Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

06 Dec 2011

Five to Officially Join Big East Tomorrow

Yes, after months of waiting, the four schools that everyone already knew were going to the Big East -- Boise State, Houston, SMU, and UCF -- will officially announce that they are joining the conference. They will be joined by the Big East-est recruit yet, San Diego State. No, really.

According to Brett McMurphy of CBSSports.com, the Big East will pursue Navy and Air Force as well in an attempt to reach 12 football members again.

Posted by: Rivers McCown on 06 Dec 2011

72 comments, Last at 12 Dec 2011, 5:41pm by tuluse


by Will Allen :: Tue, 12/06/2011 - 2:42pm

It would be nice to have a Federal Government which either enforced antitrust laws, or absent that, imposed a regulatory scheme which supervised such a restraint of trade.

by loneweasel (not verified) :: Tue, 12/06/2011 - 3:02pm

I'd like the Feds to look into the blatant exploitation of athletes in revenue generating sports.

Those kids are the ones who really make the money and pay the price with their bodies. Their interest should come before the viewers, the school, and especially the unholy abomination of the NCAA.

by tuluse :: Tue, 12/06/2011 - 3:13pm

Get all the best players out of the NCAA and into a semi pro league. Let the rest be true student athletes which is probably about 80% of players right now anyways.

by fyo :: Tue, 12/06/2011 - 8:40pm

The problem with this is that the semi-pro league wouldn't be nearly as popular as NCAA football is. Colleges churn out thousands of new fans-for-life every year (plus assorted family members).

A "solution" that effectively throws the baby out with the bathwater is never going to fly.

by tuluse :: Wed, 12/07/2011 - 1:08am

I know that, but a man can still dream.

by Eddo :: Wed, 12/07/2011 - 12:46pm

That, and the sheer amount of capital needed to start up a rival league. Especially when it would take several years to gain a big enough following to actually profit.

by Independent George :: Thu, 12/08/2011 - 5:58pm

What if the colleges owned the semi-pro teams?

by Whatev :: Fri, 12/09/2011 - 8:52am

But, colleges have bureaucracies to put actual bureaus to shame. And they insist on maintaining the illusion that they care first and foremost about education. Even if there is considerable support for such a thing, those against it will be able to drag out the decision process long enough for the nascent league to fail.

by Will Allen :: Tue, 12/06/2011 - 3:24pm

Think about this development in that context. A bunch of schools, in various states, join a conference, to better allow them to compete against schools in other conferences, in other states, in terms of the auctioning of television broadcast or cable rights to athletic performances, which are sent to viewers in all fifty states. Meanwhile, all of these schools, in all of these conferences, join an association, in which they form agreements which limit what is offered to the people whose performances are being televised, and sent to all fifty states, and those people have not formed a union and entered into a collectively bargained agreement with those schools and conferences.

If that is not a violation of antitrust law, then Tiger Woods was celibate.

by c0rrections (not verified) :: Wed, 12/07/2011 - 12:32pm

Except it's been found not to be since amaturism (I know, I know it's kind of a laugh) is seen as part of the distintive product being offered. I also think students are not viewed as employees either.

by Will Allen :: Fri, 12/09/2011 - 2:21pm

Yes, we have a legal culture which saw fit to decide, within a few decades, that a baseball team, travelling across state lines to play other baseball teams, in front of a paying audiences, was not involved in interstate commerce, and therefore not subject to regulation by Congress, and then it was decided that such reasoning was ridiculous, but because some hacks in robes liked the result, Curt Flood could go pound sand.

I was speaking in terms of facts and logic, not what a bunch of charlatans decided was convienient.

by dryheat :: Wed, 12/07/2011 - 9:09am

You mean the same Feds that are likely huge boosters of some of these schools?

by c0rrections (not verified) :: Wed, 12/07/2011 - 12:29pm

I'd dispute that the players really make the money. The players of the past certainly did. However, in college far more than even pro football it is laundry that matters. You think people would have cared much about Reggie Bush if he was playing for Western Kentucky? For schools with less history a big impact player means a lot. But for an Ohio St. or Michigan or Alabama? The school adds value to the player.

by Illmatic74 :: Thu, 12/08/2011 - 12:12am

But the thing is that if the likes of USC, Ohio St, Michigan and Alabama stopped recruiting guys like Bush, Ingram, Ginn, Hart, etc you know elite talent they will stop being elite programs, stop playing on national tv, stop playing in big bowls etc and would stop receiving the revenue all that dictates. So the players might seem to be interchangeable if teams don't continue to bring in elite talenttheir stature will drop.

by andrew :: Tue, 12/06/2011 - 3:15pm

Hey if the NFL got away with the Falcons and Saints being in the NFC west all those years (I know, remnants from the "Coastal Division, never mind that Atlanta is not coastal) while the Cowboys were in the NFC East, I suppose its not that big a deal. Never mind the numbers in the Big Ten.

This is hardly unique to sports, it happens in real geography as well. West Summerland Key in the florida keys is about 10 miles east of Summerland Key. (I see they are trying to rename it).

The french colony of Guadeloupe in the Caribbean is primarily made up of two adjacent islands separated by a narrow channel: Grande-Terre, which means "Large Land" is the smaller of the two. Basse-Terre, which means "Low Land" is the more mountainous of the two....

by Will Allen :: Tue, 12/06/2011 - 3:37pm

The NFL is quite open about being a business enterprise, which has entered into a collectively bargained for agreement with it's players outlining the relationship between the players and the team. It has received explicit Congressional permission to auction it's broadcast rights in a way that would otherwise violate antitrust laws. They pay federal income taxes like other for profit businesses, with the excdption of the Packers, which is an ownership model which will never be replicated.

Colleges engaged in football as a business to auction broadcast and cable rights, along with maximizing revenues elsewhere, tell us their organizational mission is in the area of higher education, and they receive direct federal subsidies to achieve that mission. They have not entered into a collectively bargained for agreement with players, as the schools enter into agreements designed to limit what is offered the players. They universally have non-profit tax status.

The situations are not really analogous.

by Jim is rad (not verified) :: Sat, 12/10/2011 - 8:52pm

Where are all these anti trust violations in college football?

-The conferences nor the NCAA block anyone from playing college football. University of Phonex tommorow can start a football team and play AA football. They can join the NAIA instead of the NCAA.

-Conferences are excempt from some Anti Trust under the single entity exmption as are all sports in the United States other wise sports could not exist. Conferences can only sell the TV rights to games that they schedule with each other other wise the schools own the rights. Many schools sell some of these rights back to the conference or they set up their own tv deals. The Big Ten schools set up their own network were they sold some of the rights to themsevles.

Or are you suggesting that because colleges have education as a mission they should not be allowed to sell anything at all? Or have games on TV at all?

-Not paying players or having a CBA is also not an anti trust violation. While I personally believe players should be paid and that they should be allowed to have lawyers check over any documantation that is a seperate issue. The courts already ruled on this subject in the workman comp case. Even without that ruling the players agree to play for the school in exchange for a one year renewable scholarship and sign paperwork that they understand this. Other wise most jobs in this country would be in violation of anti trust.

-The BCS is also not in violation of anti trust as it does not meet the consumer harm thesehold needed.

Your beef seems to be with the NCAA and I am with you on that.

by tuluse :: Sat, 12/10/2011 - 11:23pm

-The conferences nor the NCAA block anyone from playing college football. University of Phonex tommorow can start a football team and play AA football. They can join the NAIA instead of the NCAA.

Sure and anyone could have made an oil company to compete with Standard theoretically. When supposed competing institutions form or join a body like the NCAA that is collusion. The degree to which this has happened makes it a monopoly. A monopoly has to follow special rules in the US that non-monopolies don't.

I'm not sure conferences are in anti-trust violation at all though, since even the largest one is not even 1/4 of the teams in the FBS.

by Jim is rad (not verified) :: Mon, 12/12/2011 - 5:37pm

It is no way comparable to Standard Oil. The NCAA is a rule making and enforcing agency along with a commerical rights holder to some post season play. This is closer to a trade group. There is nothing about the NCAA that prevents a rival group from starting up and wow we have that in the NAIA. There is nothing to prevent the schools from leaving the NCAA and starting there own group. The NCAA does not prevent other Football leagues from starting up or Basketball leagues. In fact the NCAA is not first in revenue in any sport that it sponsers.

by tuluse :: Mon, 12/12/2011 - 5:41pm

The fact that the NCAA exists means there is collusion. The fact that the vast majority of schools belong to it means it's a monopoly. That's really all that's needed. It doesn't matter if schools could join another body, the fact is they haven't. So they are colluding on a mass scale.

by justanothersteve :: Wed, 12/07/2011 - 10:40am

More known examples include Greenland (over 95% of which is covered by the world's second largest ice cap), Fort Bliss (unless you find El Paso a blissful place), and all those old Wild West towns in the desert with names like Paradise and Bountiful. The NFL also has the New York teams playing in New Jersey and the former LA Rams played in Anaheim. And that's not to mention pro teams whose names are legacies of their old locations like the Los Angeles (formerly Minneapolis) Lakers and Utah (formerly New Orleans) Jazz.

by DGL :: Thu, 12/08/2011 - 3:58pm

Note that Fort Bliss is not so named because it is thought to be blissful, but rather after William Wallace Smith Bliss, an officer in the Mexican-American War.

by Mr Shush :: Sat, 12/10/2011 - 8:46am

I understand that the village of Foul End, in Warwickshire, is really quite pleasant.

by Drunkmonkey :: Tue, 12/06/2011 - 3:03pm

YES!!! Bring on the Aztecs!!! (That's SDSU, right?)

This is AWESOME!!! The Big East will now have the glorious reputation of bringing in the schools that nobody has ever given respect to, showing the whole world that Houston does indeed play real football, and giving schools like SMU and UCF a chance to show how they are the cream of the crop in regards to schools that just need a chance. And now Boise will start throwing their kicker under the bus, having no other excuse when they don't make it to a BCS bowl because their all-universe kicker missed the only kick of his life that will ever matter.

Watch out SEC, Big 10, and PAC-##, you guys are gonna be given a total run for your money!!! When the Big East starts their football seasons, nobody in the world will be able to withstand the dominance of...

OK, I'm sorry, I have to stop now. I'm seriously floundering for sarcasm at this point.

by andrew :: Tue, 12/06/2011 - 3:12pm

dup post

by Mike Lowery (not verified) :: Tue, 12/06/2011 - 3:12pm

They should go after Beijing University, then they'll really be the Big East.

But seriously, this is ridiculous. Just get rid of the automatic qualifiers.

by Karma Coma :: Fri, 12/09/2011 - 1:47am

For reasons i don't fully understand, they still insist on "Peking University."

by Whatev :: Fri, 12/09/2011 - 8:59am

Probably for consistency of documentation. But I'd bet that even most Chinese are not fully sure why, and to them it doesn't really matter since they usually just call it "Beida."

by dryheat :: Fri, 12/09/2011 - 9:01am

Well, if they changed to the U of B, the "Ducks" nickname wouldn't work as well.

by Karma Coma :: Sat, 12/10/2011 - 1:12am

ba-dum ching!

by Drunkmonkey :: Tue, 12/06/2011 - 3:20pm

Didn't Navy and Army come out together and say they weren't looking to move at all? I don't know if the service academies really care about joining in big time conferences, but I don't see how the Big East will get them to come.

by RickD :: Tue, 12/06/2011 - 3:47pm

Didn't Navy and Army come out together...

That's OK. DADT was found to be unconstitutional.

and say they weren't looking to move at all? I don't know if the service academies really care about joining in big time conferences, but I don't see how the Big East will get them to come.

They'd offer them money?

by Drunkmonkey :: Tue, 12/06/2011 - 3:55pm

As soon as I posted that, I read it again and thought of DADT.

by artmaccuinn (not verified) :: Tue, 12/06/2011 - 3:53pm

why not just do with away with conferences entirely and institute a tier system with relegation, i.e. how the other football does it? could never happen in American pro sports but it seems a lot more feasible in college football, what with the built-in high turnover + general volatility of programs. only having, say, 20-30 teams in each division to play each other would drastically cut down on the interconnectivity problem, there'd be a much better chance/clearer path for upward mobility like Boise St, there would be no more scheduling OOC cupcakes. you could still set aside a week for rivalry games as well. of course I'm sure there a hundred reasons why this would never actually happen (plus it wouldn't address the issue of player exploitation at all) but still.

and well we're at it, why not just completely separate basketball and football? or actually, football and all other college sports. then even w/conferences schools would be free to do all kinds of wacky Big Everywhere conference setups for football w/o screwing up everything else.

by Will Allen :: Tue, 12/06/2011 - 4:16pm

Given that all these institutions receive Federal subsidies, all benefit from non-profit tax status, all claim that their mission is education, and all are in violation of antitrust law, it is a situation that screams for regulation by Congress, which would impose rules with the educational mission in mind, which likely would mean far more widespread revenue sharing, epecially broadcast revenues. I'd love to hear the President of San Diego State testify as to why it is in the interest of the student athletes of his school to be in the same conference as Connecticut.

(edit) I'll add that if Congress is going to permit these entities to form agreements which limit was is offered the athletes, there is no reason why they should not also be allowed to to enter into agreements which limt what is offered the coaches, athletic directors, and presidents. In fact, Congress should mandate such limits, if the student athletes are so limited.

by Drunkmonkey :: Tue, 12/06/2011 - 4:25pm

It's in the best interest because the better the conference that they are a part of, the more money the school will receive, which in turn theoretically will benefit the student athletes in all sorts of ways. If SDSU can somehow win the conference, which at this point is just as likely as anybody else in that conference, save Boise State, which gets a slight upper leg, then SDSU will be in a BCS bowl game, which everybody knows pays a heck of a lot more then the regular bowls.

If you want to bring Congress into sports (which I'm sort of against, because I believe the government has a) no time to worry about sports with so many other problems {not trying to bring politics into this, don't misunderstand me} b) no real connection to a recreation, and c) would only really be interfering with the market, which goes against the foundation of our economy) then cap the bowl payouts. All bowls, BCS and non-BCS pay the same, except for the national title game. This would eliminate schools joining random conferences (like SDSU going into the Big East) just for a chance to sit at the adult table.

I don't know this for certain, but does belonging to a BCS conference effect your BCS ranking? Would LSU have that perfect BCS score if they were in the MWC? Because if there isn't, then by eliminating the big payday of a BCS bowl, what would the incentive be to belong to a bigger conference? I believe the word out of the BCS meetings in November were that they were considering no longer sponsoring the 4 other BCS games, and just the championship. That would put an end to the mess, wouldn't it?

by Will Allen :: Tue, 12/06/2011 - 4:42pm

Please don't refer to market economics, with regard to the BCS, or the NCAA. These are cartels, which are, under any factual and logical examination, operating illegally. The fact that they have not yet been found to do so in a court of law yet is merely the residue of having courts popuated by hacks. In fact, the fact that the NCAA was found to have been engaged in illegal activity, when it attempted to place a limit on the salaries paid to assistant coaches, merely illuminates how illegal so much of their other behavior is.

If Congress is going to send subsidies to all these schools, and all these schools claim their mission is education, then it is perfectly reasonable for Congress to ask if an educational mission is served, for the country as a whole, to have schools in conferences that span the continent. There is no reasonable rationale which provides an answer of "yes" to that question.

Capping bowl payouts just gives an undeserved subsidy to either the networks or the scum that run the bowl games.

by DC_31B (not verified) :: Wed, 12/07/2011 - 12:09pm

Good points on the cartel dynamics. Reality is, however, that more government regulation and oversight won't be fixed by yet another layer of government regulation and oversight. Not in healthcare, not in agriculture, not in college football. I would rather have my alma matter, Providence, get thumped somewhere down the line by SDSU that tips off long after I am bed than to see Henry Waxman & Co. Grandstanding on the state of the college game and what he intends to do about it for the sake of the little children.

Reminds me of the NFL lockout. When a union wrestles with a cartel, all sorts of dysfunction ensue. Along the same lines i just broke up a fight this morning between my two year old and my four year old over some Pokemon cards that both claimed were theirs. Third such fight in as many days. I want to throw the damn cards because they are both being bratty and they are both lying.

by Will Allen :: Thu, 12/08/2011 - 9:20am

Eventually, there is a nontrivial chance that antitrust laws will be enforced with regard to these cartels. The cartels first and foremost will want to avoid that. They will thus lobby for regulation by Congress.

by Jim is rad (not verified) :: Sat, 12/10/2011 - 9:31pm

How is the NCAA a cartel? They don't limit membership any school can join. If they don't want to join the NCAA they can join the NAIA. BCS while a cartel does not actually violate anti trust given it does not harm consumers and its the best thing to ever happen to the little sisters of the poor.

Um, yes there is a reasonable and rationale yes. Being in a higher profile conference gives a school a higher profile in front of more potential applicants and faculty. Utah for example has talked about how playing in the Liberty Bowl increased their applicants from the Memphis area from 0 to about 100 applicants a year. This might not seem like much but for the most part the schools in the Big East now are not Michigan getting applicants from accross the country.

Never mind what is the big deal? The Big Ten has teams a 1000 miles apart. The ACC 1500 miles apart. The Pac 1500 miles apart. SEC 1000 miles apart. San Diego to UConn is 3000 miles. San Diego used to play in a conference with hawaii which is 2600 miles away. They will 4 away conference games a year 1 in Texas. They will play at boise every other year. AF if they end up joining every other year. So 2 to 3 long trips. And with air planes a whopping extra 10 hours a season of travel.

by BlueStarDude :: Tue, 12/06/2011 - 8:15pm

It doesn't matter that BCS bowls pay more than other bowls, second-tier schools, which really is most Div 1 schools, are forced to buy a bunch of seats which they often can't sell, like UConn playing in Arizona last year. UConn lost money. Put SDSU in the Sugar Bowl or the Orange Bowl and they'll lose money too.

by Dennis :: Wed, 12/07/2011 - 12:39am

Most schools lose money going to bowl games. I'd love to see schools start having the balls to turn down bids because they don't want to pay the money.

by Jim is rad (not verified) :: Sat, 12/10/2011 - 9:34pm

Don't believe that. No Big Ten, SEC or ACC team loses money in bowls. I have never looked at the Pac or Big 12 but find it hard to believe any of there teams do either espeically the Big 12 where they have the Cotton Bowl a very high payout game. So at the least you have 27 teams that do not lose money on bowls and more likely 42 teams that do not lose money.

by tuluse :: Sat, 12/10/2011 - 11:25pm

Yeah, someone posted about how creative accounting hides the majority of the money that comes in from bowl games.

by artmaccuinn (not verified) :: Tue, 12/06/2011 - 4:27pm

I would be perfectly happy to see the BCS/NCAA subject to antitrust regulation, and more widespread revenue sharing would be great. I doubt any of that will happen - entrenched interests are too strong, and the current political climate (not to violate Rule 1) isn't exactly conducive to Congress diving into the quagmire of college sports, but it would be good if it did. I'm 100% in favor of players being compensated, at the very least for the use of their likenesses in apparel, video games and whatever else. what I'm saying is, in addition to that, why have conferences at all? what purpose do they actually serve (or rather, whom do they actually benefit)? not that I'm the only person saying that. I just think relegation would be a neat solution to many of college football's other problems. and unlike major league sports in this country, there are enough teams and levels of competition to make it totally workable. tho again, I don't think it ever would happen, it's just a nice hypothetical.

by Will Allen :: Tue, 12/06/2011 - 5:00pm

The only way I could see fundamental change happening is by some athlete filing a lawsuit claiming he was harmed, and getting in front of a judge who had some integrity, followed by the Supreme Court having a spasm of integrity. Yeah, it's a longshot. Faced with a loss in court which yields chaos, the cartelists would beg for Congressional oversight.

by Jim is rad (not verified) :: Sat, 12/10/2011 - 8:59pm

Some conferences namely the Big Ten are more than just sports leagues. The Big Ten in the form of the CIC share research infustucture and other academic sharing. Most conferences are made up of like minded institutions with similar missions. The Big Ten is made up of research centric mostly large land grant schools. The ACC is made up of mostly great undergrad schools with a mix of private and public. The Nerdy Nine is made up of world class educational schools.

I know the thing to say is education is the last thing that matters but it is simply untrue. The Big Ten allegedly turned down OU not once but twice during expansion because it was not an acedemic fit. This is a top 10 program that was turned down but its only about the money.

by Briguy :: Tue, 12/06/2011 - 4:28pm

Can someone please explain to me why Boise St. isn't in the Big (12? 10? The one with Texas and Oklahoma.)?

by Drunkmonkey :: Tue, 12/06/2011 - 4:47pm

A few reasons:
1. Boise doesn't really bring a huge following to the table. They are basically in a dead zone of people, with a very small alumni base that will do anything.
2. Nobody invited Boise into their conference for fear of being seen as needy. The reason the Big East is inviting them in is because they lost all self-respect a while ago.
3. Other than football, Boise State has pretty much nothing. Most of the Big 12 have schools that can bring more than one sport to the table, and those that don't are lucky because they have been in the conference so long that it doesn't matter. Like Baylor. Which is pretty much one congressman's heart attack away from being forced into DIII.

I still read that rant every so often, cause it makes me laugh so hard. Every time.

by Dennis :: Tue, 12/06/2011 - 7:22pm

You left out the main reason - Boise State doesn't bring any money to the table. They don't bring a big TV market so they aren't going to boost the conference TV rights revenue. And their home games don't generate enough money to make it financially worthwhile to make the trip up there.

And of course Boise comes with a huge downside - they are good. The big schools don't want to play them, especially if they aren't getting any money out of the deal.

by Will Allen :: Tue, 12/06/2011 - 4:53pm

I don't know, but I would not be surprised if it had something to do with people in Austin not wanting to travel for a very tough road game to a strangely colored field with regularity, when that field is surrounded by only 50,000 paying customers, who didn't pay a very high average ticket price, who live in a small television market.

by Will Allen :: Tue, 12/06/2011 - 4:54pm


by Jim is rad (not verified) :: Sat, 12/10/2011 - 8:37pm

Boise St is barely a step up from a community college and no one with options is going to want to associate with them.

by MilkmanDanimal :: Tue, 12/06/2011 - 6:44pm

San Diego State? San Diego State?

Wuh. Duh. Fuggggh?

by rd (not verified) :: Tue, 12/06/2011 - 8:12pm

I guess they are really stretching the definition of the word "east" these days.

by John (not verified) :: Wed, 12/07/2011 - 10:18am

They're all part of that big continent east of the Pacific.

by dryheat :: Wed, 12/07/2011 - 10:23am

Is there already a Little America conference?

by Floyd (not verified) :: Wed, 12/07/2011 - 11:28am

The Big Gerrymander conference

by Solomon :: Wed, 12/07/2011 - 12:47am

Ugh ... just die already, Big East football. This is madness.

Jim Delany (Big Ten commish) commented that he would support eliminating auto bids for conference champions to the BCS. If that came to pass, all the schools switching conferences for BCS access will feel silly.

That said, why do people obsess so much about BCS bowls other than the title game? I do not really care if my favorite school plays in the Sugar Bowl vs. the Citrus (Capital One) Bowl. It is not as if any of us see the extra money from BCS games. For me, there are 3 types of bowl games:
1. Rose Bowl
2. BCS Championship Game
3. other bowl games

While Orlando is nicer than Detroit, it does not matter to me whether the game is "BCS" or not. The Orange, Sugar, and Fiesta Bowls have no special meaning to me (granted, I am a fan of a Big Ten team).

by TV_Pete (not verified) :: Wed, 12/07/2011 - 9:38am

I suggest picking the BCS Championship Teams AFTER the bowl games. This "Classic Plus One" allows for the Bowl Games to have more meaning. Even a lower tier Bowl Game could affect the computer rankings and perception (if the Big 12 under dogs beat their opponents in every bow game then ... maybe OK State would go rather than Alabama against LSU).

This would guarantee one quality out of conference opponent for all teams and would get a little better idea for how good the different teams and conferences are.

This would also fit within current contracts and may be acceptable/palatable for Big Ten and Big 12 fans and other Presidents.

It may even offer a slightly better opportunity for an unbeaten non-AQ team (like Boise State in years past) to make it to the championship (if they beat an undefeated SEC team in Sugar Bowl, for instance).

by Sancho (not verified) :: Wed, 12/07/2011 - 11:09am

I like this as well. I would go back to the old Bowl system, and do that. But my national championship game would be between #1 v. #2 AMONG Conference Champions (or independents) AND bowl winners.

If there weren't two of them available, than go(es) the best ranked team(s).

P.S.: Yeah, I would prefer a LSU-Oklahoma State game.

by Dean :: Wed, 12/07/2011 - 11:13am

Before I waste my time reading these comments, is there anything in here that hasn't already been beaten to death?

If it's just

"This makes no geographic sense"


"College sports exploits the workers!"

Then I'll save myself the time and not bother.

by Will Allen :: Wed, 12/07/2011 - 11:31am

Oh, let us not forget "Having teams on different sides of the continent in the same conference is completely counter to the educational mission that these schools purport to be in pursuit of", and "The people who run the BCS Bowl games are con artists and creeps".

by c0rrections (not verified) :: Wed, 12/07/2011 - 12:41pm

I'd love to be a track or swimming athlete at San Diego St. now. "OK guys let's go ahead and hop on the plane for our meet in Connecticut."

by Solomon :: Wed, 12/07/2011 - 1:58pm

San Diego State and Boise State will be football-only members of the Big East.

by Sancho (not verified) :: Wed, 12/07/2011 - 4:43pm

College football (and basketball for that matter) is so different that it should be something apart from the usual NCAA conferences. Those sports have grown so much that there should be football-only conferences, basketball-only conferences, and the rest.

by Sancho (not verified) :: Wed, 12/07/2011 - 5:08pm

Some one advocate above for promotion-relegation. Here my 2-cents:

A 64-team league, divided into four Conferences (Pacific, Atlantic, Southern and Big) of 16 teams each.

Pacific would be build around the Pac-12. The Atlantic, the ACC; the Southern, SEC and Big-12; and Big, around Big-10 and Big East). Basically, it is North (Big), South (Southern), East (Atlantic) and West (Pacific).

-Regular Season-

Each Conference would be divided into two divisions of 8 teams. Pacific/Atlantic would have North and South division; Southern and Big, East and West.

Teams would play 3 free-to-choose games (non-Conference opponents); 7 against divisional opponents; and 2 against teams from the other division of its same conference (also free-to-choose).

The divisional winners would face each other in Conference Championship games.

-The BCS Bowls-

The Big champion and the Pacific champion would play each other at the Rose Bowl. The Atlantic champion and the Southern champion would play each other either in the Fiesta Bowl.

The winners of those bowls would play in the National Championship Game, that would rotate between the Sugar Bowl and the Orange Bowl.

The remaining bowl (Sugar or Orange) would see the best two non-conference-champion teams facing each other.

-Other bowls-

All other bowls could be decided in any criteria they believe its good.

-Promotion Bowls-

The worst-recorded team from each Conference (the 16th place) would face one of the four best non-league teams with its league credential on the line. The winners would play in the league next season; the losers would become a non-league school. How the four non-league school would be chosen is up to debate.

by Sancho (not verified) :: Wed, 12/07/2011 - 5:27pm

Post-season would be basically a 8-team playoff hidden under a form similar to the current structure.


There is an alien 'either' written above. The right sentence would read: "The Atlantic champion and the Southern champion would play each other in the Fiesta Bowl."

by zenbitz :: Wed, 12/07/2011 - 8:07pm

I am sure something like this will happen the instant it becomes projected to be more profitable to the major conferences/universities. I suspect they will keep the Pac-12/ACC/SEC/B1G designations however. I think the Big-12/Big-East teams will just get absorbed into the other 4 conferences; everyone is just trying to get the best $$$ deal out of it, and lock the NCAA out.

For 2012 - how many teams total are in the big 4 + Big-12 + Big East? It must be very close to 60-70.

by markus (not verified) :: Thu, 12/08/2011 - 1:02pm

Air Force has publicly announced they aren't going and Navy was never keen on the idea. Why the Big East would continue to pursue them rather than moving on to somebody else is rather odd. Interestingly enough, Air Force passed up on a HUGE increase in TV dollars. (I've read they make around a million a year from their Mountain West deal while estimates for their share from the Big East were in the $3-$5 million neighborhood on the low end.)

No doubt the Big East is in far better shape with Boise State than they were yesterday, but I remain unconvinced this is going to be a winning combination for the long haul. Random collections of teams do nothing for the fans. Not only are there no historical rivalries involved, there's little hope of there being any new ones formed because most of these schools share absolutely nothing beyond the Big East patch that will be sewn onto their jerseys.

by njligernj :: Thu, 12/08/2011 - 2:23pm

Quite silly that people here are blaming the BE and calling for them to be stopped. The BE would likely have been perfectly content standing pat with the teams with whom they started the season. They got desperate because (in part) the Disney corporation decided to interfere and start shaking things up.

In other words, what the BE has done is not the disease; it's merely a symptom.

by Jim is rad (not verified) :: Sat, 12/10/2011 - 8:20pm

ESPN had little to do with this. The problem was USF putting the whole move Nova up in football over Pitt's choice UCF and Cuse's choice Houston which got buy in from the basketball only schools in order to block UCF. The complete idocricy of this made Pitt and Cuse willing to put a move on the table. The ACC offered them both to prevent the SEC from taking VaTech and or FSU and because ESPN made it clear that adding Pitt and Cuse were the two best options to increase the per school payouts. The move also has the added benefit of increasing the chances of the ACC landing ND if ND ever decides to join a conference in football since that is a two conference race.