Saw this article in the Honolulu Advertiser this morning, there may truly be "a second coming of BOise/SDSU".
http://www.staradvertiser.com/s?acti...y&id=150335685
Printable View
Saw this article in the Honolulu Advertiser this morning, there may truly be "a second coming of BOise/SDSU".
http://www.staradvertiser.com/s?acti...y&id=150335685
Since "regional rivalries" seems to be the hotest term lately, I can't imagine Boise and San Diego fans getting excited about those home contests with Rutgers, UConn, UCF, and Temple. I understand the Big East money when they made the decision, but the Big East will continue to be a basketball first league especially after the BCS changes (AQ/non-AQ) and school defections. Surely, they will change course and revisit their decisions. With their return and possible alliance/merger down the road, the C-USA/MWC could be strong nationally if developed the right way.
I wish SMU and Houston would come back to CUSA
Forget SMU. They've found their soul mates. Now Houston on the other hand...
I don't care about Boise or SDSU, but I am concerned if they change their minds, the BE could go after ECU and USM...which would suck for us.
Very different scenarios, though. Houston and SMU are all-sports members. They get to play Big East basketball.
I know the BE has big MBB $$$, but Boise back to the MWC would be enough to keep USM and ECU in CUSA. The football $$$ will come to an alliance with 10+ bowls and Boise, especially with the BCS going to a different playoff format.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckK3
If ECU and USM are smart and Boise comes back, they'll sit tight.
If either gets the chance to go to the BE they'll be gone in a heartbeat. They'd be crazy not to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Allgood
I just don't see the allure of Big East football. There is no way the money will be the same in 2 years. Even the basketball will not be as good with West Virginia, Syracuse, and Pitt leaving.
I find 2 interesting things/thoughts in this article. First, the integrity of USU in "keeping their pledge" to the WAC while Fresno, Hawaii, and Nevada dropped theirs like a hot rock. Second, if Boise did return, and the "Deal" was made between MWC and CUSA, it would be a pretty strong merger. Should be worth some TV money for a non-AQ conference group.
Those three aren't "big" in the BE as far as basketball is concerned. The main schools are still there.Quote:
Originally Posted by ptaylor
Then again, I'm not a huge basketball follower, so I could be misinterpreting the information.
If there is an alliance/merger and Boise/SDSU return, then ECU and USM would be taking demotion if they bolted to the Big East if this is football driven. Plus, the threat of Louisville/Cincinnati to Big 12 and UConn/Rutgers to ACC or Big 10 would always be out there.
Syracuse and Pitt are pretty big in basketball.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuBru
The ESPN.com College FB Nation blog on May 4th talked about the new best Big East rivalries after the changes:
1. Cincinnati vs. Louisville
2. USF vs. UCF
3. Temple vs. Rutgers
4. SMU vs. Navy
Impressive is NOT what comes to mind. I'm thinking ECU vs. USM is already a better game than any of those even before expansion. Once again, I just don't see the magic of Big East football after automatic BCS money dries up in 2 years.
How is smu and navy a rival?
They play for the Frank Bansz trophy. Navy has won it all 3 times. Now, that's a rivalry!
Should have been the "Frank Gansz" trophy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by parisdog
They do have a trophy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gansz_Trophy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._rivalry_games
Update: got there ahead of me ptaylor....
But how did this even become a rivalry?
It's not so much a rivalry as it is just a sportsmanship game. Frank Gansz was a player for Navy; and he coached at both Navy and SMU.
I think that's the flaw in the new Big East. Tech vs. "insert any western C-USA team" will be as big or bigger than anything the Big East can offer. What else do they have to offer? San Diego State vs. UConn?
Boise and SDSU each have $10 million reasons not to back out on the Big East.
The Tallest Pygmy award?Quote:
Originally Posted by parisdog
HD
Who is further from Orlando? San Diego or Boise?
MWC commish mentioned a few days ago that the return of SDSU is a possibility. He didn't say anything about Boise St.
Link?Quote:
Originally Posted by VegasDawg
Local Las Vegas radio mentioned he tweeted it. Don't know his twitter address maybe someone can find it.
Here's an article: http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2012/0...-state-no.html
Boise has no league for their Olympic sports now that the WAC is going down. Thompson says they can stay in the MWC but only if they play football too. SDSU to the Big East was ridiculous now that AQ isn't on the table I think they'd rather play their football and Olympic sports in the MWC.
I suspect that the TV money will still be enough to keep Boise & SDSU in the Big East, though anything is possible and the TV contract is an open question. Also, Boise would have to swallow Big Sky membership and SDSU stands to be walking away from a lot of history for a lot of uncertainty. I think they should be reconsidering regardless of the TV contract... but I still don't think they are. I can't read the Hawaii article, though, so I don't know what it says that might convince me otherwise.
SMU & UH are out of the picture. I don't have that strong of a preference, as long as we're with SMU. I don't think it's a close call for the admin, though. The doomsday scenario is losing Louisville and/or Cincy. I don't think that's likely at this point.
I have difficulty imagining that ECU would not accept an invite and think they would pretty strongly consider a football-only one. USM I am less sure about, but there's also Tulsa.
I'm becoming increasingly skeptical that UTEP is going anywhere.
If I were you, I'd be extremely concerned about Boise St & Louisville leaving the Big East. And both are a real possibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by parialex
You're not going to enjoy watching UH play football in a far flung "basketball" conference. Texas is football country. And if Boise leaves, it's going to be very difficult for UH fans to get excited about playing UCONN, Rutgers, SDSU, UCF, USF, Memphis and Cincinnati in football. Those are mostly basketball schools. Honestly, I would have a hard time going to watch those guys play football even if it was in my back yard. :laugh:
Sorry......but I like the new CUSA football lineup much better than the BE lineup, save for UH, SMU & Boise, of course.
HD
I would consider losing Louisville to be a very serious blow, but they have to be invited somewhere first. Marianatto was fired and they want out... but they wanted out last week and the week before that and several months ago they had the Senate Majority Leader trying to get them into the Big 12. The Big 12 has already negotiated their new contract and I think they're done absent some really new and enticing possibility. I don't believe the ACC would invite them even if they lost Florida State and Clemson.
As I've said before, I don't consider Boise State's inclusion to be good for anybody involved. Mostly for BSU, but I think what's bad for them will be bad for the conference as a whole. Unlike Louisville, they do have options. But it wouldn't kill me if they exercised them.
Even despite its losses (up to this point), the Big East remains a rather formidable conference. It's not as though Pitt and WVU were rotating championships like UT & OU in the Big 12. They've been sharing championships and/or losing out to teams that have been left behind. That's not to say that their departure doesn't sting, but they weren't dominant. Nor is Louisville, even if their departure would also sting.
(Full disclosure: I think the Big 12 should have invited both Louisville and Cincinnati along with WVU. Selfishly, I am glad they did not.)
After being "most favored son" in the WAC with alum Karl Benson using WAC funds to annually promote Boise State football, BSU now finds itself in an Eastern US pickle and Benson in "leading" the Slumbelch.
Yes, I am deriving some satisfaction from this.
This is where you and I have a major disagreement. Without Boise St, I don't think the new Big East football conference is formidable at all. That's why you've simply GOT to keep BSU in the fold. Without BSU, you're conference is toast. I could walk up to 10 people on the streets of Houston and not a single one of those 10 could tell me who the football playing schools are in the new Big East (other than Houston, SMU and Boise).Quote:
Originally Posted by parialex
West VA, Pitt, and Syracuse ARE Big East football. They were the only Big East schools anybody really cared about.
HD
Recognizable schools aside, Conference USA did... less for us in that area than you might think. The big ones were SMU (who is going with us), Rice (who we will continue to play), Tulsa (due to repetition and circumstance), and USM (ditto). Tulane has a fair alumni base in Houston, but dang if any of them are college sports fans. UTEP always cared more about us than vice-versa. I've never met a Tulsa grad in my life. You'd be surprised how little ECU meant to us except as one of the tougher teams we play somewhat regularly. Except SMU and Rice (and to a lesser extent UTEP), there wasn't much that we would call regionally relevant regardless of it being a drivable game (unfortunately, we don't travel well anyway). The rest came with repetition and because it was noteworthy when they did well. Not because of their intrinsic recognizability (a tragic number of people think USM is a smallish private school). I expect Conference USA to be a lot better for you than it was for us (and I was *always* more upbeat about C*USA than most people I know and I'm one of the few who will genuinely miss it).Quote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg
(Part - maybe most - of the reason I am so dour on BSU is that I am less than sure about their long-term prospects. I think a lot of their success is circumstance-generated and their circumstances are about to change. The same may be true for us, of course, and heaven help us if it is. But our turnaround started when we were in a conference not too much unlike the one we're about to enter, so I do have reason to be optimistic. And I have mixed feelings about it all anyway. If the others weren't leaving, I'd be against leaving.)
At least as long as Petersen is at Boise their success should be little changed. Their success has been sustaind for too long, and their reputation now too widely known, to expect a sudden downturn in their circumstance. As far as football is concerned, as Boise goes, so goes the BE.
One word, QUARTERBACK. Most of the success has come under Moore. The 0 and 1 loss seasons are over. Though hedidnt get drafted, he was a great college QB.Quote:
Originally Posted by LookingForResults
They were good before Moore.Quote:
Originally Posted by hoopdawg
They'll be good after him (although they may take some lumps this year).
I don't see any all-sports members coming back, but getting BSU back could be big if the "alliance" ever happens.
I could easily see Boise deciding to "come back". And if that happens, we should keep the back door open for SMU & Houston. Playing conference football against the likes of USF, UCF, Memphis, Rutgers, SDSU, UConn, and Cincinnati will be a VERY tough sale for UH & SMU in the state of Texas. That's what I was trying to tell parialex.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
HD
LABGQuote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg
I think that the WAC has been a great situation for Boise State. It has provided them with the renegade chic of the BCS-buster and a good combination of profile games and gimmes. In the WAC, or the new MWC, I think it could go on for quite a while, especially if Peterson doesn't go anywhere. I think being a part of a traditionally BCS conference in a pond very far away is doing some serious tinkering with what has made them successful and the consequences will not be good.Quote:
Originally Posted by LookingForResults
Meh. This means nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by parialex
Boise would have won the "old" Big East most of the last 10 years. Heck, Houston would have won it several of those years. And that's before it lost its better programs.
The travel may matter, if only that they're going to drop a game or two here and there. But it isn't like they weren't traveling a lot anyway. Boise State wasn't exactly busing to many WAC games (or flooding the stand with supporters).
I think you're underestimating how good the Big East has actually been. What they've lacked in powerhouses, they've also lacked in Weak Sisters (and I did believe this before we were on their radar - when I ran my conference analysis a couple years back, they actually outperformed the Big Ten). But that wasn't actually what I was getting at, though. My point was that this is a transition from a Has-Not to a Traditionally Has. Not exactly a "Has" now, but not exactly a "Has Not" either. Even with AQ gone, the perception will linger and they will not be in a "strong non-AQ" conference but rather a "weak AQ" conference. For some, being a sorta-member of the club would be a great benefit, but I don't think it will work that way for them. Given their lack of institutional strength (they're an academically weak, somewhat remote, commuter school of unimpressive size), I believe the renegade factor has been instrumental to their success (not sufficient, but necessary).Quote:
Originally Posted by inudesu
There's also a significant difference between flying from Boise to Reno and flying from Boise to Philadelphia. It's not a dealbreaker, but it's also not the same as flying more locally. The main reason I bring up the geography is that the MWC and WAC are nonetheless one of "our" conferences out here. The Big East isn't. And if you're in one of "our" conferences, you're on the radar even when you're not turning in 10-win seasons. The same is true of Texas, the BE not being one of Texas's conferences, and is one of the disadvantages for us. But for UH at least, we've been there as far as this goes. It's not ideal, but Houston isn't the same "world away" from the east as Idaho is. I consider it less problematic.
They'll still be good. And the BE will be big news in Idaho starting now.Quote:
Originally Posted by parialex
As long as Boise State remains sufficiently good. But 9-3 won't get the same national attention required for California and Texas recruiting (the annual Texas game and bi-annual California game may help, but only some) as 12-0, and they lack a local recruiting base. I think they need to do as well as they've done to continue doing that well. I fear a little slippage and they become Fresno. Not bad (I'm not predicting that they turn into U of Idaho), but not doing the main thing they were brought into the conference to do (and, in a tougher conference, having a lower floor than Fresno in the not-so-good years). A good comparison would actually be Marshall. It's not that Marshall is bad. And in their MAC years, they would have done quite well in C*USA. But they slipped into middling and, last I checked, had a losing record in C*USA play. That's my main concern.Quote:
Originally Posted by inudesu
Just what I'm sure the Big East was counting on.....:laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by inudesu
HD
Boise is.Quote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg
I want Houston back for sure. SMU would be nice too.
I want UTEP replaced with one of those for sure.
If you remember back a few years, Marshall has a run that while it didn't land them in the big bowls it put them on the national stage. I view Boise's recent run in the same light and they have capitalized on it to be sure. But the formula that led to much of their sucess is going to be challenged going to the BE and I really think they will struggle and will ultimately regret the decision. I do think UH will be okay. While I would love for them to be in CUSA, they have wanted to get back to the Phi Slamma Jamma glory years and with the basketball talent in Houston and the draw of the BE I think they may get there. Who knows!! As for SMU. Accept for their noted "cheating driven sucess of a few years ago" they were a door mat in the SW Conference, WAC, CUSA, and they will remain there in the BE.
I am one of the Boise football porgram's biggest admirers, but I think they will regret this move ... as it has played out. The travel they are about to face will cost them some wins they should have. That travel would cost ANY college football team wins it should have.
I agree. I've always admired Boise St's ability to succeed when everyone thought they couldn't. But I believe the Boise ride will eventually peter out sooner rather than later. Afterall, they are located in.....Idaho! With all the travel involved, it's going to be very, very difficult for Boise to continue winning like they have. And let's be honest, Boise has had more than their share of good luck along the way to their success too. Good coaches, good athletes, good support. And THAT kind of good luck doesn't typically last forever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tech77
HD