Salt Lake Tribue Reports BYU to Join the Big East
-
Con_Alma
If this happens I can promise you Navy & Air Force.will not be in the Big East. The only reason they are even entertaining the idea is the need for revenue to fund other sports. Right now Navy has a TV contract and games scheduled out for a decade or more with no need to even be in a conference. This mege conference craze could squeeze their ability to schedule and generate revenue.enigmaax;975405 wrote:... The best hope for this conference is that the BCS does away with AQ status altogether (which is apparently being discussed)...
Navy doesn't care about AQ status obviously. It's about money to fund programs which the school does not do. It all comes from the athletic Association. -
SportsAndLady
Although I do think this "new" BE conference could end up doing pretty well.
I mean Boise is a top 10 team every year..Houston and SMU could do well when they can tell recruits they have an AQ into a BCS game. BYU, too.
Conference strength is completely cyclical, I wouldn't be shocked in 5 years this 12 member BE conference is a top conference. Sky is the limit for Houston, BYU, and SMU. BYU and Boise are usually nationally competitive.
Sky's not falling for the conference quite yet -
Little Danny
Yeah, Yeah... we get it.... the Big East sucks. Real conferences like the ACC (2-10 in BCS Bowl Games) and the Pac12 (Colorado, Utah, Arizona, UCLA, Oregon State, Washington State... boy that conference is loaded!) should get all the good bowl games while the Big East champ should go to the Humanitarian Bowl and play Louisiana Tech.enigmaax;975405 wrote:Yeah, it really doesn't bode well for your conference if you are letting Navy hold all the cards. The best hope for this conference is that the BCS does away with AQ status altogether (which is apparently being discussed) because there is no way this conference deserves it when the new contract comes up. -
enigmaax
It is not completely cyclical. If C-USA has ever been on top, I've missed it. And the Big East is essentially the C-USA with a stolen name. I could be wrong, but I just don't see how perception is suddenly going to change just because you change the name of the league. Boise takes a back seat now and beating SMU and Houston isn't going to do any more for them than beating Fresno State and Hawaii.SportsAndLady;975418 wrote:Although I do think this "new" BE conference could end up doing pretty well.
I mean Boise is a top 10 team every year..Houston and SMU could do well when they can tell recruits they have an AQ into a BCS game. BYU, too.
Conference strength is completely cyclical, I wouldn't be shocked in 5 years this 12 member BE conference is a top conference. Sky is the limit for Houston, BYU, and SMU. BYU and Boise are usually nationally competitive.
Sky's not falling for the conference quite yet -
enigmaax
I think AQ status is retarded. I believe in taking the top teams regardless of conference affiliation. But, it doesn't work that way. And adding 8 teams who have never been regarded as BCS worthy on their own to one team that has ever made a BCS bowl just doesn't improve your outlook. Sorry you take that personally, it is just a fact.Little Danny;975426 wrote:Yeah, Yeah... we get it.... the Big East sucks. Real conferences like the ACC (2-10 in BCS Bowl Games) and the Pac12 (Colorado, Utah, Arizona, UCLA, Oregon State, Washington State... boy that conference is loaded!) should get all the good bowl games while the Big East champ should go to the Humanitarian Bowl and play Louisiana Tech. -
ts1227
enigmaax;975462 wrote:I think AQ status is retarded. I believe in taking the top teams regardless of conference affiliation. But, it doesn't work that way. And adding 8 teams who have never been regarded as BCS worthy on their own to one team that has ever made a BCS bowl just doesn't improve your outlook. Sorry you take that personally, it is just a fact.
It'll never pass, but on one of the ESPN radio shows last week, Emmert said the idea of removing AQs may be considered for the next BCS negotiations. The reason it will be brought up is to stop realignment, but the BCS conferences will NEVER let it happen -
SportsAndLady
BCS conferences only...obviously I realize the MAC was never on top of the world hahaenigmaax;975458 wrote:It is not completely cyclical. If C-USA has ever been on top, I've missed it. And the Big East is essentially the C-USA with a stolen name. I could be wrong, but I just don't see how perception is suddenly going to change just because you change the name of the league. Boise takes a back seat now and beating SMU and Houston isn't going to do any more for them than beating Fresno State and Hawaii. -
jordo212000
I'm with enigmaax on AQ status. I have always hated quotas. If you are among the best, then you should get a big BCS bowl invite.
With all that being said, getting rid of AQ status will probably not be happening any time soon. Those conferences all had old affiliations with the big money bowls. Now that those bowls are part of the BCS, you can be sure that they are not going to risk surrendering those bowls (err I mean revenue and exposure). After all, AQ schools are the ones writing the rules. Why would they get rid of it? It benefits them.
Sad, but it is the world we live in. The NCAA let the inmates run the asylum for too long in college football. Now it's too late and the NCAA is just a casual onlooker. -
jordo212000
I'm somewhere between your opinion and enigmaax's. He has this soapbox he likes to stand on where he trashes the Big East and schools like TCU and Boise State. He likes to talk about the strength of their competition. While he does this, he forgets that the Big 10, Pac-12, and ACC are all pretty brutal as well. Those conferences certainly have some major lightweights and have their fair share of bad football.Little Danny;975426 wrote:Yeah, Yeah... we get it.... the Big East sucks. Real conferences like the ACC (2-10 in BCS Bowl Games) and the Pac12 (Colorado, Utah, Arizona, UCLA, Oregon State, Washington State... boy that conference is loaded!) should get all the good bowl games while the Big East champ should go to the Humanitarian Bowl and play Louisiana Tech.
However, you rarely hear him talk about how weak the Big 10 "gauntlet" actually is. -
enigmaax
Fine, the Bee One Gee sucks too. Really this should be about crowning the SEC champ and everything else is a formality.jordo212000;975832 wrote:I'm somewhere between your opinion and enigmaax's. He has this soapbox he likes to stand on where he trashes the Big East and schools like TCU and Boise State. He likes to talk about the strength of their competition. While he does this, he forgets that the Big 10, Pac-12, and ACC are all pretty brutal as well. Those conferences certainly have some major lightweights and have their fair share of bad football.
However, you rarely hear him talk about how weak the Big 10 "gauntlet" actually is.
P.S. - Don't forget that I railed against Utah also. How is reality working for them? -
jordo212000
enigmaax;976050 wrote: P.S. - Don't forget that I railed against Utah also. How is reality working for them?
Thats an awful small sample you are looking at. Down years and bad seasons happen. Look at traditional powers like Texas, Ohio State, and Florida. If they still suck 2 years from now, I will admit you were right -
ernest_t_bass
Boise, those pussies, belong in the PAC 12. -
enigmaax
You mean like picking one decent/good win a year and claiming it proves a team is elite?jordo212000;976088 wrote:Thats an awful small sample you are looking at.
Also, to be clear, I wouldn't call it "trashing" Boise or TCU. I'm fine with their undefeated teams playing in BCS bowls, I just do not believe their recent/current schedules entitle them to a national championship game appearance over an undefeated AQ team. There are also some 1-loss teams that would be more deserving, but my opinion would be determined on a case-by-case basis (for example, I'd have put them in over the 1-loss Kansas team from a few years ago).
There hasn't been a single year I felt either of those schools was cheated out of the highly selective championship game matchup, but it doesn't mean I think they are horrible teams. Also, believing that they'd suffer the same slips as other top notch teams if they raised the competitiveness of their overall schedule doesn't mean I don't believe them to be solid programs.
Utah is a decent team this year - they played a pretty good USC tough early and destroyed BYU (which would've previously been one of their top league games). But notice how they lost to three ordinary teams; teams they are actually probably better than on paper. -
Little Danny
They do. Unfortunately conference affiliations rarely have to do with on the field activity. You have to consider academics, cultural fits, politics, etc. Boise has very poor academics and that is not going to cut the mustard for a conference that has elite academic universities like Stanford and Cal. I would argue BYU belongs in the Pac12 as well, but there is no way the tree-huggers at Stanford, Cal or Oregon will allow a university with a religious affiliation in their conference.ernest_t_bass;976102 wrote:Boise, those pussies, belong in the PAC 12. -
Little Danny
Very reasonable Jordo, I can respect that.jordo212000;975832 wrote:I'm somewhere between your opinion and enigmaax's. He has this soapbox he likes to stand on where he trashes the Big East and schools like TCU and Boise State. He likes to talk about the strength of their competition. While he does this, he forgets that the Big 10, Pac-12, and ACC are all pretty brutal as well. Those conferences certainly have some major lightweights and have their fair share of bad football.
However, you rarely hear him talk about how weak the Big 10 "gauntlet" actually is.
The P12 is brutal this year. They only have three good teams: Oregon, Stanford and USC (and they are not the USC of a few years ago). After that they have 9 bad to mediocre programs who only have as many wins as they do because they played each other:
Oregon State (2-8) * they lost to Sacremento State
Colorado (2-9) * they lost to Hawaii--- note June Jones does not coach there anymore.
Arizona (2-8)
Washington State (4-6) * San Diego State whipped them
UCLA (5-5) * they haven't been good since the guy from NCIS was the QB
Utah (6-4)
Washington (6-4)
Arizona State (6-4)
Cal (6-4) -
Little Danny
The vaunted ACC (I will admit Clemson, Virginia Tech and Georgia Tech are pretty good)
Maryland 2-8 * they lost to a Big East school
BC 3-7 * They lost to Central Florida 30-3
Duke 3-7
NC State 5-5 * They got beat 44-14 by some crap Big East school
Wake 5-5
Miami 5-5 * well, they did beat OSU so that must mean they are pretty good
North Carolina 6-4 -
enigmaaxLittle Danny - Okay, now sell me on the Big East. Are you going to point out 1st place Cincinnati's loss to SEC bottom-dweller Tennessee? Or Louisville's Sun Belt and C-USA setbacks? Rutgers wasn't so bad with that loss to UNC, right? Hey, don't forget Connecticut's OOC gauntlet of Vanderbilt, Iowa State, and Western Michigan.
What is the difference between your two lists and mine? Here's a big one, you set aside three teams in each conference who are contending for the conference title and then named the conference also-rans. My list includes four also-rans who all have legitimate shots at the conference title and the BCS bid that goes with it. -
Little Danny
The point is there is not much of a difference. I would argue the Big East, while not as strong at the top, has more depth than these conferences as whole. One of the worst teams in the Big East, USF, beat Notre Dame at their place. USF also plays Miami this week which should also give a barometer of how these conference stack up.enigmaax;976181 wrote:Little Danny - Okay, now sell me on the Big East. Are you going to point out 1st place Cincinnati's loss to SEC bottom-dweller Tennessee? Or Louisville's Sun Belt and C-USA setbacks? Rutgers wasn't so bad with that loss to UNC, right? Hey, don't forget Connecticut's OOC gauntlet of Vanderbilt, Iowa State, and Western Michigan.
What is the difference between your two lists and mine? Here's a big one, you set aside three teams in each conference who are contending for the conference title and then named the conference also-rans. My list includes four also-rans who all have legitimate shots at the conference title and the BCS bid that goes with it.
A big problem the Big East has is that it only has eight members. Ironically, the subtraction of Pitt, Syracuse and WVU and the addition of BYU, Boise, Hoston, SMU, Central Florida, Navy and Air Force would strengthen the league on the field.
UC 7-2
WVU 7-3
Rutgers 7-3
UL 5-5
Pitt 5-5
Syracuse 5-5
USF 5-4
UCONN 4-5 -
enigmaaxInteresting ideas being discussed regarding the BCS - the BCS changes focus to an open-bidding for the #1 vs. #2 game and the remaining bowls go back to being able to negotiate their own deals directly with conferences. Essentially, there would be no more "BCS Bowls". The AQ status would be gone, but have to believe that would end the Big East as I doubt that they'd get a tie-in that would financially make a cross-country conference sensible.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7248953/bcs-proposes-only-handling-national-championship-game-sources-say -
Con_AlmaI like the idea and hope it happens.
-
SportsAndLady
I like the general idea, but I still think there should be "BCS Bowls"
It's a nice honor to say you won/went to a BCS bowl.
Like a "can't win the championship, lets play for a BCS bowl" -
Little Danny
Why don't just say what their really thinking and make all bowls only available to the following teams, regardless of record:enigmaax;977657 wrote:Interesting ideas being discussed regarding the BCS - the BCS changes focus to an open-bidding for the #1 vs. #2 game and the remaining bowls go back to being able to negotiate their own deals directly with conferences. Essentially, there would be no more "BCS Bowls". The AQ status would be gone, but have to believe that would end the Big East as I doubt that they'd get a tie-in that would financially make a cross-country conference sensible.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7248953/bcs-proposes-only-handling-national-championship-game-sources-say
1. USC
2. Oregon
3. Texas
4. Oklahoma
5. Ohio State
6. Michigan
7. Wisconsin
8. Penn State
9. Florida
10. LSU
11. Alabama
12. Auburn
13. Miami
14. Florida State
15. Notre Dame
16. Michigan State
17. Iowa
18. Georgia
19. Tennessee
20. Arkansas
21. Stanford
22. Virginia Tech
23. West Virginia
24. BYU
All the other teams should just give up. -
jordo212000
The new changes to the BCS will absolutely obliterate any chance of the Big East surviving. This may be the final blow. The whole reason those schoolsw would leave to join the Big East was because of the potential for AQ status. Now that there might not be AQ status, I think you see Boise, Navy, and Air Force stand pat.
On the other hand, this new change will also completely murder the mid-majors. They now have zero chance of ever making a BCS bowl. The BCS bowls with previous tie-ins are sure to go back to that (Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl) and then the others would never choose Boise State, Houston, or any other previously non-AQ school. Because of attendance and ratings... -
SportsAndLady
[INDENT]@slmandelStewart Mandel [/INDENT]
The Big East's backup if BYU doesn't pan out is San Diego State. Seriously.
-
SportsAndLady
This is why he tweeted that, btw
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/cougars/52965117-88/byu-east-deal-espn.html.csp