DawgNDuckfan, first thing, since your are the moderator, can you please fix the Big East - 11 team model thread. If not, can you expain the technical issues that cause some threads to prevent future replys. Many thanks!.

DawgNDuckfan/Joedadi, being objective is not the same thing as taking things personally.

The Big East gets such a bad rap because of the jealousy from many non BCS conference fans, and many facts get distored. My post just try to balance things out and provide as much factual information as possible. Additionally the media is so slanted to the ACC that its almost funny to see how many mistakes made with hype of the new ACC. Just last year, the media had the ACC moving to the top BCS football conference with 7 potential top 25 teams. By end of last season Maryland had lost to Mid American team, Va Tech got wolloped by WVU, Virginia lost to MWC, FSU lost way too many games, NC State could not get past Ohio State, Clemson came close to losing its coach with mid season slump, Miami barely escaped a home lose to WVU and probably was not much better.

So Jodadi you and I are probably more in sync that you think because the Mid American conference really gets a bad rap more so that the Big East. I dont see much difference in the MAC compared to the new Conf USA or the MWC. Attendance is the only down side with the MAC. As for performance, no dought the MAC was the best non BCS conference last year. How many folks would be ojective and agree with that, probably not many. Marshall jumped to Conf USA with the possiblity of geting into the back door of the BE, since the BE apparently only wanted to expand with Conf USA teams would be my guess. Minor bowls was the other issue that Conf USA had an advantage over the MAC and probably reasons that Marshall jumped ship. This is probably more in the attendance issues with the MAC compared to the new Conf USA.

I am probably more hard on the BE than most BE fan and will be more crititical if the BE does not align the 16 member basketball schools in a fair balanced situation and not favor certain schools.

As for the BE taking Louisville, Cincinnati, and South Florida, big difference in going to required 8 football members to qualify as div 1A conference and expanding to 12. The BE would have looked bad if expanded with 6 Conf USA teams.
Basically have to agree with Sportgeog, adding to many Conf USA teams would have basically made the BE another version of Conf USA.

Once the new 8 football schools of the BE form and have a few years under their belt as a conference, expansion with other teams could be a good enhancement if more football teams are desired.

Once more point on WVU versis Va Tech, I am a proponent of a playoff because the proof is on the field and not in polls or opinions. Well WVU won the last two years over Va Tech and only lost to Miami, is proof enought of which team was better.

Sooner or latter, the media and fans are going to have to look at Virginia Tech today and not pre Vick days that got the school its only BCS game.

Like I said, this Saturday will be a good test on where Va Tech is heading.

This leads into comparison of MWC to new Big East.

Louisville, WVU, Syracuse have all been to one of the current BCS bowls in the last 20 years. To my knowlege the only school that can close in MWC was BYU championship year in the Holiday bowl. This was perfect timing for BYU to get a championship game out of a non major bowl that particular year.

Regardless if the BE has automatic bid or not, until the MWC or Conf USA has a team that qualifies for major BCS bowl, there is no way to logically compare the MWC to the new Big East.

With the recent requiting of Louisville, WVU, and South Florida, I am not sure any of the non BCS conference will ever be able to catch up with new Big East.

When MWC fans call the Big East the Big Least, its like kittle calling the pot black. Until the MWC get a team into a BCS game the proper term may be the
Mountian Weak Conference.

I think Louisville is a consistent program. One way to measure if a team is consistent is if they can go through some coaches and still be a player. Louisville had Howard Schnellenburger, then had a replacement, can't think of his name that wasn't too good, but then came John Logan Smith from Utah State, in which he became John Louisville Smith, and they were good again. Then John Louisvile Smith became John Lansing Smith (now at MSU), and Coach Petrino seems to show they can continue it, after John Louisvile -- I mean John Lansing Smith left.

This is where I see a problem with taking some of the other CUSA teams in addition to other issues that I have discussed. Are these coaches just on a stepping stone if their team is good.? And if they do leave, can that school sustain it?

Now on the BYU thing. BYU won a deserved National Championship 20 years ago in 1984. They also went to the Cotton Bowl (a very traditional New Years Day Bowl game, that prior to 1995 crowned and could crown a National Champion), in 1997 for the 1996 season, going 14-1 that season, which, up until that point was the most wins ever in a season. Ohio State has since tied that record in 2002.

Last year the MWC had one of the most balanced leagues. They had 4 teams with winning records, they had two .500 teams and only 2 teams with losing records. They have 1/2 of their stadiums that have either just recently been expanded or will soon be expanded. BYU's stadium is 65,000 and they average over 60,000 in attendance. That's in the top 1/3 of the nation. AFA has a 50,000 seat stadium and has good following. Utah's stadium was expanded for the 2002 Winter Olympics (which is now at 46,000) and is said could easily be expanded over 50,000. CSU has a smallm stadium of 30,000, and they are planning on expanding it to 35,000 soon, and have long-range plans of going up to 50,000. UNM just expanded to 37,000 and has plans to go to 42,000 and their attendance has been increasing as well. UNLV also has long-term plans of building to an excess of 40,000. So there could be only 1 team with a small stadium of less than 40,000 soon, which is Wyoming. Wyoming might be their weakest school now, though it has had some bright seasons in the past.

The MWC has been noted as a balanced league, and now Utah is showing shades of being a good team. Utah has a good shot at going undefeated this year. Last year they beat California, Oregon, and narrowly lost to Texas A & M. The only sound defeat they had was to New Mexico.

The attendance also shows the MWC is 7th, just below the BE. Also, again as I talk about in other threads. The MWC is an "out-front" conference in 3 states (Utah, Nevada, and New Mexico), and partially shares another state (Colorado). These are some of the fastest growing states in the nation, and rising attendance, rising market population, and with the rise of Utah or the balance teams and consistent teams of CSU and AFA, and some consistency from UNM, as well as the addition of the consistent TCU, this is a conference that could get more attention paid to it, and be a bigger player as time goes on, provided they don't lose two teams to the Pac 10, or something.

I still don't see this BE vs. MWC vs. CUSA battle here, for a 6th BCS spot, as their will now be, it appears, up to 8 BCS spots being battled for among 11 conferences.

Sportgeog, thanks for the update on MWC and BYU. Unfortunatly for the MWC, BYU is not up to its previous strength. BYU does have a national appeal more so than Utah and if the school could get back to a national level in football, the MWC would benefit and possibly gain an automatic BCS bid. Utah has to do more than just win the Liberty bowl to get the same type of exposure that BYU has in the past. Granted an udefeated Utah this year would be hard pressed to be kept out of the at large BCS pool.

Do not understand you comments on 8 BCS bids for 11 conferences. Unless I have missed something in the last couple days, there are only 6 at large bids and 6 BCS automatic conference bids one of which include the Big East along with the other 5 BCS conference.

^The way I understand it, is that with 5 BCS games and 10 seeds, there can be anywhere from 4 to 8 earned automatic conference seeds. All 11 conferences, beginning in the year 2006, will have to earn the automatic seed (although I've also heard or someone interpreted that this earning begins in 2004).

This includes all conferences, including all of the current 6 BCS conferences. This may change, but if the average ranking of the conference champion is greater than #12 over a 4-year period, that conference gets an automatic seed. That is up until 8 of the 10 seeds are taken by automatic conference seeds (so at least 2 at-large seeds remain). People interpret this to mean there will never be less than 4 auto seeds either.

So the Big 10, SEC, Big 12, Pac 10, ACC, Big East, MWC, CUSA, WAC, MAC and Sun Belt have to average a #12 ranking over a 4-year period to receive up to 8 conference auto BCS seeds. This means that theoretically, if the Big 10 does not average a #12 ranking over a 4 year period, that it would not have an auto BCS bid. That's not realistic but theoretically it could happen. But it also means that the Mountain West and the CUSA could be added to the current 6, as the 7th or 8th auto seed teams. All conferences have to continue to earn their BCS status.

Although, the derivation that I've seen recently here is that they may consider the overall combined quality of the entire conference in a ranking system in order to determine which conferences should receive a auto BCS seed.

But the 6 conference auto BCS seeds could either grow to 8, or decline to 4 (which is only theoretical, and hard to imagine dropping but only to 5). The auto berths are not based on a fixed amount of 6 and how the conference compares to the other conferences, but based more on the merits of that conference, more independent of how it compares to another conference.

The "my conference is better than your conference. Its number 6 and yours is number 7, so were moving on up to the BCS, na, na, na, na" cry isn't as relevant anymore. But this sounds like its still under consideration. I could be wrong, but thats my understanding.

I do think that if Utah, or CSU, or BYU (which is down, but could come back), AFA could all attract national attention if they do go undefeated. If Utah would have beaten Texas A & M (they almost did last year, losing on a last second play) and wouldn't have lost to UNM, they would've been in the BCS last year. They beat Cal, Oregon, and were conference champs. That would've landed them there.

The growth of the intermountain west market I think is important to pay attention to in the future as well as any sustaining team and any possible peaking into the BCS or something similar will provide a greater level of awareness of the MWC or for any non-BCS conference. Its a combo of the MWC performane, and the potential of an expanding market to pay attention to there, in the coming years.

As agreed in the Miami meetings, the Big East, SEC, ACC, Big 12, Big 10, and Pac 10 have automatic bids.

The BCS criteria will look at four year period based on the current criteria to determine if any of the six BCS conferences continue to qualify with that automatic bid.

I do not see much changing with that criteria and each conference will be required to have one team average a 12th ranking or higher over the next four years. At the end of the four year period in 2008, each conference will be reviewed to determine if the conference keeps the automatic bid.

My guess is the the new criteria that will be discussed and finalized has to do with the non BCS conferences.

At this point do not see the 6 BCS conferences agreeing to provide an automatic bid to any of the non BCS conference.

It would just seem fair to keep the system simple and allow the two new bowl bids to go to any non BCS conference member that is ranked 12th or higher in the BCS poll. This would basically provide the non BCS members the same option as Notre Dame.

^I know thats what they agreed to for the start of the first 4 years. But I am almost sure that I read that the amount of BCS qualifiers could range from 4 to 8 teams. It was linked from a post on these forums, maybe a month or so ago. After the first 4 years, if a 7th or an 8th team qualified, they could also have a seed, if their average ranking was #12 or above. It is possible to have 8 conferences with a #12 seed or higher.

I know the talks are still happenning. You would think the 6 BCS conferences and the 4 bowls wouldn't have agreed to expand by a game to help accommodate more possible chances for the non-BCS leagues but they are. Its good to see these conferences not being so provincial, and be open-minded about it. Its good to promote college football as a national sport, reaching out to all US geography. Too many gaps make it a regional sport, and maybe a bit too provincial.

^Yep, but just like anything, we are looking at 4 to 6 years down the line. Who's to say that in that time the MWC or the CUSA couldn't overcome those issues. Again Miami and FSU came out of nowhere to make it. I still believe that if a region grows, the talent level could grow, the fan following could grow etc. This is not so much about now, and being fixated on what is now, but the future, 5, 10, 15, 20 years down the road. We tend to look now at the last 20 or 25 years in sports. That can demonstrate, at least partially what could happen in the future.

The current 6 BCS leagues are set, either for the next 4 to 6 years (not sure if this starts in 2004 or 2006). But after that time, that's when all these rules will begin to be applied. A lot can happen in 4 to 6 years. And if even they do not change, there may or could be shades of a new paradigm emerging.

Like or not non BCS fans the Big East is part of the BCS 6 members conference and has four years to prove it worthiness.

If the intention was to rid the Big East of its automatic bid would have already occured.

WVU, South Florida, and last year with Lousivile have all requited blue chip quarter backs. This is the back bone of any college team and obvouis the leader.

Pitt and Syracuse will get up to speed with the BCS bid in tact. Rutgers is improving and UConn has great potential.

I hate to disappoint the non BCS fans, however, just dont see the BE dropping out of the BCS automatic bid.

I could see the MWC sneaking into the BCS automatic bid process due to having a region that does not have many current BCS members.

Unless Marshall or Southern Miss reach and win a BCS, the SEC and Big 12 will most likely try very hard to keep Conf USA out of the mix.

Big 12 is already expressing some concerns with recent expansion and may be looking on their backside at TCU and MWC progress as well as Conf USA creating a new version of SWC in its back door.

Could get very interesting.

If things were right with college football, Conf USA and MWC would have automatic BCS bids and MAC, WAC, and Sun Belt would be the leaders of Div 1AA with some of the top schools of WAC joining the MWC.

Where did you hear that?

Sportsgeog, you are always holding me accoutable and rightful so. I am not as disciplined as Black@Gold and CyberCat and others on adding links.

In a recent USA Today article (which I read every day) the Big 12 commish surprising stated that the Big 12 may rethink expansion over the next few months. At least he referred that the conference may look at the recent expansion and see how the Big 12 factors in.

Some of this is my own interpretation, however, why would a commish make a statement if something not up or there are concerns within the circles of the Big 12.

I cant see the Big 12 expanding to 14, however, grabbing TCU would eliminate the MWC from Texas. Maybe replacing Baylor with TCU, however, dont think any one has the b---- as the Big East to actually kick a member out. The SEC could have long sense replaced Vanderbilt. I know I know they have great academics.

Who knows if Conf USA can get some traction on the west division front. SMU, Rice, UTEP, Houston could improve and cause some concern with Texas A&M down, Baylor always down and out, and Texas Tech some where in the middle to lower end of the pact. Texas has not lit the world on fire and got to the BCS with Oklahoma a road block every year.

And then there is always that nagging rumor of Missouri to the Big 10. Texas to the Pac 10 could resurface in the next few years.

I always thought (maybe incorrectly) the Big 12 is a convience of teams to reach a 12 team level.

Unlike the Big 10 that has all 11 teams in one division, the Big 12 split the old Big 8 and moved two teams to help out the SWC south division.

Is there unity issues within this league.

Makes you wonder when a commish makes statements of possibly expansion review.

The Big East with all the pressure of BCS, does not make any implications of future expansion. Most of it has to do with us expansion fanatics that always want change and make up rumors or just make assumptions.

I thought the Big 12 was secure with in self and making statements about future expansion sure adds interest.

^I would have to see the article and the context. It could be that they are monitoring the college landscape.

The Big 12 probably will never kick out a team. It just doesn't make sense. Baylor's attendance is at 28,000 recently. While that is low, TCU is not much higher than it. People stating that TCU would replace Baylor is just speculative dreaming.

The Big 12's ties between the Big 8 and the SWC-4 remain with UT and OU, and some now with TTU and OU (coaching ties), somewhat between OSU and the Texas schools. Both OU and OSU were at one time members of the SWC (very early years).

That and the geographic identity that the two states of Oklahoma and Texas have, and the identity of the Great Plains as a region. I realise that Iowa and Missouri are in somewhat different regions (though both are in Prairie states, and both are not Great Lake states, and Missouri is too far north and west to be considered "southeastern", though it has "Southern" characteristics), Colorado is also a Mountain state (though 1/2 of it is in the Great Plains, and all but 3 Big 12 schools are all closer than the closest Pac 10 school of Arizona), and Texas has got Bayous and Desert and Mountains as much as it has Great Plains. The bottom line is attendance is not down, and UT has future plans of going to 100 K in their stadium.

Just because UT can't beat OU doesn't mean they would go and realign themselves with TCU, Houston, SMU and Rice. SMU has never recovered from the Death penalty and their attendance last year was just barely above the 15,000 requirement. Rice has considered going to Div. III.

TTU is actually just as competitive in the Big 12 as they were in the SWC. The 4 Texas schools wouldn't leave the Big 12 to go to the MWC.

The Big 10 is a traditional conference. They want Norte Dame for their 12th member. After that, in the distance, not really even in the queue is Syracuse, Missouri and Pittsburgh. I don't see them reaching out for Missouri unless they had a couple of turndowns, which seems highly unlikely.

The biggest issue with the split division of the Big 8 schools is with NU and OU. As a Nebraska fan, I can tell you that Husker fans miss the NU/OU rivalry in its traditional form. But as time has moved on, it really isn't that big of an issue anymore. KSU, CU, and Mizzou have made up for it in recent years. The Big 12 is a balanced league. In the early years, the North dominated. Last year KSU won the conference championship and two years ago it was CU, but the South has been higher ranked with teams. UT is in with that group.

I don't see the MWC and CUSA, which may rise in the future, being on the same level as the Big 12. The MWC nor the CUSA will exceed the kind of attendance and rankings that have and could happen at UT, TTU, and A & M.

Kicking out a team is bad for any conference. Baylor is not a dire situation. 28K average attendance is not poor enough, nor is their winning percentage poor enough for them to kick a team out. The Big 12 are usually ranked in the Top 4 performing football conferences. Kicking out Baylor doesn't really add anything nor does it really hurt to keep them in. Loyalty is important in sports, to reassure all the members that there is confidence in the alignment, and also for preventing rumors and hints that could cause further undue damage to any program in the conference.

While people talk about some sort of major realignment and where UT and A & M may end up, and talks of how the SWC and the Big 8 did things, the Big 12, approaching a decade old is fairly balanced in both divisions and the severing of the Oklahoma schools and the northern 6 of the old Big 8 isn't much of an issue. The 4 Texas schools lost 3 small privates and a urban commuter school, but gained an identifiable 2 teams in a bordering state that relate well with the 4 Texas schools, plus, CU, KU, and Mizzou are similar to UT, as an intitution and college-town likeness. I think the Big 12 is fairly stable. The rise of the MWC and/or CUSA would not impact the Big 12 much at all. Nor would CUSA impact the SEC. Nor would the MWC impact the Pac 10. The WAC and the Sun Belt and the MAC may be impacted by the rise of these two conferences, by far the most.