept such an arrangement, would not be of the highest quality comparatively.

DogsCo@cks/Sportgeog, good points however, this post was for the distance future which is very hard to predict.

It is a difficult argument, however, stenght does come in numbers. Was the ACC any less weak without Miami and Va Tech. No matter how many bowl games the conference won or national championship games the champion partipated or BCS bowls, the conference could just not get past number 5 in rankings.

With basketball the BE has provided that illision with 16 members just makes it the best college basketball conference. Granted Louisiville and Cincinnati bring to the BE basketball what Va Tech and Miami bring to the ACC in football. I think numbers have a lot to do with perception.

Maybe 16 or not, the old WAC could have been BCS by now if the conference would just have picked a division for each 8 members and left it alone ot mature. BCS membership would have meant everything then and now. The MWC with 8 and even 9 is not really any closer to BCS today. This risk of the new TV contract is somewhat scary. So are numbers to blame?

Back to the new Big East --

For now, the Big East is getting bad press for just having seven members and two are lame ducks.

Next year the perception of the Big East will improve especially if Louisville, South Florida, or Cincinati have a good football season this year.

9 football members is the smallest a football conference should be if you have a choice. Balanced schedules, etc.

The Big East could acheive another football member for all sports and actually work logisically better than the 16 all sports members.

17 all sports members would allow for each bb school to play 8 home and 8 away games and each member would play against the other for major revenue sports such as men and women basketball. Unity would really get a benefit from this alignment. Of course there would be some politics to overcome as the balance of members would slighty favor football, however the majoity would not be with the 9 football members for voting.

Notre Dame is double edge sword and helps and hurts at the same time. Big East membership is helped with Notre Dame reputation and lack of football caused the negative media attention the Big East get for football.

If the BE expanded to 17 all sports members and agreed on another football member, the school that would really help is Marshall. Especially if Marshall performs good this year in the MAC, the school would be right in the middle of the footprint. Basketball strenght would be the least of concern, and Marshall would add some good travel interest for both Louisville and Cincinnati.

If Marshall could somehow beat Ohio State, things could get very interesting in the back room discussions of the Big East.

The only schools that would help the WAC-16 out are TCU, Fresno State, and Hawaii. Boise wasn't but a young pup when the WAC-16 formed. They would've been a better pick than San Jose State later on. SJSU, SMU, sometimes UTEP, sometimes Rice would've brought the WAC-16's overall ranking down. If the WAC-16 was simply what the MWC is plus the new TCU + Fresno, Boise and Hawaii, then yes, possibly could be BCS. But SJSU, SMU, UTEP, and sometimes Rice would bring this conference down. Tulsa has also had some bad years, though doing good now.

The TV contract with CSTV is a risk, and it could fail. But I just picked up this station on my cable network. Some may enjoy the variety and uniqueness of a all-college sports network. Heck you can watch College La Crosse and College Rodeo on this network. Some may want to go to an alternative, and then find themselves watching the MWC on Saturday. If it is a success, it beats playing on ESPN on a Tuesday night in November with marginal payouts. The Big 12 and Pac 10 play on Fox Sports and TBS as alternatives to their cable contract with ESPN, and in addition to ABC. If MWC can maintain some ABC games being broadcasted and CSTV takes off, it may be a huge payoff. But there is risks, yes.




Yes, but the perception might be worse later on if they take in too many teams at once and look like the WAC-16. There aren't many good choices out there, and being frugal with choices may be the best course.

I think Louisville has proven itself as a consistent team. That is a good pickup for the BE. USF has potential, but it still needs to prove itself as it is recent 1-A upgrade. Cincy can have some moderately-good seasons, .500 or slightly above. The upset of Wisconsin a couple of years ago was strong and also beating WVU last year does leave some good impressions. But attendance at UCincy needs to improve and they need to garner some bigger interest of their team in SW Ohio, and get on equal footing with OSU in that market. Doing the .500 season every 3rd year and attendance in the 20K to 25K range needs to get better than this. But they are overall not a bad pickup.

The best think is to remain frugal with additions.




17 members as a bball league is not pratical. Thats beyond what could ever be done. 16 is as far as a bball league can go.

If the BE ever breaks up, and they wanted to go to 9 teams, Marshall is the best pick performance wise. Their market isn't much different than any other eastern CUSA school and they are in the NE footprint.

If the BE wants a 9th member, probably some combined scheduling arrangement with Army and Navy, or just retain Temple are the options with the 16-member bball league. Maybe the BE just simply wouldn't like those choices, if thats the case, being th frugal 8 is the best option. Its not perfect, as 9 would be, but it is a BCS conference and no other schools that could come in could enhance their BCS chances, so why delute it? Some of those schools could delute it. So why take that risk?

The BE shouldn't just expand for expanding sake. They should expand only if it can improve their BCS mark and bring in more money. But the choices are limited in this combo, and maybe only 1 or 2 teams are out there to improve it, but can't join as they need all-sports memberships in a conference to make a move.

sportgeog, if 17 schools for basketball is unpractactical so is 16 or for that matter 12. So we will disagree on this issue.

There is one benefit to 16 members by having two divisions with 8 teams each. This was the original reason to expand the BE with 16 as proposed by ex BE commish Cavitt. This alignment is probably not going to happen due to BE politics. My preference would be to split the BE into two 8 team divisions aligned by football and non playing football only members. This is basically what Gavitt proposed. Syracuse missing ACC membership should not change the basic reason that Gavitt suggested the 16 member alignment split by bb and fb schools.

If the BE does not align by the above, it really does not matter how many bb teams that partipate other than revenue sharing impacts. It basically becomes a big blob of teams.

Agreed the BE would not have been smart to rush into a 12 team alignment with UConn buiding up to 1A and Rutgers needing to improve, however, the complaints by the defeators always were due to limited ability to increase BE football members. This issue will not change with Miami and BC gone.

I do not think it will be practical to remain with 8 football members regardless if a team or teams step up and perform well in the BCS rankings.

Expanding to 9 is just not for balance schedules, however, expanding with the correct team could add the extra benefits for SOS, TV contracts, possible new markets. Having 9 BCS members would bring the conference one step closer to the size of the other BCS conferences. When it comes to the BCS, I do think "Size does matter" for the future.

All of the above is the real issues that have many folks concered about the future of both groups ability to remain together in the BE.

With recent ACC expansion, the Pac 10 is the smallest BCS conference outside of the Big East and the Pac 10 has two more football members that can help with rankings.

There were good reasons the Pac 10 added the Arizona schools when 8 was enough to remain a valid major conference. Potential to encrease revenue was a major benefit and the BE football schools are going to need the same playing field. Unless BE basketball makes so really big bucks with 16 members, football is going to have to grow to keep up with the other BCS conferences.

--next topic

During the hey days of expansion for the WAC, the national hype was tremendous for the 16 team alignment. The championship game on ABC was compared to the SEC and Big 12 as part of the overall package marketing strategy

We often forget that the BCS is basically a TV contract and TV has a lot of input into which conferences get to partipate.

There is no way to say with assurance the WAC 16 would have moved into the BCS, however, the odds were on the WAC side at the time in the college sports world. Remember the only two major conference with a championship game were the SEC and Big 12. MAC does not count as the MAC is and should be a divisiion 1AA conference.

12 is the ideal maximum number, but if you go beyond, 16 is the best beyond that. In football you do basically have 2 conferences. The idea would be to have teams that complement each other (bb, fb) and to have enough teams in an area to have an impact on the market and to eliminate competition.

Rather than trying to eliminate (or drive them west) CUSA, I think the approach if you were going to 16 would be to take pieces of both the MAC and CUSA while strengthening the east.

My quick thoughts:
East
SU
Rutgers
UConn
WVU
Pitt
Temple
Army (St. John's other than fb)
Navy (Georgetown other than fb)
(If you are going to 16, you can afford the military academies as you can handle more weak teams, while getting the advantages of national exposure and soaking up the remaining teams in the NE-while SJ and GT have great bb tradition even if both are down now)

West
USF
Louisville
Cincinnati
UCF (increasing your strength in FL)
Miami (increasing your strength in OH)
Toledo (increasing your strength in OH)
Marshall (fb)
ECU (fb)

BE would then have taken 2 strong MAC programs and all of CUSA in the Eastern time zone. If you are looking only for all sports members, Marshall and ECU get shifted to the east replacing Army and Navy and Memphis and USM get added.

Yep, and Arizona and ASU were great candidates, that not only were good performers in high growth markets (AZ is now double the size it was in 1980 (1978) -- going from 2.7 million to 5.5 million and still growing), but schools that also fit the Pac 10 mold. Unfortunately, there are no Arizona's and ASU's available for the Big East.

And I agree with Bullet. 12 is the max for fball if a championship shows that it can be successful and beneficial, and if you go beyond in bball, as in football its not realistic, Nothing beyond 16, otherwise you play very few double game series in a year and there would less meaning as a conference. If you can justify 17, why not 20? It doesn't make sense.




They were doing well before the WAC-16, when they were the WAC-10. The WAC-16 overcrowded the conference. They had 3 championship games held in way out Las Vegas. Two of those games had BYU playing in them, and there was great attendance. But one of them it was CSU vs. UNM, and Sam Boyd Stadium I think had less than 20,000 fans for the championship, because Ft. Collins and Albuquerque were too far away. Not a good image for a sprawled-out overcrowded conference, and that what you get when a conference gets to be geographically sprawled out and loses identity and interest and following.

This is something that the BE needs to consider with ever pushing for a championship game. While WVU, Syrasuse, Pittsburgh, Louisville and UConn (seemingly in a 1 year demonstration) all have 40Kish average attendance, they need to be real careful about a championship game. If they add more teams that average less than 40K, I think they would have to have the title game on the highest seeded divisional winner's home field. A NYC game may be a good draw for NE-based BE teams, but Cincinnati vs. USF wouldn't provide much interest to New Yorkers. A regional identity and strong following helps Conference Championships. For the SEC, Atlanta has a great identity for a championship game, as its the Hub of the South. The Big 12, KC and Dallas, and even San Antonio and Houston work as strong identities of the Big 12. Jacksonville may be the same for the ACC, although thats a farther destination for some northern teams, but even Virginia isn't too bad, and U of Maryland followers weren't bad at last year's Gator Bowl. For BC it may be a problem. If its FSU/Miami, it will be raging in Jacksonville.

But again, without all-sports membership offers from the BE, their ability to expand is limited to 4 teams. If they do break up, well you know what I think, and Marshall is the only team nearby that has demonstrated that it can lift the BE in anyway. The other teams, the jury is still out, or its just not there, and it could lead to actually hurt the BE.

Now as far as the WAC becoming BCS back in 1998. Well the WAC-16 still existed in the first year of the BCS -- 1998. They weren't there then. If they had that same membership, they still wouldn't be. Why? Because SJSU, UTEP, SMU, Rice, and maybe Tulsa brought them down then. If they got rid of those schools, which they did and add Boise, Fresno and Hawaii, today there might be a possibility that they would be BCS, although Wyoming would be bringing them down.

The BE can only add Temple, Army, Navy and ND. If ND would ever join the Big 10, then you could add one all sports membership.

If the bball BE-16 breaks up, simply take Temple, Navy, Marshall, and Miami (OH) and forget about the rest. Maintains Northeast footprint. 16 is too many and 12 is the max football conference.

When Miami (OH) is doing good, its attendance is up. Last year they were 25K and thats 5/6th of their stadium's capacity. They can be good at bball. Toledo can't add much more. The market is 700K and Miami can pick up that in the SW Ohio/Cincy and Dayton areas. Temple is also good at bball. So those are your bball adds. Consider adding UMass for bball only member if the BE-16 breaks-up and you add these teams. Navy would be a football only school and UMass would add an additional possible bball team. Maybe eventually phase in UMass as a BE fball member is Navy leaves at a later time.

But I continue to argue that they don't go for anymore than one more member if the BE breaks up, and thats Marshall, for its NE footprint and good and consistent performance on the field and good following in the stands. Miami would be second on this list.

Sportgeog, I live in Arizona so yes it is a growing state and so is Florida.

ASU did not quite fit the Pac 10 profile during expansion, however, is making strides to catch up on the academic front. Arizona was always Pac 10 in theory.

Central Florida and Florida Atlantic could be considered as BE expansion candidates if you were looking at growth.

Any team can improve in academics if they follow ASU and change admission standards. WVU could very well become a tier 2 school and be considered ACCish if the school decided to follow the same criteria as ASU. One downside is Arizona is a growing state and turning down students and revenue that comes with it is easy in certain states that have many more applicants applying for admissions than openings.

Bullet, you make a lot of points and I will have to take time to sort out your ideas.

Lets get back to why I posted the 16 team format. It basically is the Gavitt plan and recommendations for the Big East to follow that plan.

Keeping the football and basketball schools in two seperate divisions was the plan to make 16 teams work. This was true for the short term which is basically the current Big East plan for the next 5 years. The Gavitt plan was also a plan to keep the conference together for the long term as well by providing flexablity.

Each football member would play round robin football and basketball and play four cross over games and play each team in the division every other year.

Anything short of this alignment is a mistake and was not the intentions of the orginial proposal.

If the football schools remained in a seperate 8 team divisions and the basketball schools in another, there is no reason the football schools could not align with any other organization if necessary to create an alliance or a football championship made for TV game or just some cross over games or anything esle that provide SOS.

Likewise there should be no issues with cross over basketball league games with any other group. Cross over basketball games may be needed in some other alliance to work.

Keeping aligned in this manner should allow flexibility with out always needing compromise form the entire members.

Since we both agree that going past 12 creates two football conferences, this is also true for basketball as well. Just because you have more basketball games does not change the logistics issues of conferences that have more than 12 members.

So for now, the Big East football schools should insist on being placed in the same division because sooner or latter two conference in one split. If we use history, the Big East 14, WAC 16, MAC 14, old Southern Conference all split.

Can anyone think of div 1 conference that has more than 12 members and is still around or in its original form.

*Post 1 of 2*




Yes, I know that ASU was originally a Normal School. It is the only historic normal of the entire BCS. But because Arizona is a rapidly growing state and because it had historically only one flagship. But by the time 1978 came around. Phoenix became huge, and now its even huger. That metro area is now the 14th largest metro area with 3.5 million people. There are no other large scale universities in Phoenix other than ASU. There is more corporations and business growth that can give to a second university. When a state grows that rapidly there is room for a second state flagship, especially when 3/5th of the state's population lives in that metro area. Not only that ASU had a 70,000+ seat stadium and was performing incredibly well in the early to mid 70's. Undefeated teams, upsetting Nebraska in the 1975 Fiesta Bowl. All of these elements made ASU a growing school in a majority/City-State market (a metro area that contains more than 1/2 of the population of a state and the university there represents that market). This is what makes ASU different than Memphis, UCF, USF, Louisville, Cincy, UAB, USM and ECU. Its location gives it the ability to have a 2nd status or even an equal status to the original 1st flagship of U of Arizona.

There is a potential that UNLV and Boise State could have these similar roles, provided their academics improve and their populations can reach large, large sizes. Maybe for UNLV this is possible, but Boise that market growth may take awhile. This is what makes Urban Grant schools more important in the west. They are located in the population center where that population center contains more than 1/2 of the population of the state. For Phoenix, it has 3.5 million of Arizona's 5.5 million people. A public university with a large enrollment like that is a second status or an equal status to the original U (U of A). But beyond that, ASU is a 3rd Tier National U, which is slightly below Pac 10, status. But its not the only 3rd Tier as Oregon State is also one. For the Pac 10 to go to 10 teams, if that was their goal, there is simply not a better school located near the Pac 8/Pac 10 alignment, except for Utah and BYU, which are farther away. The Pac 10 wouldn't have taken Fresno, San Diego State, or San Jose State. ASU was the only option for the Pac 10 at that time for a 10th team.

As far as WVU, yes they could become Tier 2. That is if they tighten their enrollment and have Marshall take more students. So you would have to grow the university. The other thing about WV lately. The state is losing population as always, in most of its counties. All except the county Morgantown is located in and two counties in the far eastern portion including and near Martinsburg. These are commuter residents to the DC-Baltimore metro area, as these two counties are actually a part of the DC-Balt-North Va metro. Maybe that could bring some resources to help expand or build upon WVU academics.

But the bottom line with regard to the ACC. Its not expanding anymore, its maxed-out.

Now as far as UCF and FAU or FIU. They need to really improve academics. They are both 4th Tier schools. Only California has demonstrated that its branch campuses of the University of California system can be on par and highly regarded like the flagship UC-Berkeley. The 4 flagship campuses of the SUNY system in NY have also demonstrated that they can be on any equal basis. Right now SUNY-Binghamton, SUNY-Stony Brook, SUNY-Buffalo are all 2nd Tier National U's and SUNY-Albany is 3rd Tier and alternates to 2nd Tier some years.

The UTexas system has yet to achieve this. Only UT Austin is a 1st Tier school, Texas A & M is a very high 2nd Tier, TTU is a 3rd Tier. Houston, UT-Arlington, UTSA, UTEP, UNT, Texas A & M Commerce and Texas A & M Kingsville are all 4th Tier schools. Also UT-Dallas is the only 3rd Tier branch of the UT system. Urban Grants do not go statewide, nor do their markets are more than the metro area and nor do they compete with the statewide teams. Except for the UCal system and maybe the SUNY system do branch universities or more than 2 flagships go above a 4th tier university status.

The State of Florida has UFla and FSU as their flagships. UFla is a 1st Tier school and FSU is a 2nd Tier school. USF is a 3rd Tier, is growing and has become a large university, and its research status has improved. But USF and UCF, and FAU, and FIU are not ASU's. They don't exist in City-states cities (Miami-Ft. Lauderdale-WPB is less than 1/3 of Florida's pop, and has 3 universities with Miami as a private and a huge following, FAU and FIU, and these are not ASU-like). Tampa-St. Pete has about 1/7 of the state's population and Orlando has 1/9 of the pop of florida. These schools of USF, UCF, FAU, FIU can not rise above UFla and FSU statewide flagship roles and followings, as well as the private Miami to be like ASU in Arizona where they are the only major U in Phoenix, which is 3/5th of Arizona's pop. The geographic distribution of pop in the west is different than that of the east, and the UNLV's and Boise State's have a 2nd status in City/state cities/markets. The only city-states East of the Mississippi are Chicago and Illinois, NYC and New York, Atlanta and Georgia, DC-Balt in Maryland, Boston in Massachusetts, Detroit in Michigan, Minneapolis-St. Paul in MN. The rest of the city/states are in the west. See my first 15 posts when I first came here I posted about how the West is different than the east. It was in an Idaho Plans Thread.

So UCF, FAU, and FIU and USF all have very regional and metro-like followings. They are not going to be new ASU's for Florida, nor is it unlikely that these Universities are going to become the UCal system like. Because to increase their capabilities means decreasing the role and importance of UFl and FSU. Even if academics do improve, they are not going to get statewide market following like an ASU. They will always compete with UFla, FSU and Miami. USF is the 4th BCS school in Florida. There are no states with more than 4 BCS schools. UCF doesn't have that capability -- its attendance is not reflecting it, nor is its academics.

*Cont on Post 2 of 2*

*Post 2 of 2*




Yes, there are problems. If you grabbed 8 teams and they have no place to put there other sports, there would be a need to place their other sports in. The A-10 has no room. Nor do any other conference, and any other conference wouldn't be on the level of a CUSA or an A-10. Without a new competitive other sports conference, these schools would have any overall net loss by joining an absurd 16-team fball BE. The BE can not become a 24-member conference. If you created such a all-sports conference there are potential of two problems. That conference would be competing to the present BE-16. That would be a conflict of interest. The second problem would be the potential of violating anti-trust laws, if the BE officially was affiliated with such an other sports conference for these fball-only members. So 16 teams in fball, and 16 teams in bball and only 8 teams overlapping, your creating an absurd and complicated 24-team confederation. This is too complicated and would make the BE hard to identify as a household concept or term or identity.

Now, if the BE-8 fball played CUSA-12 in a championship of conferences, with the winner getting the BCS bid, then thats working with another "organization" without those schools losing the other sports in a conference. CUSA wouldn't kick out these schools if they simply did this, with the winner of the championship of conferences takes all. In this scenario the 12-team CUSA wouldn't play a conference championship and would play in one division and neither would both conferences have to play interconference games. This is essentially the "Artie Gigatino Conference X Concept" that he talked about, where he had a Big East division and a Mountain West division. Only here these conferences would dual for the BCS bid, and the winner takes the BCS revenue and the bid. This is what you seem to be driving at. Because the problem with taking only 8 of CUSA, or 7 + Temple is that you wouldn't have anywhere to place their other sports (except Temple would work with A-10). So that is the problem with taking only 7 of CUSA. In order to work with another organization, meaning existing organization, what you are saying is all of the CUSA, which is this "Conference of Champions, Winner take All of the BCSness Concept"

Yes, UTEP vs. Syracuse in Shreveport in the Independence Bowl for a BCS bid and revenue for their conference. Makes sense? No, IMO




None that I know of. Maybe in Div. 1-AA or Div. 1-AAA.

<<Now as far as the WAC becoming BCS back in 1998. Well the WAC-16 still existed in the first year of the BCS -- 1998. They weren't there then. If they had that same membership, they still wouldn't be. Why? Because SJSU, UTEP, SMU, Rice, and maybe Tulsa brought them down then. If they got rid of those schools, which they did and add Boise, Fresno and Hawaii, today there might be a possibility that they would be BCS, although Wyoming would be bringing them down. >>

Amazing how many people don't have a clue when it comes to Rice. They were 2nd in their division, one win from winning 2 of the 3 years they were in the WAC 16. If Rice brought the WAC down, 14 other members (excluding BYU) brought the WAC down. While SMU has been bad in fb, SMU, along with Rice and BYU are among the top non-BCS schools in the Sear's Cup every year. WAC 16 was much stronger in the key component-markets and fan support-than the MWC. They were also an equity conference. Now MWC and WAC are not. CUSA is the only non-BCS equity conference. MWC and WAC are lumped with Sun Belt and MAC in NCAA hierarchy. There would also be less competition. WAC 16 would clearly be #6 or #7. CUSA, if it survived would have to get MAC and/or Sun Belt teams.

BCS doesn't have room for 7 auto bids. WAC 16 likely would not be BCS, but they would be in a much better position. The key learning from WAC 16 was that you should analyze your potential TV contract and plan first BEFORE you expand, instead of winging it.

A BE w/16 fb members would secure their BCS position if done right, but 12 would probably be better financially as long as they did not lose the BCS auto.

Yes, but what do Rice and SMU do for these conferences now. Check the possible new BCS requirements. If you have some terrible teams it could bring down your ratings. Also this does not say that any conference that currently is not an equity conference couldn't eventually become an equity conference.




The bottom line with the BE is they can not expand until they can offer all-sports memberships, and to be able to do that, they have to split. This idea of "working with other organizations" is baffling. What you are saying is work with CUSA. In order to work with CUSA, is you take the entire CUSA, all 12 members. The BE would need to simplify itself in order to expand in football.

All-sports membership is the key to expansion.

The WAC-16 was not in a better market position. TCU, SMU, Rice, and Tulsa are all secondary market teams to UT, A & M and TTU, OU and OSU. Their stadiums were not being filled because a lack of emphasis on rivalries. TV wise they are not out-front, and when you slice up the American map to create regional telecasts with ABC or to compete with CBS, secondary markets conflict with primary markets. ABC wouldn't even do a contract with the WAC to broadcast games in the Big 12 region. This secondary status creates limitations in being able to show many games on ABC. The Big East, and these other non-BCS conferences are essentially cable conferences, unless they can embrace a geographic footprint where there is a majority of their footprint located in a primary market position for their conference.

From a market standpoint the WAC-16 failed because the WAC lost its identity. 16 members in a conference do not work. They are not in a better position because the concept and implementation lacked sustainability. 16 team concepts in fball are not possible for this reason and shouldn't be tried. Its the sign of a major conference getting desparate because they fear mid-major status.

The BCS could theoretically go to 8 BCS member conferences with 5 games. Why are 4 or 5 at-large bids so important if 1 or 2 additional conferences could prove that they belong as automatic members?

First off, kudos to you, Lash, for thinking outside of the box. I agree with Sportsgeog in that you'd need to make sure your football-only members have a home for their other sports, in which case you should try to get the best from the CUSA and MAC to form a new 8 member league. But we're probably years away from that one and, to be honest, a number of the other scenarios here may prove more practical.

It's not as simple as saying "16 can't work," it's just that history has not provided a model that's cost effective with 16 members. Surely if the SEC tabbed Texas, A&M, OU and OSU that model might do well, because every school would carry weight as a commodity. Would it be enough to work within the current bowl and TV structures to keep eveyone as happy as they are now? Don't know.

Conversely there are probably a number of scenarios where smaller conferences like the MAC could find 16 does indeed payoff. It all depends on the costs and benefits involved, and right now the net increase in benefits goes down after a 12th member because you've already achieved the championship game.

While your scheme does provide a championship game for the BE, the question is whether or not the new configuration provides A) enough revenue to increase the flow of money coming in, or B) enough clout to raise the conferences profile, standing, etc and leave the conference secure. For the former I don't know. My best guess is that it would be pretty tough. In terms of football money alone would the TV contracts surpass $18 mil? Tough call, IMO, based upon the current struggles between BE and ABC. I'd be afraid the newer members might lower the average, so to speak, and the appeal of the championship game might not be there to add that much more to the kitty.

(Off the top of my head, thinking about this makes the case for the 12-team scenario much more appealing: Take Army, Navy, Temple and one other that can play their other sports in another conference and that might in fact provide enough new revenue to at least match current levels while also providing a little more TV time and appeal.)