I'd actually go a step further back. Dirk Koetter was the one who really got Boise St. to be what it is today. He was 6-5 in his first year, 10-2 in his 2nd and 10-3 in his third before leaving for ASU. We need not forget that Hawkins was one of Dirk's assistants who got promoted once Dirk left. And Peterson worked as the WR coach at Oregon under then Oregon OC, Dirk Koetter. When he left Boise for ASU, Peterson left Oregon to take the OC job under Hawkins.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

South Bend Trib interview with ND AD regarding conference realignment,tv deals and other items at http://www.southbendtribune.com/article ... 001/Sports

Gotta love him commenting on the state of BE football which ND is not a part of , lol

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

That did catch my attention, along with the emphasis that the ND official chaired the BE governance for the current period of which TCU was added.

While most view that adding TCU for fb/all-sports in the BE was a positive step all-around, the methodology involves non-participating fb BE schools with equitable votes as to determining fb expansion.

Is chairing the BE conference a rotation or a voting matter? Have the fb participating schools "block" voted to insisting on one of their own as to chairing? Of course, that can/has work/worked both ways, acknowledging a divide, papered over, gagged, dismissed, whatever.

Obviously, Notre Dame is focused on their own BE security and having a high quality bb home. They are also savvy enough to know the fb side of the conference needed to expand to satisfy balanced scheduling, and look improved in comparison with the other BCS conferences.

Notre Dame appearing comfortable enough to critique and take a share of credit for BE fb expansion, shows the BE fb schools still exhibit considerable deference to ND, and certainly appear accepting of BE non-fb schools articulating fb goals.

The empahsis on how well all BE schools like each other may be anti-split propaganda, but it's up to the fb/all-sports schools to assert their views if perceptions are otherwise.

How's this for a conspiracy theory ?

Go over to the "other sports - college hockey" thread, and you'll find that college hockey (at least west of PA) is going through a massive realignment.
It's close to settling down into an apparently stable situation, but the final moves are being held up by Notre Dame determining which conference to align with.
This decision sure seems like something that could be worked out in a week at most, yet it's dragged on for close to 2 months.
Should Notre Dame's Hockey Team join the new NCHC or maybe Hockey East ? Who cares, just pick one !!!!

WHAT IF there is something bigger going on .... if behind the scenes the Super-conference discussions are taking place, and Notre Dame is talking to the Big Ten ?
If so, they would naturally then want to play hockey as part of the new Big Ten Hockey Conference....
The BTHC would be happy to have them - IF they were members of the Big Ten Conference...

Certainly, hockey is not driving Notre Dame's decision on all-sports conference affilaition, but the reverse might be true, and that could be what we are witnessing...

I pointed this out on the Big Ten thread a few days ago that ND would bring hockey and LAX to the Big Ten, BC and ND would make B1G hockey pretty freaking awesome and adding Syracuse and Rutgers with ND would give them 3 LAX schools to go with Michigan Penn St and Ohio St so they could make a nice 6 team B1G LAX league...plus these schools would allow the B1G to dominate the NY/NJ/NE markets...

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

I'm so with ya. Just posted an article on the homepage. And when looking at the last of the potential movers and shakers, the Big Ten, the conference that said it's not making any moves...the 4 schools I looked at as falling in line the best indeed are Notre Dame, Rutgers, Syracuse and BC.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

I think Maryland may go if asked. May be a better fit than Syracuse.

Absolutely. I made that point the other day about those four schools being the best (without mentioning Missouri) for the Big Ten to add. Plus, the division format the BigTen uses which is based off of competitive balance and keeping the rivalries would balance out perfectly (taken into consideration the aforementioned four teams conference win/loss records):

Legends
Michigan .674
Notre Dame .610
Wisconsin .608
Boston College .538
Iowa .524
Michigan State .490
Minnesota .319
Rutgers .290
.507

Leaders
Ohio State .788
Nebraska .669
Penn State .625
Syracuse .511
Purdue .462
Northwestern .431
Illinois .344
Indiana .236
.508

Permanent crossover rivalries:
Ohio State/Michigan, Purdue/Notre Dame, Michigan State/Indiana, Iowa/Nebraska, Penn State/Minnesota, Rutgers/Illinois, Boston College/Syracuse, Northwestern/Wisconsin

Only problem... Unless you're going to greater than a 9-game schedule, then you're looking at playing each of the other teams once every 7 years. I think that it's too infrequent. In reality. You'll either not have any protected rivalries.

That's the point of the divisions. You align your divisions to essentially be two separate conferences of 8 schools. You treat the intra-division games like an OOC rivalry game. And then you have X number of true OOC games for your own opponents. The key is it's a union of two conferences, so you share the brand. And come championship game time, the two best play each other.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

why stop at 16? How about 4 conferences of 24 each that would capture all of the current BCS, plus indies, and MWC/best of CUSA? Inter-conference playoffs, then final four

The practical limit might be a division / 'sub-conference" size that is small enough to allow a full-round robin (and maybe a few OOC games) in the schedule.
So with 2 x 8, you have 7 (round-robin), a few inter-divisonal games on a rotating basis (or not), and some OOC games that could be replaced by inter-divisional games vs. a rival.

The most important sport is football, and the current limitation seems to be a 12-game season.

So maybe you could go to 2 X 10... a 9-game round robin +3 other games might work.

If by 4 X 24 you mean a conference has two 12-team divisions, that seems too big. Right now 12-tam leagues have to split 6 + 6...

Article out of South Bend with initial reaction from ND AD to ACC raiding the BE for Pitt and Syracuse.Link at http://articles.southbendtribune.com/20 ... rian-kelly

hey quinn, Norte Damage is leach living off of other conferences maybe just maybe they will go bended knee to the B1G and say Ok i want in lets get three more.

_________________
The Bear may be dead but he still hates Tennessee. Roll Damn Tide