Sec03,
I believe the Big 12 has many options if the conference was actually serious about expanding back to 12 to allow a CCG. If the Big 12 wanted to expand primarily for academics there is Tulane and Rice. If Big 12 wanted to expand with flagship state school which culturally match most Big 12 schools you could expand with Rutgers and UConn. Both of these current Big East schools would jump to the Big 12 in NYC second if invited today. If you want football type schools that have good attendance you could go with the common rumor or thought of taking Louisville and BYU.

As for Northern Illinois, I always thought this school made good sense for the hybrid Big East to provide a football playing school to go along with basketball only schools of DePaul, Marquette, and Notre Dame.

Since this is a Big East thread, I wonder how much thought is going into a plan to finally split the basketball and football schools?

If for some reason Boise State and SDSU decide to remain in the MWC which remains a very good possibility, then taking Memphis and Temple were a good idea to allow for the split.

Without BCS AQ status is there any benefit to keeping these hybrid schools together any longer?

“New Metro Conference”: Memphis, Cincinnati, Louisville, USF, UCF, Houston, SMU, Temple, UConn, Rutgers

Metro would really fit or retro fit these 10 schools if they finally decided to split. All of the 10 schools are primarily located in very large metro centers.

The new Metro would be a very good basketball league that plays FBS football. This group of schools could take over the Liberty bowl and allow the champion to face a fairly good SEC team each year. Maybe on those very rare occasion actually play in the BCS plus one.

Less face it Notre Dame has not been able to help Big East football for many years and with Pitt and Syracuse gone to the ACC and Rutgers refusal to play ND at the Meadowlands, how many of these schools will Notre Dame play each year to assist with TV contract. Factor in that Notre Dame was only able to help acquire the Champs Bowl and there is no real value to holding onto the dream of someday having Notre Dame play some form of Big East football.

Then finally the Big East basketball only schools could go back to doing what that do best and supporting a very good basketball only league.

What is the benefit of keeping 18 basketball schools together in the same league any longer?

Navy joining in 2015 also helps add a little punch to a "New Metro Conference", whereas adding Tulsa (or UMass) would help get the league to 12 teams for football and a conference championship game. Alignment would be easy going forward by using Tulsa for example as a simple East/West alignment would fit:

West:
Tulsa
SMU
Houston
Memphis
Louisville
Cincinnati

East:
Rutgers
UConn
Navy
Temple
UCF
USF

That split is also is good for football parity. The only other way I could see the divisions aligned is by having a SE division and a NE division, which you would just swap UCF/USF w/ Louisvlle/Cincy.

That's probably the Big East's 2nd best plan moving forward - to split after Navy joins. The best plan, imo, is that Navy doesn't join, Southern Miss (or ECU) joins instead so that the conference would have 12 basketball schools instead of just 11.

Lash, diabsole; Good angle of discussion per the BE.
Lash, I too thought Northern Illinois would be an interesting consideration for the BE. I expect though, some of those nearby schools would not have favored it even if others perceived value in it.

I like the new metro concept. If Navy was included as fb only, and the conference reached as far as Tulsa as diabsole suggested, then reaching to Air Force, and possibly including Army, would be interesting to see. A split may or may not entice all the service academies.

I am not convinced a BE split would be harmful to the bb-onlies. The argument against splitting for them is that the fb side provides exposure for them (BE name) during the off-season for bb, thus a benefit to them as it relates to recruiting, TV, and certain tangible revenues.
However, with a split, the bb schools could expand on their own with desirable like choices, focus on their unique marketing, keep a brand name, and reduce the instability that comes with a big hybrid, schools very far away with alternative priorities, and continuously trying to counter raids and extract contorversial exit fees with the negative publicity such usually entails.

I am of the opinion the SEC and the ACC should hold at 14 (unless other biggie conferences, i. e. BiG, PAC10 head that way). The ACC, if they did, say, add UCONN and Rutgers, they are in danger of further diminishing what had been a mostly a southern-focused conference. A few of the southern ACC schools may begin to feel less bonded to the ACC. I may be wrong, and it could be the new trend, but 16 becomes more of a governing association rather than a tight conference among mostly traditional and/or fierce rivals. I like everybody playing everybody else within a reasonable cycle. I also like the idea of conferences developing co-op scheduling and challenges as the BiG and PAC10 seek to further develop.

If Rutgers, UCONN, and Louisville need to leave the BE (not sure the others have much appeal for elsewhere among the major conferences), then I hope the B12 and the BiG consider them in their efforts to expand (not beyond 14 each though), and the ACC does nothing to add.

As to Notre Dame, I still view the BiG Ten as the preferred spot for them. If not, the B12. Of course if ND eventually becomes part of 16-member enterprises, then it's a scramble, and at least three major conferences would undergo some notable shifts.

SEC -

I echo most of your sentiments.

The BE has a schizo identity with the 8 NE Catholic schools, and then an association of FB schools (all public, I believe) strewn all over the country.
The TV contract for FB will be split among the FB schools only, the BB contract $ will be split about 18 (or so) ways.
The 2 collections of schools just don't seem to seem to have anything in common.

I'd like to see the football side morph into an all-sports group (maybe throw in Army / Navy for FB) and the BB schools could split at some point, and grab the
Dayton, Xavier, St. L, and Butler groupp from the A-10 (soon to be 16 ?).

If Notre Dame wants to preserve a schedule that includes Purdue, Michigan, and MSU, they necessarily HAVE to join the B1G (or stay independent).
In the ACC, they'd have 3 OOC games and would have no room for 3 B1G schools + USC + Stanford + Navy.
However the "new BCS" shakes out in June, may provide the impetus for Notre Dame to join a "Big 5" conference for all sports (including FB).
The Big Ten seems logical, who would they add as #14 ? (Missouri seems like the perfect fit, but for whatever reason the B1G seems to reject Mizzou).

Wouldn't mind seeing all of the big 5 stop at 14, however I hate the ACC zipper.
This all started when they expanded to 12, and the N-S line cut right throught the Tobacco Road foursome (UNC, NCSt., Wake, Duke).
2 more Northern teams could fix that. Alternatively, losing FSU and gaining one Northern team would allow for 14 with a nice N-S split.
Can't see any ACC teams gong anywhere. They have a very attractive financial deal, and a reasonable path to a Confernece Championship in football
(the competition isn't a brutal gauntlet like the SEC).

Here's the thing. We're rational people who want reasonable, rational answers: geography, similarity, symmetry, congruency. But there's only ONE overriding factor in all this: Money and the pursuit of it.

The Big East Catholic schools are going to stay tied to football. Because they recognize that the money is with the football schools.
The Big East football schools... they're going to soon grow tired of basketball, because the schools with the deepest roots to the Hoops-Only schools are leaving/have left: Boston College, West Virginia, Pitt, Syracuse; UConn and Rutgers (want out).

I believe the A-10 has been proactive because their leadership has been expecting the Big East to split for 30 years now. Internally, schools compare their performance to their peer group. For most schools, that's their conference. Some schools, like Xavier, Dayton, Gonzaga, Memphis, Pacific, etc do NOT compare themselves to their conference. Dayton has always compared themselves to Xavier, Marquette, DePaul, Villanova, Notre Dame, Georgetown, Seton Hall, St. John' and Providence. I assume Xavier has as well. Pacific doesn't bother comparing themselves to the Big West, but to the WCC schools. Memphis surely hasn't compared themselves to Tulane, Rice and Marshall, but Cincinnati and Louisville. I'd fully expect that lots of these schools wind up with their peer groups, although for the Big East basketball-only schools, it won't be by choice.

What remains to be seen is how the New Big East, without Syracuse, Pitt and West Virginia, fares in basketball. Really, the time for them to split was the last BCS contract. But the success of Georgetown, Nova, Marquette and Notre Dame in basketball made it difficult.

Notre Dame to the Big Ten makes financial sense, they might be the lone holdout in this world of pursuing the money because of the pride and the tradition (No AD/President want to be THE GUY who takes Notre Dame into a conference and then have Notre Dame go 5-7 in the Big Ten).

If Notre Dame joins the Big Ten, expect a Northeast corridor school (Rutgers or UConn) to be #14. Maybe UConn and Rutgers and maybe Syracuse or Kansas for 16.


With regard to divisional alignments and zipper formats... geography doesn't earn a dollar for the conference. You configure in the way that brings in the most money. North/South for the ACC doesn't do that. Balanced divisions with the football powers separated DOES bring in the most money, so that will continue.

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942

CSNBBS MB thread discussing possibility that BE will be adding another western FB school "like" FSU.Link at http://www.csnbbs.com//showthread.php?tid=564537

One thing is consistent on this board and we always return back to the Big East thread to discuss issues with conference alignments. The Big East along with Notre Dame take center stage when discussing the problems that occur when bad decisions are made with conference alignment strategies.

JPSchmack, you make some good points and some I do not necessarily agree with.. First of all I agree with Tute79 and absolutely hate the zipper divisions of the ACC. It is hard to follow as a fan and not sure it makes any difference in money if Miami and Florida State were finally in the same division since Miami has never made the championship game and with pending sanctions will probably not make the ACC CCG until the next contract is renewed. Second point if the Big East basketball only schools understand the benefit of the association with the football schools why are they always throwing the money ticket under the bus. Pushing Villanova upgrade agenda and holding up on expanding to 10 or more football teams until Syracuse finally bolted and then opening the flood gates with football expansion was too little too late. If the basketball only schools understand the importance of association with football they sure have a hard way of showing it.

Sec03, you and I are almost always in agreement on most issues with alignment. I agree with stopping at 14 members for ACC and SEC. The current and soon to be replaced intermediate commissioner of the Big 12 should probably get commissioner of the decade for good decisions made in the last few months concerning Big 12. The current Big 12 commissioner has made many reference to expanding to 16 becomes a scheduling alliance and a loosely aligned group of schools without true conference unity. I am in total agreement with this statement. Just look at the 16 member Big East which has more flexibility with basketball schedules and has lost three schools in the last few months.

Speaking of the current Big 12 commissioner, he has turned what was a sinking ship and one that Quinn had a tombstone created, into a top five power conference again. Maybe some of it had to do with Pac 12 holding up at 12. Never the less he has made very sound judgments that has really turned the Big 12 around and deserves a lot of credit for this accomplishment.

The Big 12 has agreed to hold up with 10 members which is a very smart move. The conference will have round robin football and double round robin basketball and just recently was presented a new contract that will keep the conference is revenue range of the Pac 12 and Big Ten schools. All of this with just 10 members which we all know is much better for scheduling and retaining rivalries within a league.

If and when the Big 12 decides to expand to 12 for CCG, I hope they do not follow a zipper format as the ACC and try to split Oklahoma and Texas into separate divisions.

To me it just makes sense for the Big 12 to hold up with 10 and never expand again when you look at the issues the ACC has created with the zipper format and the most recent Pac 12 CCG having a team with a losing record play for the Pac 12 title.

CCG are just not what they are always cut out to be or accomplish.

It is too late for the ACC and SEC or for that matter the Pac 12 to shrink back to 10 or 12 so live with 12 or 14 and hope the scheduling works out OK in the future and does not cause issues among the various clicks of members in each of those respected leagues.

If the Big East does not want to split, less just hope 18 basketball members can work out because 16 did not fare very well.

Maybe 18 will not be a problem for very long because if the Big 12 does expand, there are two schools left in the Big East that could make the Big 12 possibly better than 10. Louisville and Rutgers could make a splash if the Big 12 expanded again for CCG.

If the Big 12 expands, please do not add a zipper alignment and just have North and South divisions again regardless if the south would be stronger in football.

North: WVU, Louisville, Rutgers, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State
South: Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State

Good point lash, that the ACC zipper was partially motivated by the belief that FSU and Miami would dominate ACC football.
Both went into a brief decline, and VT has actually been the most consistently strong program since they went to 12.
So they could try and re-think the divisions:

maybe:
BC, Syracuse, Pitt, Md, Va, Va tech, Miami
UNC, NC State, Wake, Duke, Clemson, Ga Tech, FSU ?


Pretty sure there is a lot of resistance to the CCG in Big XII, since the premier team many years faced a re-match game in the CCG,
or was upset (which meant the Big XII champ has often missed out on the BCS NCG).
Face it: Any suggestions to put OU, OSU, and UT in the same division isn't going to fly....

I think you can still create reasonable groups:
4 Texas school + Louisville + WVU (call it "East")
OU, OSU, KU, KSU, ISU, BYU (call it "West")
the casual fan can latch onto this much more easily than another zipper....

Tute79, those alignment ideas for ACC and proposed Big 12 are somewhat of an improvement over than pure zipper splits.

Based on your idea of splitting the Big 12, I actually believe the Big 12 may decide to not expand in the future based on this issue alone. Louisville and BYU may be in for a long wait if they want Big 12 membership.

What could happen is the NCAA is considering moving completing out of the football business and allow the conferences to control the bowls. This is great either all in NCAA or all the way out for college football.

Less face it the only benefit for these conference divisions in football is to allow for this made for TV extra game per year.

Why is that all the conferences including soon to be SEC have one large division for basketball which has much more scheduling flexibility with basketball yet allow football to be split into divisions just to make up for one extra TV football revenue game. It just does not make logical sense to me other than ability to generate additional revenue. Less not forget the end of season basketball championship game is played without requiring divisions with conferences having less than 12 schools.

What happens if the NCAA finally gets out of the college football business including in my opinion taking the most stupid rule every made by the NCAA requiring 12 teams to allow for a championship game with it in the process.

All conference regardless of membership size could remove divisions and allow more flexible football scheduling among all of its members and could simply take the top two teams in the standings and play the extra game or CCG

This would take care of the past issues with Big 12 regular season champion missing out on playing in the national champions years as the second place team winning the CCG could possible make the plus one format if there were no division champions to mess it up.

The Pac 12 would surely have like this change this past season to avoided the embarrassment of UCLA making the CCG as winner of its division with a losing record.

The SEC would not have the worries about where Missouri is placed and Missouri could play closer teams such as Arkansas, Texas A&M, LSU. Alabama could continue to play Tennessee and Auburn could continue to play Georgia without all the issues of divisional alignment.

Simply put what can’t each conference select the two teams to play for its extra end of season football made for TV championship game any way the conference prefers.

Why do we need two divisions just because the NCAA made that rule and yet does not have any control in most of the other more important decisions that impact college football TV revenue including the BCS.

I don't know why the NCAA insisted on 12; but I think you miss one point.

A key component of this format was that the teams play a round-robin within their division.
The implication is that you wouldn't have some team left out of the CCG, and not having been out-performed on the field by the team that did advance.

When the Big Ten was 10, they were required to play 8 of the other 9 every year.
When the Big Ten was 11, they were required to play 8 of the other 10 every year.
This presented the possibility that the season could end with 2 (orm teams at that top that DID NOT PLAY EACH OTHER !
I always thought this was outrageous. I thought, if that is the situation, then the conference is too big !

With 6 team divisions (and it could have been done 5 team divisions), you can complain that:
a) another team in your division had easier games vs. the other division in a given year, or
b) the CCG in a given year turned out to be an unnecessary re-match.
BUT .... if you win all your conference game you are ASSURED of being the conference champion.

Woo hoo, Fresno! Or it could mean that BSU and AFA have talked SDSU into joining the WAC. Or it could mean the MWC will become an Oly sports conf and fb only members of CUSA meaning that they could keep BSU, SDSU, AFA, and bring back BYU if they want to come back, since MWC would no longer sponsor fb.

_________________

WRANGLERS 153-55-1 CVFL CHAMPS '04 '05 '09 '12

NFL CHAMPS '29 '30 '31 '36 '39 '44 '61 '62 '65 '66 '67 '96 '10

BW/WAC/MWC CHAMPS '77 '82 '85 '88 '89 '91 '92 '93 '99 '12
'08 NCAA BASEBALL CHAMPS

No clue what the future of the WAC is, but if I had to make a choice on the matter, I would avoid it like the plague at this point in time.

Boise St. may have done something really stupid by parking their Oly sports there.

I'm fairly sure that Air Force renegged on BE FB, when they were confronted iwth parking their Oly sport in the WAC.

The Big West (on the other hand) is a viable conference and Hawaii and SDSU cut their travel costs dramatically by joining the Big West.

I'm guessing Boise explored the BW (and were told No), before settling on the WAC. Just speculation on my part.

If another team were contemplating the BW / BE combo (like SDSU), it may be another California (or close by) team (that is acceptable to the BW).

Who fits that description ?

Fresno State
San Jose State (yes, a WAC team, football still struggling a bit, but this might be all about TV markets....)
Nevada (Reno)
UNLV

I wouldn't hazard a guess at this point.

BSU did talk to the BW last time, looks like they got a no. MTN is shutting down so I guess that means the MWC plans on no longer existing. So scratch that third option of mine.

_________________

WRANGLERS 153-55-1 CVFL CHAMPS '04 '05 '09 '12

NFL CHAMPS '29 '30 '31 '36 '39 '44 '61 '62 '65 '66 '67 '96 '10

BW/WAC/MWC CHAMPS '77 '82 '85 '88 '89 '91 '92 '93 '99 '12
'08 NCAA BASEBALL CHAMPS

Miami, Boston College, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, Pitt, and Syracuse have to be counting their blessings for somehow escaping this hybrid mess called the Big East.

The Big East was not going to just be limited with screwing up the east coast and had to jump on the west coast to create the same havoc with these hybrid issues.

Why would Boise State and SDSU agree to football only without total assurance every football only school in the west had good homes for the other sports. It is important that every school in your conference is stable for all sports. One unstable school can create instability for the entire league. The Big East is a poster child for this issue.

Do we need a history lesson here to understand the issues with hybrids.

At least with the first hybrid plan each of the original four football only schools had a fairly good conference to call home with the Atlantic 10.

History proved this was not enough and after taking in most of those football only schools for all sports, the end result was an exodus from the hybrid to all sports conference for most of those founding football members.

How can the Big East continue to get by with making these type of decisions? More importantly to ask why do schools keep failing for this hybrid idea?

Here is a roadmap of what the football schools need to do to fix this issue once a for all.

Milestone 1: Hire a commissioner for a new all sports conference

Milestone 2: select a new city outside of Rhode Island to base the headquarters

Milestone 3: Stay far away from Notre Dame

Milestone 4: Stay away from football only schools such as the service academies – the point to remember is all sports

Milestone 5: Have all schools start playing every sport offered by the conference regardless of travel concerns

New All Sports Conference

UConn
Rutgers
Temple
Cincinnati
Louisville
Memphis
USF
UCF
SMU
Houston
Boise State
SDSU

If the all sports conference does not form then history will obviously repeat itself and we will have another group of schools living on the edge in this hybrid mess waiting to jump to a more secure all sports league.

With the ACC now with 3 of the more reputable schools in the region (Syracuse, Pitt, BC), and even with the lil' A10 now having their tourney in Brooklyn, it would seem the best bet for the Big East is to move their HQ from Providence to New York, the home of their tourney, to ensure a year round presence there.

_________________


@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.