Future Big East football picture?

[Dann]

How many of these teams were drafted in your round robin?

are u refering to the fantasy draft we had? if so 8 of the 16. for this potentially being the 5th best league vs the acc leftovers, thats pretty dam good i think... yes its not a top 4 in any way or shape, but its a league with several rising programs and a couple that 2moro could make noise vs a top 5 team.

break away from the bball schools and play all sports. that league in bball gets 5 to 8 bids a year to the ncaat.
usf/ucf/sdsu/bsu/uh are rising quick in bball.
in baseball uconn/lville or smiss/ecu/usf/ucf among others make it a better baseball league
soccer is good also. wbball takes a hit but they can go play who ever when ever as we know already.

this is better for uconn then rotting with bc/cuse/wake/duke for years...

 

[TouchdownHusky]

Geez, let's hope that an ACC offering is in the cards. This is an awful arrangement. Convenient though, how Boise State was "placed" in UConn's half of the conference. Wasn't TCU also tied in prominently with UConn a couple of years ago? How's that series going. The Big East - the waiting room for programs waiting for connecting flights to better conference affiliations.

 

[Carl Spackler]

People - I listed divisions myself, no idea what it will actually look like. I really like the concept though.

THe ability to play at least one game a year in each region opens up the ability to recruit much more effectively and heavily in Florida, Texas, and out west.

Huskydan - you didn't get that out of it?

Here's some more info - looks liek Carparelli is goign to be the point man on football matters for now. THere are a bunch of models for divisions and scheduling in play, and the one that fits best with the stated goals, which BTW - are exactly what I"ve been talking about all along, in that zombie thread that wouldn't die.....anyway - news that matters.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2012/may/23/big-east-football-divisions-in-flux/

Senior associate commissioner Nick Carparelli said here Tuesday that the league's football coaches and athletic directors debated models that included north-south and east-west approaches based on geography to other models in which geography wasn't a factor.

"The group felt that they wanted us to do a lot more research on some of them," Carparelli said. "So we're far from coming up with a preferred concept at this point."

Carparelli said the ADs and coaches valued the ability for fans to travel to games, the desire to maximize attractiveness to TV and the goal of protecting rivalries. He hopes to have a clearer picture of the potential alignments when the league's football coaches gather in Newport, R.I., in July for the league's annual football media day.

 

[UConnDan97]

At the end of the day, the Big East will align the divisions according to what the tv stations tell them will get them the best contract, whether or not it makes sense from a geographic, rivalry, recruiting, or competitive standpoint. If conference realignment has taught us anything, it's that schools and conferences will sell their souls "For a Few Dollars More"...

 

[CL82]

People - I listed divisions myself, no idea what it will actually look like. I really like the concept though.

THe ability to play at least one game a year in each region opens up the ability to recruit much more effectively and heavily in Florida, Texas, and out west.

Huskydan - you didn't get that out of it?

Here's some more info - looks liek Carparelli is goign to be the point man on football matters for now. THere are a bunch of models for divisions and scheduling in play, and the one that fits best with the stated goals, which BTW - are exactly what I"ve been talking about all along, in that zombie thread that wouldn't die.....anyway - news that matters.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2012/may/23/big-east-football-divisions-in-flux/

Senior associate commissioner Nick Carparelli said here Tuesday that the league's football coaches and athletic directors debated models that included north-south and east-west approaches based on geography to other models in which geography wasn't a factor.

"The group felt that they wanted us to do a lot more research on some of them," Carparelli said. "So we're far from coming up with a preferred concept at this point."

Carparelli said the ADs and coaches valued the ability for fans to travel to games, the desire to maximize attractiveness to TV and the goal of protecting rivalries. He hopes to have a clearer picture of the potential alignments when the league's football coaches gather in Newport, R.I., in July for the league's annual football media day.

My repsonse to reading about this format was 'oh my g_d that sucks...wait, it kind of doesn't...hmmn that can work." The nancy naysayers on the board will complain, because that's what they do, but there are some good ideas coming out of the meetings.

 

[freescooter]

To me the idea of divisions based on geography works best...that maeans UCONN, Rutgers, Temple, Navy, UCF, USF and Cincy or Lousiville if we end up with 14. West would be SMU, Houston, SD State, Bosie, Louisville, Memphis, Team X. I think that gives you the possiblity to develop regional rivals as well as to develop different "personalities" fo reach division...think NFC East and AFC West...one known for power and defense the other known for winging the ball all over the field...obviously they aren't perfect descriptions, the giants throw the ball as well as anyone, and for decades Oakland played nasty defense, but they reflect the personalities of their regions...and that is what the Big East should play up...when the crossover games take place, those differences, even if they aren't entirely accurate, are an automatic hook. Then I agree that their ought ot be a rivalry weekend, even if some or most of them are quasi-made for tv rivalries. Obvioulsy the Keg of Nails, UCONN-Rutgers is developing into a pretty nice battle, too. It has had upsets. It has had controversial endings, it has had weird endings, the fans don't particularly like one another and they argue about what games should count in the series. The only thing lacking really is that it is relatively new...USF-UCF seems like it would be a natural as does SMU-Houston. The old Big East always drove me nuts with its inability/unwillingness to play up these potential rivalries like other leagues do. I always thought that if the Big East was in charge Ohio State-Michigan would be played in week 2...that needs to change.

 

[Carl Spackler]

By every piece of info I can gather....the meeting was left with the concept to gather as much information as possible - about the best alignments to meet a certain set of goals. Among those goals, include the following, but not limited to.....and in no particular order.

The ability to schedule as many games as possible, in local primetime viewing slots - reach as many potential viewers as possible. (to me - football that means Saturday afternoons, and basketball - weeknights.....remember basketball scheduling was discussed in the past 48 hours too)

This is important, b/c the big east has potential viewership reach to approx 32 million television households. That's more than double any other conference in the country. Before some nitwit, and I know you are, jumps on that statment, I"m not saying that the Big East is going to draw 32 million households, but the ability to reach that number is there, and there's plenty of room for growth. That's TWO things, that no other conference in the country has going for them. A number anywhere near that large, and the ability to grow.

Remember that, next time you look at that island of misfit toys, IF, you can get over the nostalgia of the big east football conference, that never was.

Next- maintaining and establishing rivalries. Memphis v. Louisville, SMU v. Houston, UCF v. USF, Rutgers v. UConn.....there are most definitely going to be local rivalries that are going to get scheduled every year. That's a big priority.

Another priority I've read discussed, is the ability for fans to travel to as many games as possible, which feeds back into the rivalry.

Apparently each big east football member left the meetings with a mission to go out and gather as much info as possible as to what's going to be most valueable according to these basic criteria, and again, including but not limited to, there are probably a lot more criteria that were listed as desireable in conference divisions and scheduling.

But these are probably highest priority.


I think that the biggest one, that I've only touched on very lightly, b/c TV money is the driver.......but when it comes to actual football, the ability to play regularly in every region we have teams ahs got to be a big priority - for the single most important reason that leads to a quality product on the field - RECRUITING.

We've got a conference now with reach into florida, texas and southern california. That has GOT to be taken advantage of when it comes to recruiting, and scheduling is the way to make that happen quickly.

 

[GinJoh07]

I honestly don't think it is all that bad.

Wait and see how it all plays out.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I honestly don't think it is all that bad.

Wait and see how it all plays out.

The only thing that makes it look bad, is nostalgia for what the big east football conference could have and should have looked like from a long time ago. When you look at from that perspective, and a ton of UConn fans, and big east basketball fans most definitely still do.....it looks like a pile of .

THe thing about that perspective though, is that if that big east football conference that should have been strong and vibrant from the beginning with strong leadership back then, had happened, UConn probably never gets an invite to join in 1996 - what would become a BCS football conference by 1998.

Got to take the good with the bad.

Big east basketball has lost in this, but if there's ever been a wake up call to the likes of Providence, and Seton Hall, and St. John's, and DePaul to become relevant again nationally in basketball, they got that wake up call a few months ago.

If those programs can get back to what they once were, the power of the media markets they bring will in short order off set the losses of Syracuse, PIttsburgh and West Virginia basketball.

And again, if you take a hard look at that island of misfit toys, the football product is improved over what we had last year.

 

[GinJoh07]

I can see what you are saying. It would have been a great football conference if everyone stayed. Problem is they didn't.

You are exactly right on the football side of things.

 

[Marty Jackson]

Here's something I threw together based on what I can find out about what happened today.

Two divisions of football - throw geography out the window - it already is. I'm arbitrarily setting up these lineups. I have no knowledge of any actual divisional alignments that were discussed. But I understand that one of the many ideas, was to showcase the actual national reach of the conference now, and split up the paired teams in regions, and i think it makes a lot of sense.

Call them Red and Blue divisions.

5 games in division - and 3 cross division.

Red:
UConn
USF
Louisville
Memphis
SMU
Boise St

Blue:
University New Jersey
UCF
Cincinatti
Temple
Houston
San Diego State.


5 games in division, 3 cross. Cross games are the local games, and local teams to each other would play annually. SDSU v. Boise would be a cross divisional game.....SMU v. Houston cross division, UCF v USF - cross division. UConn v. Rutgers....etc. .

Adds more value to regular season games.

Winners of each division matchup for a championship game to be held at home field of team with best overall record, which is why local/proximity games - (i.e. SMU v. Houston) would be valueable, b/c the team with te best overall record hosts the championship game at their home.

By hosting the championship game at home, rather than neutral site, the best team in the conference has the least likelihood of getting knocked out of a national playoff picture.

Makes sense to me.

Navy's not joining?

 

[HuskyHawk]

The only thing that makes it look bad, is nostalgia for what the big east football conference could have and should have looked like from a long time ago. When you look at from that perspective, and a ton of UConn fans, and big east basketball fans most definitely still do.....it looks like a pile of .

THe thing about that perspective though, is that if that big east football conference that should have been strong and vibrant from the beginning with strong leadership back then, had happened, UConn probably never gets an invite to join in 1996 - what would become a BCS football conference by 1998.

Got to take the good with the bad.

Big east basketball has lost in this, but if there's ever been a wake up call to the likes of Providence, and Seton Hall, and St. John's, and DePaul to become relevant again nationally in basketball, they got that wake up call a few months ago.

If those programs can get back to what they once were, the power of the media markets they bring will in short order off set the losses of Syracuse, PIttsburgh and West Virginia basketball.

And again, if you take a hard look at that island of misfit toys, the football product is improved over what we had last year.

Short term, yes. Long term, I doubt it. Short and long term I think WVU is better than Boise or any other BE program, by far. Long term, I think Pitt is better than any of the newcomers. My fear, and I think it is legitimate, is that Boise returns to play on a level roughly equivalent to Wyoming within a decade, probably sooner. I can't see them remaining a power. Houston will never be a big time program. SMU and CFU probably have the most potential among the newcomers to at least be competitive year after year, but neither will ever be more then the 4th best program in their own state. In short there is not a single program in the NBE that is capable of becoming a national power and staying on top for more than a few years.

 

[pj]

In short there is not a single program in the NBE that is capable of becoming a national power and staying on top for more than a few years.

I would agree that that there's no program that is a lock to become a national power, but to say none are capable is a stretch. UConn and Rutgers have a chance; each is the only program in its state and will rise with northeast football. USF and UCF have a chance to do what Miami did, and FSU before them. They have local recruits and any decline in the bigger Florida programs would leave them an opening. Houston and SMU are in a similar situation.

I do agree that WVU is worth more than Boise St. But UConn has a much better shot than Pitt to be a national program.

 

[UConnDan97]

"Becoming a national power and staying on top for more than a few years" is kind of a silly statement, anyway! By that token, if the following teams joined the NBE, they would also fit into that statement:

Notre Dame
Miami
Florida State
Oklahoma State
Penn State
Michigan
Iowa
Mizzou
Texas A&M
etc.

I'm sure I've made my point without going any further. Hell, Texas and USC have had mediocre years in small stretches too!

Now if you meant "stay a top-25 team every year," then that's a different story, and I would say that you are wrong about that...

 

[HuskyHawk]

"Becoming a national power and staying on top for more than a few years" is kind of a silly statement, anyway! By that token, if the following teams joined the NBE, they would also fit into that statement:

Notre Dame
Miami
Florida State
Oklahoma State
Penn State
Michigan
Iowa
Mizzou
Texas A&M
etc.

I'm sure I've made my point without going any further. Hell, Texas and USC have had mediocre years in small stretches too!

Now if you meant "stay a top-25 team every year," then that's a different story, and I would say that you are wrong about that...

Notre Dame is an eterna, outlier. But I'd argue that Penn State and Michigan have been sucessful for several generations and remain national powers, filling 100,000 seat stadiums. FSU is close to that level. Miami is feast or famine and A&M is the opposite, always good, never great. I don't mean a few down years, as you suggest even USC and Bama have down years, and they are the two top programs all time. Mizzou, Iowa and Ok St. are not national powers in any sense other than an occasional strong team. No different than Cincinnatti. My point is that the Big East teams, including UConn and Rutgers, will not become Penn State - Michigan caliber programs. I doubt that they will even reach the FSU or A&M level, but it is not impossible. So there is no anchor. No rock solid dependable program, that will always be there, turning on TV sets and selling out huge stadiums.

 

[HuskyHawk]

I do agree that WVU is worth more than Boise St. But UConn has a much better shot than Pitt to be a national program.

How do you figure that UConn has better chance than a team that plays in an NFL stadium, has produced a Heisman winner and won a national championship (two if you go way back)? They are more of a national program than we are, so they have a head start. They may be blowing it...but they started well ahead. Can we gain significant prominence? Sure. The hoops team proved it can be done. But it is much more difficult in football.

 

[UConnDan97]

My point is that the Big East teams, including UConn and Rutgers, will not become Penn State - Michigan caliber programs.

??? I would argue that Boise State has already surpassed Penn State! How many times over the last 6 or 7 years has Penn State been mentioned as a national title contender? Once, I think. Boise has been in that discussion seemingly every year. And let's not bring up Michigan pre-Hoke! They had fallen on very mediocre times as well.

So I guess I am just not following your meaning. If you mean that we won't have a program with a 100,000 person stadium that fills it every year, then of course you are right. If you mean that we won't have a program that can go 10-3 or 11-2 every year and be ranked in the top 25, then I don't think you are right at all. Just my opinion, of course, but there is nothing preventing Boise....or UConn....from doing that.

 

[HuskyHawk]

??? I would argue that Boise State has already surpassed Penn State! How many times over the last 6 or 7 years has Penn State been mentioned as a national title contender? Once, I think. Boise has been in that discussion seemingly every year. And let's not bring up Michigan pre-Hoke! They had fallen on very mediocre times as well.

So I guess I am just not following your meaning. If you mean that we won't have a program with a 100,000 person stadium that fills it every year, then of course you are right. If you mean that we won't have a program that can go 10-3 or 11-2 every year and be ranked in the top 25, then I don't think you are right at all. Just my opinion, of course, but there is nothing preventing Boise....or UConn....from doing that.

Boise is a crappy former community college, with no natural reason for success. The odds of them stringing several more top 25 seasons together are slim. In the Forbes national ranking of colleges, they rank 614th. Think about that. They have never once played a season against decent league competition. Stadium seats 37k. They are not even on the same planet as Penn State. Even if you just go back to 1999, when Boise went to its first bowl game, Penn State has been better. Boise has had a brief run as a good team. Nothing more. You could say the same of Iowa under Hayden Fry.

 

[UConnDan97]

Boise is a crappy former community college, with no natural reason for success. The odds of them stringing several more top 25 seasons together are slim. In the Forbes national ranking of colleges, they rank 614th. Think about that. They have never once played a season against decent league competition. Stadium seats 37k. They are not even on the same planet as Penn State. Even if you just go back to 1999, when Boise went to its first bowl game, Penn State has been better. Boise has had a brief run as a good team. Nothing more. You could say the same of Iowa under Hayden Fry.

What on earth are you talking about??? You shift from stadium size to academic ranking to league competition; I'm struggling to figure out what you are really trying to say. Again, I am not going to argue the fact that they don't play SEC level competition or the fact that they can't fill a 100,000 person stadium (as I've already mentioned). But to say they cannot sustain long runs of top 25 rankings?? You're a lunatic. Here are the final AP rankings for each year for Boise State going back to '05 (7 years worth):

2011 - #6
2010 - #9
2009 - #4
2008 - #11
2007 - none (24th in the BCS rankings)
2006 - #5
2005 - none (none in BCS)

So I had to go back to 2000-and-friggin-five to find the last year that they weren't top 25 in either the BCS standings or the AP poll to finish a year. On top of that, 5 of those 7 years, they were top 11......THEY WERE TOP 11!!!! Tell me the last time that Penn State or Michigan finished top 11 in 5 out of 7 years?? (5 out of 6, really).

So again, if you are arguing tradition, stadium size, academics, or some other ancillary artifact, then I agree with you. If you are arguing about the football product, you're nuts...

 

[SAMCRO]

??? I would argue that Boise State has already surpassed Penn State! How many times over the last 6 or 7 years has Penn State been mentioned as a national title contender? Once, I think. Boise has been in that discussion seemingly every year. And let's not bring up Michigan pre-Hoke! They had fallen on very mediocre times as well.

And cue our resident Sandusky University poster

 

[Marty Jackson]

What on earth are you talking about??? You shift from stadium size to academic ranking to league competition; I'm struggling to figure out what you are really trying to say. Again, I am not going to argue the fact that they don't play SEC level competition or the fact that they can't fill a 100,000 person stadium (as I've already mentioned). But to say they cannot sustain long runs of top 25 rankings?? You're a lunatic. Here are the final AP rankings for each year for Boise State going back to '05 (7 years worth):
Unfortunately when talking about football all those factors seem to be more important than the actual pRoduct on the field. Which only further enhances this notion that teams like Alabama, Osu or um can never have a drop off

2011 - #6
2010 - #9
2009 - #4
2008 - #11
2007 - none (24th in the BCS rankings)
2006 - #5
2005 - none (none in BCS)

So I had to go back to 2000-and-friggin-five to find the last year that they weren't top 25 in either the BCS standings or the AP poll to finish a year. On top of that, 5 of those 7 years, they were top 11......THEY WERE TOP 11!!!! Tell me the last time that Penn State or Michigan finished top 11 in 5 out of 7 years?? (5 out of 6, really).

So again, if you are arguing tradition, stadium size, academics, or some other ancillary artifact, then I agree with you. If you are arguing about the football product, you're nuts...

 

[pj]

How do you figure that UConn has better chance than a team that plays in an NFL stadium, has produced a Heisman winner and won a national championship (two if you go way back)?

How is playing in an NFL stadium an advantage? Does Alabama, Texas, Oklahoma, Penn State, Michigan, Ohio State, or Notre Dame play in an NFL stadium? Is playing at Gillette going to move UMass ahead of those programs? Actual, I think the competition for fan interest from the local NFL team is a disadvantage for Pitt football, and the lack of local NFL competition a plus for UConn. Yes, Pitt has a great history, and 1976 was a great year for them and for Tony Dorsett. But it's 36 years ago. The last 10 years is what recruits and coaches remember.

 

[HuskyHawk]

What on earth are you talking about??? You shift from stadium size to academic ranking to league competition; I'm struggling to figure out what you are really trying to say. Again, I am not going to argue the fact that they don't play SEC level competition or the fact that they can't fill a 100,000 person stadium (as I've already mentioned). But to say they cannot sustain long runs of top 25 rankings?? You're a lunatic. Here are the final AP rankings for each year for Boise State going back to '05 (7 years worth):

2011 - #6
2010 - #9
2009 - #4
2008 - #11
2007 - none (24th in the BCS rankings)
2006 - #5
2005 - none (none in BCS)

So I had to go back to 2000-and-friggin-five to find the last year that they weren't top 25 in either the BCS standings or the AP poll to finish a year. On top of that, 5 of those 7 years, they were top 11......THEY WERE TOP 11!!!! Tell me the last time that Penn State or Michigan finished top 11 in 5 out of 7 years?? (5 out of 6, really).

So again, if you are arguing tradition, stadium size, academics, or some other ancillary artifact, then I agree with you. If you are arguing about the football product, you're nuts...

My point is simple, 7 year stretches are irrelevant, whether the last 7 years, or 7 years 40 years ago. What matters are stretches of at least 20-30 years, better still if it is 40-50 years (yes there will be ups and downs). No recruit offered a scholarship to Michigan or Penn State and Boise goes to Boise, unless he's too stupid to get in to Michigan or Penn St. It's amazing how short sighted everyone is. Are you over 30? If you looked at Colorado in 1996, you'd think they had surpassed OU and Nebraska both. They did it against much tougher competition. It's just a snapshot in time, nothing more.
1989#4
1990#1
1991#20
1992#13
1993#16
1994#3
1995 #5
1996 #8
It all came crashing back to earth. And that was a school in a major conference, with some history and a very appealing campus and college town. http://www.collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/app_streaks_weeks.cfm?streak=top25&rows=50&active=no

 

[UConnDan97]

My point is simple, 7 year stretches are irrelevant, whether the last 7 years, or 7 years 40 years ago. What matters are stretches of at least 20-30 years, better still if it is 40-50 years (yes there will be ups and downs). No recruit offered a scholarship to Michigan or Penn State and Boise goes to Boise, unless he's too stupid to get in to Michigan or Penn St. It's amazing how short sighted everyone is. Are you over 30? If you looked at Colorado in 1996, you'd think they had surpassed OU and Nebraska both. They did it against much tougher competition. It's just a snapshot in time, nothing more.
1989#4
1990#1
1991#20
1992#13
1993#16
1994#3
1995 #5
1996 #8
It all came crashing back to earth. And that was a school in a major conference, with some history and a very appealing campus and college town. http://www.collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/app_streaks_weeks.cfm?streak=top25&rows=50&active=no

Please stop. Really. You just gave me an 8-year snapshot of Colorado from 89-96 to prove your point. I gave you the LAST SEVEN YEARS to prove mine. By your definition of "better still, 40-50 years", then UConn won't be a worthy team for you until 2053. Ridiculous.

Look, I'm not saying that I'm sure that Boise will replicate their success in the NBE. What I'm saying is that your statement of the NBE not containing a team that was capable of a sustained high level of performance was false. You know it and I know it. Let's not kid ourselves. And your assertion that Penn State or Michigan have both sustained that in recent years is also false. The defense rests.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Please stop. Really. You just gave me an 8-year snapshot of Colorado from 89-96 to prove your point. I gave you the LAST SEVEN YEARS to prove mine. By your definition of "better still, 40-50 years", then UConn won't be a worthy team for you until 2053. Ridiculous.

Look, I'm not saying that I'm sure that Boise will replicate their success in the NBE. What I'm saying is that your statement of the NBE not containing a team that was capable of a sustained high level of performance was false. You know it and I know it. Let's not kid ourselves. And your assertion that Penn State or Michigan have both sustained that in recent years is also false. The defense rests.

I can see you're not one of the lawyers on the board. This defense is pathetic. Whether the last seven years or any other seven years makes no difference. I showed you that Colorado, a team that has sucked recently, put together a streak in the modern era that was much more impressive than Boise's recent streak. I can also show you recent seven year streaks when LSU didn't even get to a bowl game. But unlike Boise, they will always bounce back, as Michigan and Penn State will and have, because they fill a freaking 100,000 seat stadium year after year and have amazing resources and name recognition that Boise will never have. It's why Nebraska and OU are back on top and Colorado is an afterthought.