Big Beast = No BCS

[BigEastCT]

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigeast/post/_/id/24892/big-east-and-aq-status#comments

I think this answers my question and maybe some others. I thought Boise, if added, we could keep our BCS status. the new Big Least will be truely a Conference USA caliber. So sad.

We need the ACC or Bust

 

[Dann]

flat wrong, espn....

bosie brings alot
navy/temple/ecu/ucf each have 1 year where they help

together ='s enough. they didn't add 6 teams to the conf...

 

[UConn76]

Interesting...So we get potentially screwed not only because Pitt and SU leave but also because they both have pretty much stunk it up for the past 6-7 years... Those two won't be helping the ACC BCS calculations as well...

 

[IMind]

It's another opinion piece... I can't possible worry about the BCS until 2014. To say definitively what the college football landscape will be in three years isn't possible.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

ESPN has always coordinated its business and editorial activities. This column is no surprise.

 

[The Funster]

And if we had Pitt and Cuse we'd probably be in the same position.

 

[willie99]

if two football programs are solid top 20 programs, I don't think we'll have a problem

if more schools are excluded from the pot as a result of raids, I just don't think that will pass the smell test either

at some point, they may have to start worrying about antitrust issues

 

[alexd]

...again, the bottom line is at the end of the article:

"Also remember, there is nothing specifically spelled out about how a conference would be subject to losing its AQ status."

 

[HuskyHawk]

If we ignore her piece and instead look at the rules, you will see that there is an adjustment for smaller conferences with respect to the Top 25 teams category.

So on average conference ranking we are solid. I think they ignored the adjustment in looking at number of teams in top 25. In our case it is 25%.
Teams finishing 1-6: 4 points for each team Teams finishing 7-12: 3 points for each team Teams finishing 13-18: 2 points for each team Teams finishing 19-25: 1 point for each team

2010 was awful. On WVU in final ranking, at #22. That's 1.25 points.
2009 is better: WVU 16, Pitt 17. So 2.5 points
2008 Cincy 12, Pitt 20. 5 points.
2007 UConn at 25. UC 22 USF 21 and WVU 9. 7.5 points.

They go back to 2008, so our best season is wasted. On average highest rank, we have a 12, 16 and 22. A very strong WVU finish would help this year. WVU, Cincy, USF and RU all have one loss at present.

Since the current process suggests six conferences at minimum, it is hard to see who leaps ahead. BYU has Top 25 finishes, but is now independent. Utah finished #6 in 2008, but is now Pac 12. TCU and Boise were Top 25 every year. But the MWC would fail the average ranking test I suspect. Ball State was ranked one time, UCF one time and Nevada one time.

 

[IMind]

I think a lot of this also swings on the expansion of the BCS bowl games. IF they add the Cotton Bowl into the mix in 2014 the Big East AQ becomes a lot more certain no matter who is added, etc. Then you're really talking about 12 slots. One bid to the Big East becomes far less of a big deal.

 

[Carl Spackler]

The picture around the future of the BCS bid (as long as the BCS continues to exist) is becoming more and more clear. With TCU leaving the MWC, the chances of that conference becoming AQ fall way down.

The only danger the big east has of losing a BCS AQ status at any point right now is if we fail to maintain at least 8 teams in the league competiting year to year. We will have to replace Syracuse and Pitt in two years. If either program does well in te next two years and finishes in the polls - it only helps the Big East - if they don't, we've lost nothing when it comes to the BCS.

ESPN is clearly in damage control mode, and as usual with the petal to the floor on promoting the ACC.

While I will miss competition with the likes of Syracuse in football and basketball, and I've waited a good 20 years for a good game with post season meaning on the gridiron between the two, (got one last year)...

it seems that we're going to be just fine without Pitt and Syracuse, and the basketball side of things in our conference will continue to be strong.

What I hope more than anything, is that our conference leadership has had a major paradigm shift in the way that they operat this conference and the way things are happening in the college athletics landscape, and how they'll manage it from here.

Can the conference work together? Sure, I've said all along, as I've advocated very hard for a split - that a split is necessary if, and only if, conference leadership doesn't change it's focus.

We'll see what ahppens from here, with our conference leadership, but as the picture around the BCS status clears, we're looking just fine moving forward, parked right where we are, and the conference leadership can really sit back and try to hit a home run on this, but only if they've actually, finally set foot in the ball park.