American Athletic Conference Realignment & Expansion Thread

SJSUFan2010 · **Joined:** Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:52 pm **Posts:** 467

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

Of course it was a joke. SJSU>Fresno St., I think only freightdog from the WAC board actually believes that. Maybe not even him. I like you better than the new guy with his "are you serious" way of reasoning. Can't have 6 BCS schools in CA(Might not even be a BCS, with this 4 team playoff talk) BSU will go to the title game then go to the B12, if BSU doesn't, Cincinnati (he always spells it wrong) will go to the B12 because they're close to Louisville, & WVU. So that's the new criteria. Memphis is close to UL and closer to most of the rest of the schools, so they must be a candidate :roll:

. Now if Cincy is awesome for the next few years, sure they have a shot. I don't know why he makes all these references about BSU, Cincy to B12 and AFA saying no to the B12 when we were talking about who the western add would be to the BE.

WAC Future
Idaho
NMSU
Seattle
Denver(I don't know if they'd want all that travel the other way to another conf of nothing special)
Boise St.
Air Force(MVC, said no, WCC? maybe but they already went to 10)
UVU
UTPA
CSUB(seems west enough for them, gives them an AQ for their programs)
Grand Canyon (wants to move up from D-II, this would be their only option)
Technically this is a conference

Gone

UTA(SBC? back to SLC?)
SJSU(MWC)
USU(MWC)
La Tech(CUSA or SBC)
Texas St.(SBC)
UTSA(MWC,CUSA,SBC)

And that's best case. If AFA says no and your Bulldogs get the invite, then non football would probably go to the Big West giving the WAC just 8. Still don't think CSUB would take this, but who knows.

I have said it before, Boise needs to make a deal with the Big West, choose who you want and we'll get you them if you take us too. Smart for both sides because if Boise can't do this Big East thing, it falls apart and the Big West loses SDSU. This is another reason I favor UNLV. The Big West would love their basketball program.

Also worth wondering. If the merger goes through and it's 2 divisions of 10, wouldn't this mean the MWC would need 9/9 (assuming C-USA goes to 11). So with the additions of SJSU and USU, they would be at 9/10. If they lose one they're at 8/9. UTEP slides over giving them 9/10 and the East side would have 10. Does this mean the West half will need a non football member? Denver would be the obvious choice I would think which hurts the WAC again.

Lots of scenarios could play out here. The next move needs to ensure Boise has a non football home.

Fresno St. Alum · **Posted:** Wed Apr 25, 2012 3:12 pm

SJSUFan2010 wrote:

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

Of course it was a joke. SJSU>Fresno St., I think only freightdog from the WAC board actually believes that. Maybe not even him. I like you better than the new guy with his "are you serious" way of reasoning. Can't have 6 BCS schools in CA(Might not even be a BCS, with this 4 team playoff talk) BSU will go to the title game then go to the B12, if BSU doesn't, Cincinnati (he always spells it wrong) will go to the B12 because they're close to Louisville, & WVU. So that's the new criteria. Memphis is close to UL and closer to most of the rest of the schools, so they must be a candidate :roll:

. Now if Cincy is awesome for the next few years, sure they have a shot. I don't know why he makes all these references about BSU, Cincy to B12 and AFA saying no to the B12 when we were talking about who the western add would be to the BE.

WAC Future
Idaho
NMSU
Seattle
Denver(I don't know if they'd want all that travel the other way to another conf of nothing special)
Boise St.
Air Force(MVC, said no, WCC? maybe but they already went to 10)
UVU
UTPA
CSUB(seems west enough for them, gives them an AQ for their programs)
Grand Canyon (wants to move up from D-II, this would be their only option)
Technically this is a conference

Gone

UTA(SBC? back to SLC?)
SJSU(MWC)
USU(MWC)
La Tech(CUSA or SBC)
Texas St.(SBC)
UTSA(MWC,CUSA,SBC)

And that's best case. If AFA says no and your Bulldogs get the invite, then non football would probably go to the Big West giving the WAC just 8. Still don't think CSUB would take this, but who knows.

I have said it before, Boise needs to make a deal with the Big West, choose who you want and we'll get you them if you take us too. Smart for both sides because if Boise can't do this Big East thing, it falls apart and the Big West loses SDSU. This is another reason I favor UNLV. The Big West would love their basketball program.

Also worth wondering. If the merger goes through and it's 2 divisions of 10, wouldn't this mean the MWC would need 9/9 (assuming C-USA goes to 11). So with the additions of SJSU and USU, they would be at 9/10. If they lose one they're at 8/9. UTEP slides over giving them 9/10 and the East side would have 10. Does this mean the West half will need a non football member? Denver would be the obvious choice I would think which hurts the WAC again.

Lots of scenarios could play out here. The next move needs to ensure Boise has a non football home.

We don't need a non fb member. Conf. don't make things nice and neat just to do it. SDSU would be the best and only real good option if we wanted 10/10. Your thinking is off on the BSU to the Big West. First, what does BSU offer the Big West? Nothing. Why does UNLV want to downgrade its best sport? Did the Prez change his mind? They say hey we'll bring UNLV. BW knows the WAC is in trouble and that someone from the west is coming anyway. So then say BW agrees, then BSU says hey UNLV is going to be #14. The other 12 BE say haha, Air Force is, they'll play in the lame WAC w/ you. I think it's much easier for BSU to convince the Big Sky to take their other sports if they throw money at them to chance their rule. They could use a 12th all sports member, they don't need to but could. It all comes down to what product does the BE want to represent it. Most of the world sees the BE as the new best of the rest now, not part of the elite 5. Do you want to weaken the on field further by adding UNLV over AFA? What about BSU being MWC for other sports if they give us some cash and home/home w/ MWC schools in fb every year. That might have more potential than the BW, or BSKy. Depends how butt hurt the MWC is.

I still think the WAC lives for other sports though. For the WAC to disappear you'd have to take 3 off of my list of 10. I don't see AFA telling the BE no. Chicago St., UNO are also options if they have to have them. NJIT will probably be in the AEC or NEC after the A10 CAA thing shakes out.

SJSUFan2010 · **Joined:** Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:52 pm **Posts:** 467

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

SJSUFan2010 wrote:

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

Of course it was a joke. SJSU>Fresno St., I think only freightdog from the WAC board actually believes that. Maybe not even him. I like you better than the new guy with his "are you serious" way of reasoning. Can't have 6 BCS schools in CA(Might not even be a BCS, with this 4 team playoff talk) BSU will go to the title game then go to the B12, if BSU doesn't, Cincinnati (he always spells it wrong) will go to the B12 because they're close to Louisville, & WVU. So that's the new criteria. Memphis is close to UL and closer to most of the rest of the schools, so they must be a candidate :roll:

. Now if Cincy is awesome for the next few years, sure they have a shot. I don't know why he makes all these references about BSU, Cincy to B12 and AFA saying no to the B12 when we were talking about who the western add would be to the BE.

WAC Future
Idaho
NMSU
Seattle
Denver(I don't know if they'd want all that travel the other way to another conf of nothing special)
Boise St.
Air Force(MVC, said no, WCC? maybe but they already went to 10)
UVU
UTPA
CSUB(seems west enough for them, gives them an AQ for their programs)
Grand Canyon (wants to move up from D-II, this would be their only option)
Technically this is a conference

Gone

UTA(SBC? back to SLC?)
SJSU(MWC)
USU(MWC)
La Tech(CUSA or SBC)
Texas St.(SBC)
UTSA(MWC,CUSA,SBC)

And that's best case. If AFA says no and your Bulldogs get the invite, then non football would probably go to the Big West giving the WAC just 8. Still don't think CSUB would take this, but who knows.

I have said it before, Boise needs to make a deal with the Big West, choose who you want and we'll get you them if you take us too. Smart for both sides because if Boise can't do this Big East thing, it falls apart and the Big West loses SDSU. This is another reason I favor UNLV. The Big West would love their basketball program.

Also worth wondering. If the merger goes through and it's 2 divisions of 10, wouldn't this mean the MWC would need 9/9 (assuming C-USA goes to 11). So with the additions of SJSU and USU, they would be at 9/10. If they lose one they're at 8/9. UTEP slides over giving them 9/10 and the East side would have 10. Does this mean the West half will need a non football member? Denver would be the obvious choice I would think which hurts the WAC again.

Lots of scenarios could play out here. The next move needs to ensure Boise has a non football home.

We don't need a non fb member. Conf. don't make things nice and neat just to do it. SDSU would be the best and only real good option if we wanted 10/10. Your thinking is off on the BSU to the Big West. First, what does BSU offer the Big West? Nothing. Why does UNLV want to downgrade its best sport? Did the Prez change his mind? They say hey we'll bring UNLV. BW knows the WAC is in trouble and that someone from the west is coming anyway. So then say BW agrees, then BSU says hey UNLV is going to be #14. The other 12 BE say haha, Air Force is, they'll play in the lame WAC w/ you. I think it's much easier for BSU to convince the Big Sky to take their other sports if they throw money at them to chance their rule. They could use a 12th all sports member, they don't need to but could. It all comes down to what product does the BE want to represent it. Most of the world sees the BE as the new best of the rest now, not part of the elite 5. Do you want to weaken the on field further by adding UNLV over AFA? What about BSU being MWC for other sports if they give us some cash and home/home w/ MWC schools in fb every year. That might have more potential than the BW, or BSKy. Depends how butt hurt the MWC is.

I still think the WAC lives for other sports though. For the WAC to disappear you'd have to take 3 off of my list of 10. I don't see AFA telling the BE no. Chicago St., UNO are also options if they have to have them. NJIT will probably be in the AEC or NEC after the A10 CAA thing shakes out.

Well if they plan to operate the merged conference has two divisions then I would assume they would need to be 10 each. That being said, none of us really know what they are planning. It could just be one big division of 19, I don't really know. But you're right, there doesn't have to be the same number of teams in each division.

I highly doubt the MWC is going to help Boise out if the WAC falls apart. And you're right, Boise doesn't offer a whole lot to the Big West except that they could bring in another school. Obviously that scenario only plays out if AFA says no again which I doubt will happen.

I don't know that a Big West with UNLV and SDSU would really be that much of a downgrade. They both would dominate and those two probably get in the tournament with 20 plus win seasons every year. Any year where they don't win 20+ games is a year they wouldn't have done well in the MWC anyway. On top of that it saves on travel and if the money from the Big East was substantial, it would be worth considering.

You do make a good point though. If AFA says no then the Big East is probably looking at FSU or UNLV anyway in which case the Big West owes no favors to Boise. But there is always a chance they'd turn elsewhere first.

Fresno St. Alum · **Posted:** Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:00 pm

SJSUFan2010 wrote:

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

SJSUFan2010 wrote:

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

Of course it was a joke. SJSU>Fresno St., I think only freightdog from the WAC board actually believes that. Maybe not even him. I like you better than the new guy with his "are you serious" way of reasoning. Can't have 6 BCS schools in CA(Might not even be a BCS, with this 4 team playoff talk) BSU will go to the title game then go to the B12, if BSU doesn't, Cincinnati (he always spells it wrong) will go to the B12 because they're close to Louisville, & WVU. So that's the new criteria. Memphis is close to UL and closer to most of the rest of the schools, so they must be a candidate :roll:

. Now if Cincy is awesome for the next few years, sure they have a shot. I don't know why he makes all these references about BSU, Cincy to B12 and AFA saying no to the B12 when we were talking about who the western add would be to the BE.

WAC Future
Idaho
NMSU
Seattle
Denver(I don't know if they'd want all that travel the other way to another conf of nothing special)
Boise St.
Air Force(MVC, said no, WCC? maybe but they already went to 10)
UVU
UTPA
CSUB(seems west enough for them, gives them an AQ for their programs)
Grand Canyon (wants to move up from D-II, this would be their only option)
Technically this is a conference

Gone

UTA(SBC? back to SLC?)
SJSU(MWC)
USU(MWC)
La Tech(CUSA or SBC)
Texas St.(SBC)
UTSA(MWC,CUSA,SBC)

And that's best case. If AFA says no and your Bulldogs get the invite, then non football would probably go to the Big West giving the WAC just 8. Still don't think CSUB would take this, but who knows.

I have said it before, Boise needs to make a deal with the Big West, choose who you want and we'll get you them if you take us too. Smart for both sides because if Boise can't do this Big East thing, it falls apart and the Big West loses SDSU. This is another reason I favor UNLV. The Big West would love their basketball program.

Also worth wondering. If the merger goes through and it's 2 divisions of 10, wouldn't this mean the MWC would need 9/9 (assuming C-USA goes to 11). So with the additions of SJSU and USU, they would be at 9/10. If they lose one they're at 8/9. UTEP slides over giving them 9/10 and the East side would have 10. Does this mean the West half will need a non football member? Denver would be the obvious choice I would think which hurts the WAC again.

Lots of scenarios could play out here. The next move needs to ensure Boise has a non football home.

We don't need a non fb member. Conf. don't make things nice and neat just to do it. SDSU would be the best and only real good option if we wanted 10/10. Your thinking is off on the BSU to the Big West. First, what does BSU offer the Big West? Nothing. Why does UNLV want to downgrade its best sport? Did the Prez change his mind? They say hey we'll bring UNLV. BW knows the WAC is in trouble and that someone from the west is coming anyway. So then say BW agrees, then BSU says hey UNLV is going to be #14. The other 12 BE say haha, Air Force is, they'll play in the lame WAC w/ you. I think it's much easier for BSU to convince the Big Sky to take their other sports if they throw money at them to chance their rule. They could use a 12th all sports member, they don't need to but could. It all comes down to what product does the BE want to represent it. Most of the world sees the BE as the new best of the rest now, not part of the elite 5. Do you want to weaken the on field further by adding UNLV over AFA? What about BSU being MWC for other sports if they give us some cash and home/home w/ MWC schools in fb every year. That might have more potential than the BW, or BSKy. Depends how butt hurt the MWC is.

I still think the WAC lives for other sports though. For the WAC to disappear you'd have to take 3 off of my list of 10. I don't see AFA telling the BE no. Chicago St., UNO are also options if they have to have them. NJIT will probably be in the AEC or NEC after the A10 CAA thing shakes out.

Well if they plan to operate the merged conference has two divisions then I would assume they would need to be 10 each. That being said, none of us really know what they are planning. It could just be one big division of 19, I don't really know. But you're right, there doesn't have to be the same number of teams in each division.

I highly doubt the MWC is going to help Boise out if the WAC falls apart. And you're right, Boise doesn't offer a whole lot to the Big West except that they could bring in another school. Obviously that scenario only plays out if AFA says no again which I doubt will happen.

I don't know that a Big West with UNLV and SDSU would really be that much of a downgrade. They both would dominate and those two probably get in the tournament with 20 plus win seasons every year. Any year where they don't win 20+ games is a year they wouldn't have done well in the MWC anyway. On top of that it saves on travel and if the money from the Big East was substantial, it would be worth considering.

You do make a good point though. If AFA says no then the Big East is probably looking at FSU or UNLV anyway in which case the Big West owes no favors to Boise. But there is always a chance they'd turn elsewhere first.

BW is on record as saying they'd open their doors for Fresno, SJSU, UNLV, did they say Nevada too? No BSU though. Anything could happen, I guess. SDSU was a 2 seed in 2010. In the BW even w/ UNLV and a record like 2010. I see them as 4-5 seed at best unless they schedule a bunch of hard teams on the road and neutral courts. BW w/ those 2 still not better than the WCC. MWC was taking 3 or 4 every year. WCC gets what a 4 or 5 seed at best when Gonzaga dominates. LBSU is the top bball school right now in the BW. They woulda been bottom half of the MWC. Look at the BYU drop off. 3rd in the WCC gave them a 14 seed, 3rd in the MWC got a 6 seed. Plus we are assuming they'll be able to recruit the same. I'm thinking that will fall off some.

2012 RPI
MWC 5
WCC 11
BW 25

Lets say they move up 10 spots to 15 w/ those 2 adds. That puts them at Ivy,CAA, status. they pull 8-13 type seeding.

BW RPI
LBSU 37
UCSB 126(next best)
UCD 336(bottom)
MWC RPI
UNLV 25
UNM 27(next best)
CSU 29
SDSU 31
BSU 181(bottom)

lash · **Posted:** Thu Apr 26, 2012 10:11 am

If you did not know you were on the Big East thread, you would think it was for the MWC or Big West, or something west.

Once Miami, Va Tech, and Boston College left for the ACC, it was a major blow to the Big East.

The one thing the Big East continue to have in its favor after the first ACC raid was a majority of original Big East football schools continue to play football. Only three Conf USA schools needed to be brought in and all three were in for all sports. Syracuse, Rutgers, WVU, and Pitt had played each other for many years and long before the Big East formed as a league. All three of the new replacement schools were basically in the original Big East footprint with USF replacing Miami. If you consider Florida to be in the footprint of the old Big East.

Even though it was a scary situation for the Big East, the league had a few more years of AQ BCS status shelve life to keep everyone united in the rebuilt 8 member football league.

No one gave the Big East good odds of surviving in the first situation, and today’s Big East has far more obstacles to overcome.

As a fan, I don’t know if it important to be concerned any longer? Other than in name only there is no longer a Big East football league. At least a Big East that anyone can recognize.

Would it not have been a better move for the Big East to replace WVU, Syracuse, and Pitt with UCF, Temple, and Memphis and hope for the same results as the first rebuilt project.

At the very minimum you would recognize and eight team league consisting of Rutgers, UConn, Cincinnati, Louisville, USF, UCF, Temple, Memphis as an actual conference.

I find it difficult to recognize or understand the new hybrid Big East let alone defend it ability to survive this time around.

tute79 · **Joined:** Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm **Posts:** 1490

Yeah the overall BE expansion to date has been utterly silly.

They did add you Temple, UCF, and Memphis. I can handle Houston and SMU as well, although they are not very east, and seem to lack any meaningful relationship
with the Catholic BB schools. That is why a think a split may eventually happen... no evidnce of such, just the whole arrangement looks bizarre.

Boise State and SDSU definiely belong out west, and NOT in the big east. Hopefully the BCS killing off automatic qualifiers will give them reason to bail out and return.

The Navy / Air Force deal is also awkward. Assume they are in oposite divisions, it requires the FB conference to have an annual "rivalry" cross-over game.
If you had Navy & ARMY for FB only, it makes a lot more snese. Both could be in the East divsion of FB conference, Patriot for all other sports.
Because they would both be in the same division, they would naturally play each other every year.

The whole mess is not very well thought out. I can only conclude Marinatto is a moron for creating such a monstrosity.
The Big East going forward will have no real identity, just giggles and snickering at how desperate it appears.

How to salvage the situation -
1) 8 Catholics schools and Notre Dame leave the BE
2) Boise State and SDSU head back to MWC.
3) Assuming loss of Louisville, have an all-sports conference of 10 (plus Army & Navy for FB only)

NORTH
UMass (FBS on the way, Invite them for all sports when Louisville departs)
UConn
Rutgers
Temple
Army * (FB only, starting in 2015)
Navy * (Invite them for FB only starting in 2015)

SOUTH
Cincinnati
Memphis
UCF
USF
Houston
SMU

Not a power-house conference by any means, and they likely never will be.
But at least it's coherrent !

The Bishin Cutter · **Joined:** Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am **Posts:** 537

lash, to be honest, even if the Louisville and Cincinnati acquisitions were acceptable replacements for any two of the BC/Miami/VT defections, the writing was already on the wall that Syracuse was also to be an ACC member AND Pittsburgh didn't exactly exhibit themselves as a long-term commitment, either. Even worse is allowing Notre Dame to have the kind of say on all operations, including football contracts, without being a member of the football conference. That is untenable.

The Big East's well's always been poisoned. But, along the way, the conference found quality multi-sports programs that added value to both football and basketball to keep it afloat. The catch? More politics and poison. Louisville and Cincy resisted and blocked Memphis and ECU until it couldn't for Memphis. UConn blocks UMass. Cincy and ND blocks MAC programs like NIU and UMOH. WVU blocks Marshall. Nova and Pitt block Temple. Rutgers, Pitt, and WVU block Nova football, but programs like Notre Dame and Georgetown say "not so fast."

There is something, a lot of things, wrong with all of that, and it's amazing it's lasted as long as it has.

I think it's going to die. The best things going for it are gone or soon to be gone, so what's the point? They just need to rebuild the old Metro League for basketball and have it sponsor football. It allows for some CUSA absorption, while spurning others.

Fresno St. Alum · **Posted:** Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:33 pm

lash wrote:

If you did not know you were on the Big East thread, you would think it was for the MWC or Big West, or something west.

Once Miami, Va Tech, and Boston College left for the ACC, it was a major blow to the Big East.

The one thing the Big East continue to have in its favor after the first ACC raid was a majority of original Big East football schools continue to play football. Only three Conf USA schools needed to be brought in and all three were in for all sports. Syracuse, Rutgers, WVU, and Pitt had played each other for many years and long before the Big East formed as a league. All three of the new replacement schools were basically in the original Big East footprint with USF replacing Miami. If you consider Florida to be in the footprint of the old Big East.

Even though it was a scary situation for the Big East, the league had a few more years of AQ BCS status shelve life to keep everyone united in the rebuilt 8 member football league.

No one gave the Big East good odds of surviving in the first situation, and today’s Big East has far more obstacles to overcome.

As a fan, I don’t know if it important to be concerned any longer? Other than in name only there is no longer a Big East football league. At least a Big East that anyone can recognize.

Would it not have been a better move for the Big East to replace WVU, Syracuse, and Pitt with UCF, Temple, and Memphis and hope for the same results as the first rebuilt project.

At the very minimum you would recognize and eight team league consisting of Rutgers, UConn, Cincinnati, Louisville, USF, UCF, Temple, Memphis as an actual conference.

I find it difficult to recognize or understand the new hybrid Big East let alone defend it ability to survive this time around.

Remember when you came up w/ a MWC/BE fb hybrid conf.? You were the closest to being right about that. I liked yours better where it was 6/6 or 8/8. It's more like 9/4 right now.

lash · **Posted:** Thu Apr 26, 2012 6:12 pm

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

lash wrote:

If you did not know you were on the Big East thread, you would think it was for the MWC or Big West, or something west.

Once Miami, Va Tech, and Boston College left for the ACC, it was a major blow to the Big East.

The one thing the Big East continue to have in its favor after the first ACC raid was a majority of original Big East football schools continue to play football. Only three Conf USA schools needed to be brought in and all three were in for all sports. Syracuse, Rutgers, WVU, and Pitt had played each other for many years and long before the Big East formed as a league. All three of the new replacement schools were basically in the original Big East footprint with USF replacing Miami. If you consider Florida to be in the footprint of the old Big East.

Even though it was a scary situation for the Big East, the league had a few more years of AQ BCS status shelve life to keep everyone united in the rebuilt 8 member football league.

No one gave the Big East good odds of surviving in the first situation, and today’s Big East has far more obstacles to overcome.

As a fan, I don’t know if it important to be concerned any longer? Other than in name only there is no longer a Big East football league. At least a Big East that anyone can recognize.

Would it not have been a better move for the Big East to replace WVU, Syracuse, and Pitt with UCF, Temple, and Memphis and hope for the same results as the first rebuilt project.

At the very minimum you would recognize and eight team league consisting of Rutgers, UConn, Cincinnati, Louisville, USF, UCF, Temple, Memphis as an actual conference.

I find it difficult to recognize or understand the new hybrid Big East let alone defend it ability to survive this time around.

Remember when you came up w/ a MWC/BE fb hybrid conf.? You were the closest to being right about that. I liked yours better where it was 6/6 or 8/8. It's more like 9/4 right now.

Fresno St Alum,
My idea of taking the 6 best teams from the east (Big East) and six best teams from west (MWC or WAC) was for an all sports league. Emphases here were solely on an all sports league.

Unfortunately the schools that would have made up this all sports league are now scattered into other all sports leagues.

East: Syracuse, Pitt, WVU, Rutgers, UConn, Louisville
West: Utah, BYU, New Mexico, UNLV, SDSU, pick one(AF, Colorado State, Boise State, Fresno State)

This league would have been good in both football and basketball. It would have only required one cross county trip in football every year and two cross country trips every other year. Basketball worked great as well as only three cross country games were required each year. Other varsity sports such as Soccer could have exclusively played most games within the divisions avoiding cross country travel.

The reason this idea could never get off the ground is the very reason the Big East continues to spiral out of control.

The Big East Leadership is and always will be committed to protecting a hybrid which includes basketball only schools and Notre Dame.

The history or problems that occur with hybrid is the constant need to make changes in membership.

Ask the question why have all the changes in the Big East membership over the years occurred with schools that play football in the league?

Of course there are other reasons that teams bolt for other leagues such as Texas A&M and Nebraska ego trip with the University of Texas.

All sports leagues can quickly stabilize such as the Big 12, while the Big East continue to spiral down a path to destruction with instability.

The Big East is grounded in the hybrid concept which has proven over and over does not work. Big East hybrid was built to protect schools that do not play football including Notre Dame.

For all the teams in the west scrabbling to join the Big East for benefits of football , the hybrid is alive and waiting for your obvious disappointment with this format.

JPSchmack · **Joined:** Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:21 pm **Posts:** 851

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

Look at the BYU drop off. 3rd in the WCC gave them a 14 seed, 3rd in the MWC got a 6 seed. Plus we are assuming they'll be able to recruit the same. I'm thinking that will fall off some.

2012 RPI
MWC 5
WCC 11
BW 25

Lets say they move up 10 spots to 15 w/ those 2 adds. That puts them at Ivy,CAA, status. they pull 8-13 type seeding.

BW RPI
LBSU 37
UCSB 126(next best)
UCD 336(bottom)
MWC RPI
UNLV 25
UNM 27(next best)
CSU 29
SDSU 31
BSU 181(bottom)

It's not quite that simple, though...

BYU didn't get a 14 because that's all the WCC can earn. They got a 14 because of bracket/Sunday rules.

They couldn't be placed in the Midwest or South because they don't play on Sundays. Their only available seed slots were:
11-12-13-14 in the West or East.

The First Four games are in Dayton, Ohio. Due to the quick turnaround, they want to keep the winners as close to Dayton as possible so travel isn't crazy.
The 12 and 13 seed in the West were in Portland, Oregon.
The 11, 12 and 13 seeds in the East were in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

That leaves: 11 or 14 seed in the West (Louisville), or 14 seed East (Louisville)

Giving them the 11 when they're #48 on the S-Curve and Iona is #50 bumps down better teams to worse seeds (like #41 Colorado State). So they said "you're the last team in, you get hosed."

#48 Overall on the S-Curve means they EARNED a 12 seed, not a 14. And that's not all because of the WCC being worse than the MWC.

UNLV finished third in the MWC. They also beat UNC, Cal, Nevada and Illinois in non-conference.
UNLV was 5-6 vs the Top 50 of the RPI.
BYU was 1-6 vs the Top 50. OOC, they beat Oregon, Nevada, Weber St and Buffalo for Top 100 wins.

As far as conference RPI stuff… I actually ran numbers on 2011-12 with future changes (OOC Win Pct is basically the same as Conference RPI, because a conference will go .500 against itself)

here's 2011-12 Men's Basketball non-conference win percentages if the changes were made for this past season
(OOC games vs future conference opponents dropped).

Rk. Conf (Rank Change) Win Pct Change
1. B10 (NC)
2. SEC (+3) +.0172
3. B12 (-1) -.0406
4. ACC (+2) +.0308
5. BGE (-2) -.0469
6. MCS (**) ****** (NOTE A)
7. A10 (NC) -.0144 (NOTE B)
8. MVC (NC)
9. P12 (+1)
10.WCC (+1) -.0268 (NOTE C)
11.WAC (+1) -.0224
12.IVY (+1)
13.CAA (+2)
14.HOR (+2) -.0024 (NOTE B)
15.PAT (+2)
16.MAC (+2)
17.SUM (-3) -.0310
18.MAAC(+1)
19.BWC (+4) +.0826 (NOTE C)
20.OVC (NC) +.0147
21.SNB (NC) -.0364
22.ASN (+1) -.0238
23.NEC (+1)
24.IND (+1) -.0071
25.BSK (+2)
26.SLN (NC) -.0123
27.SCN (+1)
28.BSO (+1)
29.AME (+1)
30.GWC (+1) -.0030
31.MEAC (+1)
32.SWAC (+1)

NOTE A: MWC/CUSA merger
NOTE B: Assuming Butler replaces Temple
NOTE C: Assuming Pacific joins WCC (I did this before the UOP announcement).

And of course, CONFERENCES do not earn bids, TEAMS DO. Conference OOC win pct is a massive factor in RPI (by far the biggest), but that doesn't mean "Oh, you can never earn a XX seed because of your conference." The RPI is math. It can be manipulated through scheduling policies (and IS manipulated through scheduling policies).

If you get an entire conference working together for a common goal, with a good understanding of how RPI works, they can do pretty amazing things (I've actually been part of a group doing it).

Fresno St. Alum · **Posted:** Fri Apr 27, 2012 12:30 am

JPSchmack wrote:

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

Look at the BYU drop off. 3rd in the WCC gave them a 14 seed, 3rd in the MWC got a 6 seed. Plus we are assuming they'll be able to recruit the same. I'm thinking that will fall off some.

2012 RPI
MWC 5
WCC 11
BW 25

Lets say they move up 10 spots to 15 w/ those 2 adds. That puts them at Ivy,CAA, status. they pull 8-13 type seeding.

BW RPI
LBSU 37
UCSB 126(next best)
UCD 336(bottom)
MWC RPI
UNLV 25
UNM 27(next best)
CSU 29
SDSU 31
BSU 181(bottom)

It's not quite that simple, though...

BYU didn't get a 14 because that's all the WCC can earn. They got a 14 because of bracket/Sunday rules.

They couldn't be placed in the Midwest or South because they don't play on Sundays. Their only available seed slots were:
11-12-13-14 in the West or East.

The First Four games are in Dayton, Ohio. Due to the quick turnaround, they want to keep the winners as close to Dayton as possible so travel isn't crazy.
The 12 and 13 seed in the West were in Portland, Oregon.
The 11, 12 and 13 seeds in the East were in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

That leaves: 11 or 14 seed in the West (Louisville), or 14 seed East (Louisville)

Giving them the 11 when they're #48 on the S-Curve and Iona is #50 bumps down better teams to worse seeds (like #41 Colorado State). So they said "you're the last team in, you get hosed."

#48 Overall on the S-Curve means they EARNED a 12 seed, not a 14. And that's not all because of the WCC being worse than the MWC.

UNLV finished third in the MWC. They also beat UNC, Cal, Nevada and Illinois in non-conference.
UNLV was 5-6 vs the Top 50 of the RPI.
BYU was 1-6 vs the Top 50. OOC, they beat Oregon, Nevada, Weber St and Buffalo for Top 100 wins.

As far as conference RPI stuff… I actually ran numbers on 2011-12 with future changes (OOC Win Pct is basically the same as Conference RPI, because a conference will go .500 against itself)

here's 2011-12 Men's Basketball non-conference win percentages if the changes were made for this past season
(OOC games vs future conference opponents dropped).

Rk. Conf (Rank Change) Win Pct Change
1. B10 (NC)
2. SEC (+3) +.0172
3. B12 (-1) -.0406
4. ACC (+2) +.0308
5. BGE (-2) -.0469
6. MCS (**) ****** (NOTE A)
7. A10 (NC) -.0144 (NOTE B)
8. MVC (NC)
9. P12 (+1)
10.WCC (+1) -.0268 (NOTE C)
11.WAC (+1) -.0224
12.IVY (+1)
13.CAA (+2)
14.HOR (+2) -.0024 (NOTE B)
15.PAT (+2)
16.MAC (+2)
17.SUM (-3) -.0310
18.MAAC(+1)
19.BWC (+4) +.0826 (NOTE C)
20.OVC (NC) +.0147
21.SNB (NC) -.0364
22.ASN (+1) -.0238
23.NEC (+1)
24.IND (+1) -.0071
25.BSK (+2)
26.SLN (NC) -.0123
27.SCN (+1)
28.BSO (+1)
29.AME (+1)
30.GWC (+1) -.0030
31.MEAC (+1)
32.SWAC (+1)

NOTE A: MWC/CUSA merger
NOTE B: Assuming Butler replaces Temple
NOTE C: Assuming Pacific joins WCC (I did this before the UOP announcement).

And of course, CONFERENCES do not earn bids, TEAMS DO. Conference OOC win pct is a massive factor in RPI (by far the biggest), but that doesn't mean "Oh, you can never earn a XX seed because of your conference." The RPI is math. It can be manipulated through scheduling policies (and IS manipulated through scheduling policies).

If you get an entire conference working together for a common goal, with a good understanding of how RPI works, they can do pretty amazing things (I've actually been part of a group doing it).

The problem is they play 18 games vs the BW. Just like we knew there was no way Murray St. was going to get a 1 or 2 seed. Gone are the days where BW had Tark's Pro UNLV team where NMSU, UCSB and USU were also solid schools.

The Bishin Cutter · **Joined:** Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am **Posts:** 537

The hybrid model isn't the problem. It's the governance within that is. Yes, football program-members present issues, but to slam the model is in poor taste of the conferences that operate more smoothly rather than catastrophic. The problem within the Big East, as I already said: Notre Dame's input on Big East football contracts, and the well-known "entitlement" of the original members. What right does Seton Hall have to tell USF or Louisville to subsidize Villanova's football? Seriously, who does that?!

tute79 · **Joined:** Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm **Posts:** 1490

We had some strong statements about what the new BCS wil entail.

Probably a 4-team playoff, the "plus 1" is fading away.
So likely there will be 2 seeded semi-finals and a NCG. Debate still over siting of games and revenue distribution.

As pertains to the Big East - Autobids to the 4-team playoff are GONE.

Therefore, the Big East, as a conference, no longer possesses this oh so valuable commodity.

One argument against a split of the conference has been the fear by the football side that the BB schools could hold them hostage,
by claiming to be rightful owners of the Big East AQ. That obstacle has seemingly been removed.
However, in it's place are increased exit fees. Will this now force the BE FB schools to maintain their alliance with the Catholic schools ?

sec03 · **Joined:** Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm **Posts:** 1231

tute79,
Outside the proposed, 4-team playoff, there will still be other major bowls. Perhaps the "semis' " shall absorb two of the bowls.
The question is, would the BE rep./champion be appealing to the Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, etc. given that guaranteed conference champs for all of the current BCS shall be out?
I can certainly see whereby the SEC or B1G's #2 and #3 schools or the Big12, ACC, and PAC12, second-plus representatives would generate greater bowl desire than the top BE entry. Bowls want sell-out crowds, huge TV audiences, and big names that fill hotels.
The Orange Bowl may cringe at the idea of SDSU vs Wake Forest if locked into such.

Quinn · **Joined:** Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am **Posts:** 3752

sec03 wrote:

tute79,
Outside the proposed, 4-team playoff, there will still be other major bowls. Perhaps the "semis' " shall absorb two of the bowls.
The question is, would the BE rep./champion be appealing to the Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, etc. given that guaranteed conference champs for all of the current BCS shall be out?
I can certainly see whereby the SEC or B1G's #2 and #3 schools or the Big12, ACC, and PAC12, second-plus representatives would generate greater bowl desire than the top BE entry. Bowls want sell-out crowds, huge TV audiences, and big names that fill hotels.
The Orange Bowl may cringe at the idea of SDSU vs Wake Forest if locked into such.

The reason the +1 has so much support is because it enables the Bowls to remain as is. Correction, as WAS, before the BCS ruined it.

For instance, you'll have the SEC align with the Sugar Bowl, Rose Bowl still P12 vs B10, Orange for the ACC, likely Cotton for Big 12.

When a P12 or B10 school makes the Championship 4, the #2 from the conference slides in.

Other conferences like the Big East, MWC and CUSA get their own tie ins. Not sure what bowl is best for CUSA with all the changes they've had. For MWC, same issue. For Big East, there's the Gator, Outback, Champs, etc that fit into the region.

Now, if they rotate the Sugar, Orange and Fiesta for semifinals, it just means having to swap out conference tie ins. In a Fiesta/Sugar year, I'm sure the Orange would pass on Acc for Sec if one were available (likely not since sec will be in top 4).

---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?wpmhj2

American Athletic Conference Realignment & Expansion Thread

Who is online