I thought I had read somewhere that all of the (former) AQ conferences had renewed for past the 2013 season at least one tie in with a major bowl (Orange, Rose, Fiesta, etc...except for the Big East.Originally Posted by Dawg06
|
|
|
|
|
I thought I had read somewhere that all of the (former) AQ conferences had renewed for past the 2013 season at least one tie in with a major bowl (Orange, Rose, Fiesta, etc...except for the Big East.
The Big East champion hasn't been contracted to play in a specific BC$ bowl since the 2004-05 conference shake-up. They've just been guaranteed whatever BC$ bowl was leftover. I'm sure the Big East's bowl situation will work out just fine for them even if they don't get a tie-in to one of the current BC$ bowls.
- The Big Ten and Pac-12 obviously have the Rose Bowl tie-in.
- The SEC and Big 12 have an agreement, but the specific bowl is to be determined.
- The ACC signed a long-term agreement with the Orange Bowl.
- Other than that, just the independents have a few tie-ins past 2013.
Starting in 2014, the only postseason games that will really matter are the three playoff games, and those BC$ bowls not in the playoff rotation will lose some luster.
My prediction is that the Orange Bowl will announce a 4-year rotation for the spot opposite the ACC champion:
- Big East champion
- Notre Dame (BYU as alternate)
- SEC #2
- Big Ten #2
The disincentives for new conferences is primarily to avoid unnecessary splits that would result in too many automatic tourney spots. That's less of an issue with the BE. As the WAC got waivers to sort itself out, I think the BE would to. If the BE football schools can't restock, they can argue that they're not given a choice but to split off.
With some of the fball schools also being good at basketball, the bball schools have actually shown a surprising amount of flexibility. I don't think they want the fball schools to go.
I expect the BE to be in a similar situation as CUSA/MWC as far as BCS bowls go, but better positioned for an at-large with an undefeated or 1-loss team.
(There are some contadictory things being said, but I think they'll be hard-pressed to lock out all but 5 conferences with arrangements for #2's and #3's. I think both CUSA and BE will land okay on this. But we'll see.)
I think the dismissal of the last commisisoner sent a stark message that those days are over. The new commish has to know that the Catholic schools are now calling the shots. Football is fine, so long as it doesnt water down the roundball product, but it will no longer be driving the bus. Everybody knows bball offers a stronger ROI, and without the AQ cash, fball is no longer worth the trouble.
Cap bet?
If the BE adds another member for all-sports (including BE football) by 2020, you win. But if BE football is wrapping things up by then (ala WAC 2012), then I win. Loser buys the winner a ballcap of the winner's choice (shipping included).
Whaddya say?
I''m almost tempted to take you up on it on the basis that I don't think the BE will lose more than two more all-sport teams. I don't think Louisville or (especially) Cincinnati are going anywhere. Or, if they are, then UConn & Rutgers aren't. Either the Big 12 picks up two Big East schools (some combination of UL, UC, and USF) or they pick up two ACC teams and the ACC takes two (most likely Rutgers & UConn). I don't think ACC goes to 16 (if they lose two, I'm not sure they go back to 14) and I have my doubts that the Big 12 expands again in any event.
Who wins in the event of a divorce where a new conference is formed*?
I can see enough of the football members picked off by other conferences where it no longer becomes worth it. At some point, a divorce becomes in everybody's interest. The basketball schools can pick who they want, the football schools can pick who they want.
I don't see the constituent schools returning to their previous conferences (except the FBO's). If you want to find a metric to bet on that, I'm game. Something like, if at least five of the six you mentioned aren't together, in a conference, that is not Conference USA or a merged conference including C*USA.
* - As mentioned, I think a waiver is a distinct possibility. Even absent a waiver, the schools may seriously prefer to take their lumps and lose the tourney autobid (which they may not even need) or whatever over returning to their conferences or the continued marriage to the basketball schools. Does anyone have a link to what exactly is required to form a new conference?
University of Houston '01. Any references to "we" or "us" likely refer to UH. Cheers!
Thanks. I have to admit I only gave the article a cursory read, so was fuzzy on the details.
Rumors are what they are, but there is a very different reason I believe there is no opportunity for LaTECH to become a part of the BigEast or any other alleged BCS Conference. As we have all become aware, with examples such as the last minute blocking of Louisiana Tech’s consolidation with LSU-S and the ability to truly count that “media market,” there are powerbrokers within the state that will continue to do all in their power to ensure that there is only one BCS Program within the borders of the State of Louisiana. Contrary to the “rumors” that other BCS conferences would like to see another BCS option within the State of Louisiana to attempt to “bust up” the monopoly on talent, LSU continues to be the Flagship through the efforts of these power brokers dating back to at least Huey Long. Beyond any doubt, the Big East does not have the clout, resources, or in my opinion, the will to be the one to take on the machine.
You forget the arrogance of the Tigah fans and power players. Most couldn't name one Big East team, much less all of them. The SEC is the only conference worth a shit to them, so they wouldn't care.
I think that the program has to pay it or get wealthy alumni to pay it because the school should not have to use its budget to pay for a "choice" for a small part of itself, rather than a "necessity" for all.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
