NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Fri Oct 31, 2014 8:18 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 98 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Big East - 16 team model
PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 12:53 am 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 8:08 pm
Posts: 979
<<Bullet, you can show me all the statistics you want, however, as a supporter of a playoff it shows on the field. Likewise conference comparison is proven on the field.>>
Lash, first, I follow the Big 12 and SEC closest, NOT CUSA. Stats are objective, especially when they cover long periods of time, while looking at one week is not objective. The stats compared the top teams. I don't remember now whether they used the polls or BCS, but the facts were that there was not much difference between the NBE, MWC and CUSA.

And as far as opinions, looking at the last 5 years, not just 1 week, ranking the NBE and New CUSA teams (IMHO-and based on memory, which unfortunately is not 100% reliable anymore):
1. Marshall
2. Southern Miss
3. NBE Louisville
4. NBE Pitt
5. NBE WVU
6. Rice
7. UAB
8. Memphis
9. NBE Cincinnati
10. ECU
11. Tulane
12. NBE Syracuse
13. Houston
14. UCF
15. Tulsa
16. UTEP
17. NBE USF (they've only been I-A 3 years)
18. SMU
19. NBE UConn
20. NBE Rutgers

And there's not a lot of ground between 4th and 14th as all of the schools have had some bad years recently, notably Syracuse who probably has the strongest program historically in the NBE.

<<Let alone the fact that the other 5 BCS conferences especially SEC and ACC want not part of Conf USA in the BCS. Many of those fans will be voting each week in the polls and will not cut Conf USA any slack. Conf USA will have to earn every vote.>>

The same could be said about the BE.

<<I dont see how taking on SMU, Rice, Tulsa, and UTEP is helping the image of your conference at all. With East Carolina crashing, Marshall on the decline, Tulane one step from dropping football, the bottom half of the new Conf USA is going to pull the top half down.>>

Taking on Cincinnati and USF isn't helping the BE image. With Syracuse crashing, Pitt on the decline, Rutgers one step from dropping football....The NBE faces many of the same issues. They do have a definite advantage on attendance, but that doesn't mean they don't have issues there. They have 4 of the bottom 6 BCS teams.

<<Additionally Conf USA is basically a new conference with a lot of logistics to overcome including new rivals that will need to be inforced to create TV and fan attenance interest.>>

There is a lot of new, but it is a familiar group. 4 of the schools were together in the WAC and they join UH who was in the same conference with 3 of them in the past and Tulane who played Rice, SMU and Tulsa fairly frequently. Tulsa also regularly played Memphis and USM in the past. 4 of the eastern members were together and Marshall has a history in the Southern Conference with ECU. Only UCF has limited exposure to the other schools. 6 of the 12 are new as 5 schools have left, but most of the new schools have a history with each other and the remaining schools.

The NBE is even more a new conference as 4 of their 8 members are leaving. They are adding 2 new I-A schools in UConn and USF who have little history with the other 6. UL and UC have not historically played many eastern schools. I would be surprised if it took 2 hands to count the number of games UL played prior to the last 10 years against the 4 remaining BE schools.

<<Remember to get a BCS bid, SOS is included in the computer rankings. The computer rankings are one third of the overall BCS rankings. >>

With margin of victory removed from the computer rankings (IMO done primarily as a direct result of Fresno's run at the BCS), the BCS conferences shot themselves in the foot. The non-BCS schools were actually higher in the computers than in the polls. SOS has been diluted in the computers. TCU had Five 3 point wins, often over mediocre teams, and they were as high as #3 in some of the computer polls. The good news for the NBE is that Pitt and WVU won't be hurt too badly if Rutgers doesn't repeat their Mich. St. performance, UConn and USF don't compete well with tougher schedules, Syracuse continues their nose dive, and Cincinnati stays consistent with their history.

<<Just for argument sake, less say the Big East is currently equal to Conf USA, the next few years you are going to see both conferences going in seperate directions and its has nothing to do with BCS and everything to do with taking on 12 teams when half aren't close to BCS material.>>

I agree whole-heartedly the BE should not have gone to 12 yet, although I did think they should have split and gone to 10. The BE is taking a gamble with USF, UConn and Cincinnati. None have ever done anything in football. Louisville isn't a gamble, but they had not done anything prior to the 90s. I totally disagree that the bottom half hurts the top half. Look at the MAC. The bottom half is REALLY bad, but the top half has done well lately and some of the clowns on ESPN seem to think they are anything other than the 10th best conference. Rutgers, Temple and Pitt (who was really bad in the 90s) didn't hurt Miami any. I will also disagree that the bottom half of the new CUSA is that bad. UTEP, Tulsa and SMU, yes, but the rest, no. Perception may hurt TV ratings, but it is not reality. UTEP, Tulsa and SMU add other things than fb and UTEP and SMU both have potential (see USF and Cincinnati).

If the conferences diverge, it will be because of TV exposure and the halo effect from basketball that will be the biggest factors.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Big East - 16 team model
PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 4:27 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2002 12:21 pm
Posts: 1916
Over -rated CUSA and underated BE


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Big East - 16 team model
PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 7:16 am 
Offline
Sophomore
Sophomore

Joined: Tue May 06, 2003 6:19 pm
Posts: 68
"New" in the same sense as in ill-fated 1985 edition of Coke was "new?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Big East - 16 team model
PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 9:00 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2002 12:21 pm
Posts: 1916
No the new BE is and will be a strong conference.It looks like that the new CuSA teams entering BE will help strengthen the conference and the loss of Temple will also help the conference.Also aallinces/part time memberships with army.Navy and ND will help.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Big East - 16 team model
PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 10:44 am 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 8:08 pm
Posts: 979
<<No the new BE is and will be a strong conference.It looks like that the new CuSA teams entering BE will help strengthen the conference and the loss of Temple will also help the conference.Also aallinces/part time memberships with army.Navy and ND will help. >>

There is no scheduling alliance with ND, although the bowl agreement will help them keep bowls. Army and Navy may set up a scheduling alliance, but I haven't heard anything announced. I have heard a that a scheduling alliance of Army & Navy with the MAC was being negotiated. The loss of Temple obviously doesn't hurt. But Temple has had a better team than Army & Navy, they just don't have anywhere near the fan support.

The NBE is not a strong conference. Whether they will be remains to be seen. Whether the new members help in anything but basketball remains to be seen. Facts about the new football members:

Louisville-no history of any success prior to the 90s. Some inconsistency during the 90s with no great seasons since the Fiesta Bowl year. I believe they only have 1 conference title in CUSA. They are getting an attendance boost from the "new stadium effect." It isn't certain it won't drop off when that wears out as some baseball teams have found. They are a commuter school and may have difficulty getting attendance with higher ticket prices. I've seen some grumbling by UL fans about prices (compare to Texas who has doubled ticket prices since joining the Big 12, limited the ability to get OU tickets for season ticket holders, and are "sold out" on season tickets, continuing to set records). They are in an area with very little football talent. If they hit a bad spell for a few years, they don't know what the impact will be on attendance.

Cincinnati-lousy football history. No really good seasons. Also, I believe only 1 CUSA title. Commuter school with current attendance difficulties.

South Florida-no football history as they have just entered Division I-A. Commuter school. Attendance last year was a record, but it had been declining since 1998. No conference titles.

Street and Smith has Louisville #3, USF #5 and Cincinnati #8 out of the 11 teams in CUSA this year. Other magazines have similar rankings. That is also about how they finished last year. They averaged right in the middle of CUSA. The perception that they are powers in CUSA has to do with their basketball. And that will continue to help them in perception. It may in the long run help them in football recruiting. But perception doesn't directly win games.

And as for UConn, they have the new program and new stadium effect. They have been winning playing mostly bad MAC teams. They generally got stomped by the BE teams they played over the last couple of years. They are not in a high talent area and had a below average I-AA program.

Before any NBE fans get too bent out of shape, I will concede there are grounds for optomism about these programs. But there are grounds for concern as well. It is not at all established that these programs will help the 4 old programs and make the NBE stronger. If I were czar of the BE, I certainly would have added UL, UC and UConn, but that is because they were the best overall choices available, not because they were guaranteed successes in football.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Big East - 16 team model
PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 12:27 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 2694
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Bullet, the one point we can agree on is there is concern in the Big East football with all the new changes. Most everyone in the Big East will agree with that. The conference is doing its best to address the challeges by insisting that teams beef up schedules etc.

My point is if the Big East is concerned, Conf USA should be in panic mode.

Now to your other comments, Marshall ahead of WVU is like placing UAB ahead of Auburn. In the only recent head to head match up, WVU won the game and the score was not reflective of the dominance.

Conf USA took some very big risk by expanding to 12 and Marshall is not holding up at this time as one of those risk.

If you follow requiting, WVU has already got most of the best in that state. Marshall is a one trick pony and if football starts to decline, Marshall will struggle more in Conf USA.

UTEP was the other major risk for a conference that is not western based. UTEP may have been good for MWC, however, Conf USA membership is a stretch. Not sure the new coach not matter how good can turn this program into a winner.

Regardless of how you performed in the past, expansion is only interested in how you are performing today. In other words, you are only as good as your last game.

If I were exanding Conf USA after the ACC raids, the following would have been my alignment:

Memphis, UAB, Southern Miss, East Carolina, Tulane, Houston, TCU, Central Florida

In this scenerio, TCU would have thought long and hard about leaving. Memphis would have got its 14 game basketball schedule so the school could keep SOS with out of conference games.

I will say this, Conf USA probably did not figure that the BCS would open up more to the non BCS conference when expansion decisions were made for 12 members. It a little too late to change.

Bullet, if Conf USA fans are happy with SMU, Rice, Tulsa, UTEP coming on board next year, that is all that matters.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Big East - 16 team model
PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 1:31 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri May 02, 2003 12:39 pm
Posts: 1215
As one of those who considers CUSA a "loser" in this round of realignment, I feel obliged to offer the reasoning behind this. With a caveat: I do think that CUSA has solid potential and, as I mentioned before, may have had limited options to consider from. I also feel somewhat slighted in that I honestly wish Marshall had remained in the MAC. All that being said, I consider CUSA as sliding in perception and value, especially compared to the NBE, because of the following reasons:

- Tulane, Rice, Tulsa, SMU are four small private schools. The list of of similar institutions who can pull off national appeal is very small, and most involve larger enrollments or endowments than what these schools have.

- Flux in identity. The conference does come close to adopting a full SWC aura. Going all out on that theme may have been the better option, as ECU, Marshall and UCF are distant outposts. At least UTEP has an affinity for it's Texas brethren, the others appear to be biding time until the BE considers expansion.

- So many members as the 3rd, 4th or lower in their state's food chain. Only Tulane, Marshall and Memphis do not clearly have at least 2 other, larger state universities ahead of them in terms of popular appeal, making it ever tougher to market your product.

- Starting from square one. Basically a new conference, and considering the point above and average attendance it appears a clear #8 in terms of popular appeal among conferences. Based on recent history it will be tough for this league to average 30k fans per game, which means a marginal revenue stream compared to the competitors already ahead of you.


What the league can do is capitalize on many of the identified assets and, like the NBE, build from within. Foster that SWC mentality in the western division, market the success in other sports like baseball (ECU and Rice), and make sure that basketball remains strong. I would really cater to the schools from UAB and westward, as well, because I think keeping Memphis and So. Miss happy will ensure a viable future for the league.


Last edited by gunnerfan on Thu Sep 09, 2004 1:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Big East - 16 team model
PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 3:51 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2002 12:21 pm
Posts: 1916
Look at the BE they replaced Temple with Cinn(plus),they replaced VoTech with Louisville (break even),they replaced BC with UConn a( break even),they replaced Miami with USFla(a large loss).The only they lost who meant anything was Miami.The BE played a number of years with Miami on probation and votech replaced Miami.They and their tv marketplace will make it in the BCS.Also the movement ND with a couple of games per year plus some OOC games,evert thing will be fine.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Big East - 16 team model
PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 5:06 pm 
Offline
Sophomore
Sophomore

Joined: Tue May 06, 2003 6:19 pm
Posts: 68
Again, please explain how Cincinnati "replaced" Temple and how Louisville "replaced" VA Tech...here is what actually happened, in chronological order:

Connecticut replaced Temple;
Cincinnati & Louisville replaced Miami & Virginia Tech;
South Florida replaced Boston College

Seriously what is the connection between Cincinnati and Temple (or, for that matter, Louisville and Virginia Tech)...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Big East - 16 team model
PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 6:04 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 2694
Location: Phoenix Arizona
YungWun, what Tigershark is stating is the new Big East is basically the same in stength.
With Miami and Temple gone, the conference took a hit at the top and drastically improved at the bottom.

Miami can and will be replaced. Temple has been replaced.

Top to bottom the new Big East is better that the old. If some team steps up to Miami level, the conference will be better than before. Go figure.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Big East - 16 team model
PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 7:11 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2002 12:21 pm
Posts: 1916
Lash,great reply.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Big East - 16 team model
PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 7:45 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2003 11:18 pm
Posts: 758
Since we are talking about C-USA, I posted this over on C-USA board. (First of all I have no affliation with SMS other than it being an instate school.)

While UCF, Marshall, East Carolina, and UAB are nice for fb, they don't add too much to C-USA else where. I know UAB had a nice run last year in bb. I think BB and other sports are what will make C-USA a great league but just adding several schools for fb make no sense ie UCF and Marshall. But to keep the BB RPI up, they need to add some schools that help that. Can you say MVC? Creighton, Southern Illinois, Wichita State, and SMS. Also they add the Kansas City and St. Louis markets, plus 2 nice markets in Wichita and Omaha. I know these are Big 12 cities but they are still good markets. Downside to these schools is that two play I-AA football, SMS and Southern Illinois, and the other two don't play football. Wichita State has had football in the past and quit the program back when MVC discountied sponsering the sport. They could add it, if they knew they would be in D1 football conference. SMS and SIU could be possible move ups to D1, especially if they had a conference to be in. Creighton I doubt would ever add football but like the other 3 maybe they might. I know football is the big money sport, but other sports would be strong, especially baseball.

In football, C-USA would be a 8 team league.

Conference USA

North Division
Creighton
Memphis
SMS
Southern Illinois
Tulsa
Wichita State

South Division
Houston
Rice
SMU
Southern Miss
Tulane
UTEP

-------------------------------------------
Creighton
Market: Omaha #74
Accomplisments: College World Series, NCAA tournament
Arena: Qwest Center, 14,000
Positives: Strong basketball, brand new arena
Negatives: share market with Nebraska, and no football

Wichita State
Market: Wichita #54
Accomplisments: College World Series, Final Four in 1968
Arena: Levit Arena, 10,000
Positives: Strong baseball program, decent media market,
Negatives: No football, third school in Kansas

SMS (trying to get name changed to Missouri State)
Market: Springfield #73 plus KC and St. Louis
Accomplisments: College World Series, Women's Final Four in 1992 and 2001, Sweet Sixteen in 1999
Arena: Hammons Student Center, 8,500
Positives: growing school in growing area, strong all-around athletic program, brand new baseball stadium
Negatives: sorry d1-aa football program

Southern Illinois
Market: Carbondale #77, also include Chicago large alum base plus St. Louis
Accomplisments: Sweet Sixteen in 2001, D-1AA National Football champs
Arena: SIU Arena, 10,000
Positives: strong bb, large school
Negatives: remote location, no d1 football

Some may ask you kicked out Saint Louis, but SMS and SIU both have a larger following in the St. Louis area than SLU.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Big East - 16 team model
PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 7:55 pm 
I think the answer falls somewhere between.

Overall, looking from top to bottom, the BE appears to have more parity, but also solidified itself with respectble teams.
However, I doubt anytime soon, any of the current or new BE teams will emerge with the SUSTAINED accomplishments Miami has shown in the last couple decades. Nationwide, maybe only a few (such as Oklahoma or USC) in the near future will have a chance to reach their streak of success.
I am no Miami fan though.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Big East - 16 team model
PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 10:21 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 8:08 pm
Posts: 979
<<Now to your other comments, Marshall ahead of WVU is like placing UAB ahead of Auburn. In the only recent head to head match up, WVU won the game and the score was not reflective of the dominance.>>

I'm not sure where you got that. I put Marshall ahead of Louisville-NOT WVU. I was comparing CUSA new members vs. those leaving. Marshall may actually have had a better team than WVU most of the last 5 years, but I consider that an aberration. WVU has been down and Marshall will find it hard to sustain their Leftwich/Pennington years. Fan support is no contest as WVU has excellent fan support.

<<Regardless of how you performed in the past, expansion is only interested in how you are performing today. In other words, you are only as good as your last game.>>

You're right. And I think the conferences are making a mistake in that regard.

<<Bullet, if Conf USA fans are happy with SMU, Rice, Tulsa, UTEP coming on board next year, that is all that matters. >>

Tulsa and UTEP were essential to shore up basketball which took a huge hit, much as a weak overall Marshall program was added for football. SMU was added for rivalries, overall programs (probably 2nd best of non-BCS schools after BYU) and potential. It wasn't that long ago they were ranked #2. Rice was added for rivalries, baseball and academic compatibility. They also have a great stadium in a beautiful setting and have been very competitive since Ken Hatfield arrived. As for TCU, IMO they were concerned with BE expansion gobbling up Memphis, ECU and possibly USM. Taking only one would end the CUSA's auto bid in the NCAA tourney. They strongly supported SMU joining CUSA 3 years ago.



Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Big East - 16 team model
PostPosted: Thu Sep 09, 2004 10:26 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 8:08 pm
Posts: 979
CUSA wanted to move away from the mixed model. They aren't going to add MVC schools that don't play I-A football. Frankly, I don't think the MVC schools would be interested in joining CUSA. MVC probably draws better on average, certainly the median is higher.

Southwest Missouri is interesting. IMO they are the 2nd strongest candidate in I-AA for moving up after UMass as far as long term success. There is only 1 other I-A team in the state and only 1 other I-AA team (SE Mo) and 2 I-AAA teams (St. Louis and MO-KC). There are in a relatively well populated state, a long way from the U. of Missouri and in a classic college town.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 98 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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:  
 

 




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