Showing posts with label big east. Show all posts
Showing posts with label big east. Show all posts
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Boise State to the SEC
Today, Texas A&M was officially welcomed as a 13th member of the SEC. Now they just need to add Boise to get to 14.
The current "future" membership of the top 7 football conferences:
Big East: 7 (- Pitt, Syracuse, + TCU)
Big 12: 9 (- Texas A&M)
ACC: 14 (+ Pitt, Syracuse)
SEC: 13 (+ Texas A&M)
Mountain West: 10 (+Fresno, Hawaii, Nevada, - TCU)
Big 10: 12
Pac-12: 12
The odd numbers could be the most concern. The Big-12 is probably the least "in need" of expansion. After all, there was no real "loss" in television market with A&Ms departure. Prior to this season, the schools were all scheduling 4 non-conference games, so it would just be a switch back to there. The Big-12 also has lawsuit-happy Baylor. Would a team really want to risk being stuck there based on the whims of Baylor? Even worse, with the conference going through two consecutive seasons on the brink of extinction, would it be worth the risk to join?
The Big East, however, could be desperate. Seven teams does not seem like a conference. With Connecticut, Rutgers and West Virginia looking for the exit door, TCU could easily get cold feet. (How would that feel to finally get to an AQ conference, only to have the conference yanked from under them?) They need to make some bold expansion moves fast. Perhaps the ACC should just invite some combination of the three and put the Big East out of its misery. TCU could then find its way back to the MWC or perhaps the Big-12.
Thirteen is an unlucky number, so the SEC needs to act quickly to add another team. How about Boise State? The constant knock on BSU is that they can win a big game, but couldn't make it in the weekly grind of the SEC. Why not give them a chance to prove it? They are a name brand with a good following. They are located nowhere near the southeast, have a smaller stadium and smaller reputation than any of the SEC teams, but would make for some interesting football games.
Even better yet, they could do something similar to international soccer and have some spots reserved for "top programs" from outside the SEC. If they win, they stay in the conference. If they lose, they are "relegated" back to their old conference. For now, they could grab Boise, along with a couple other "top" teams. (say some combination of East Carolina, Houston, Central Florida, BYU and Navy). They finish in the top half of the conference, they stay. They finish in the bottom half, they are gone. During this time, they "remain" a member of their old conference in other sports, and share some of their "bounty" with the home conference. If they enjoy a long period of SEC success, they may get invited to stay. Otherwise, they simply get rotated out.
This scenario can be a win-win for everyone. The SEC gets the quality opponents with extended media markets. It also reduces the chance of great teams bolting for competitive conferences. The mid-major conferences get the showcase their top teams. These teams get the access they have been craving. (They can win the SEC and become national champions with their work on the field.) The increased interest should produce a cash cow. The rolling nature of the agreement provides greater access and money for many schools without harming the take of the "established powers".
While the farm system may be a great idea, there are probably plenty of other realignment moves we will see first. Which conference will be the next one to act? If the Big East does not pull something quickly, it will be in danger of extinction. Will some of the conference USA teams by willing to "move up". (Maybe it wasn't such a good thing to boot Temple.) Or perhaps the Big East will decide it is not worth it and throw in the towel on football. It can return to a mostly religious school basketball league (similar to the WCC out west.) Connecticut and Rutgers will with the ACC, WVU the SEC, with the others knocking on the door of Conference USA for a chance back in. The BCS bid can float in the ether, giving another at-large bid. Or, better yet, it can become a "floating" bid, guaranteed to the top-ranked conference champion or independent, thereby ameliorating BCS critics, while still keeping the big-money open.
Friday, September 23, 2011
What can the Mountain West pull off?
For the second year in a row, the Big-12 managed to emerge from the brink of extinction. The Big East just lost two of its football programs. Last season, the Mountain West invited a new school to join, only to lose another school a couple days later. Then the conference attempted a raid on the WAC in a failed attempt to prevent a defection of another school. They later added another former WAC school as a football only member. Then another MWC team announced a defection to the Big East.
But, the conference is still a "has been", the best of the "mid-majors" conferences.
Can the conference jump in to the realm of the big boys and become a BCS automatic qualifier?
I'd bet if the Pac-10's Larry Scott were running things, that would already be the case.
Instead, we have rumours of the Big East trying to poach more programs.
The Big East? Yes, schools would fly across the country to play football teams that usually rank worse than the Mountain West. But there is more, they get to send all their other programs out there. Sure, its a top notch basketball conference, but do all athletes really need to go out there? And what of these rumors of Air Force going to the Big East in football only? Ugh.
Could the MWC engineer a BCS-sharing mechanism? Partner with the Big East to have a "playoff" between the best team in each conference for the BCS spot. Both conferences get the benefit of the extra money of the playoff game. The MWC gets the advantage of guaranteed access. However, the Big East stands to lose by requiring the money to be split among the additional MWC teams.
But, if the Big East can be convinced they will lose the autobid soon, this could work.
TCU could be a wildcard here. If they dart to the Big-12 (which makes a lot more sense than the Big East, or even MWC), then the Big East would need to struggle just to call itself a football conference. Adding Navy and possibly army could help a bit. However, beyond that, you start to hit the baggage. Would the basketball members really want an East Carolina or UCF? And why does a conference made up of former Conference USA members deserve the bid? If they suddenly become better due to the BCS money, it just goes to show further problems with the system.
On the other hand, maybe the Big East will get gutsy. With Connecticut, Rutgers and West Virginia all showing wandering eyes, the conference needs some big names. How about plucking Boise State in football only? If the MWC objects, they may seek a "soft landing" in the WAC for the other sports. Add in BYU and Navy, and the conference does not look half bad. Doesn't really look "east", but when the Big 10 has 12 teams and the Big 12 has 9 or 10, it is right for the course in college sports.
Which conference will pull it off? We should know within a year or two...
Monday, September 19, 2011
Can the Big East Be Saved?
The founder of the Big East conference recently died. And at the same time, his conference was dealt a critical blow. With Pitt and Syracuse on their way out to the ACC can the Big East conference be saved? Would anybody want to latch on now in its fallen state?
The conference does still have the reigning men's basketball champ. Even with the losses of two power basketball programs, it remains one of the marquee basketball conferences.
However, football is hanging by life support. With TCU coming on board, they would be left with just 7 football teams. West Virginia is the only one that has a significant long-term national reputation.
A number of schools, such as UCF, are eager to move up to the ranks of the "BCS" leagues. However, should the league implode, or lose its BCS auto-bid, things could be even worse for them. They may want to play it slow.
The first step would be to get some of the football independents on speed dial. Notre Dame would be the obvious coup. They have an interest in having a place to park their non-football sports. They may be willing to add football to help save the league. Or they may just decided to jump to the Big-10.
Navy is in the right geographical footprint, and could easily join as a football-only school. They have a large following and a record of recent success that would help with the BCS standings.
BYU is a new independent with recent football success and a national following. They are not close, but they are eager for the cachet that being in an auto-bid conference would give them. By joining in football only, they get the advantage without having to undo their recent paring of sports in the WCC. If things don't go well, they can go back to being independent.
Hawaii could be another alternative. Their football team is separate from the other sports and may be willing to move. Geographically, it would be a huge mess, but a trip from connecticut to Hawaii in November doesn't sound all that bad.
The football only schools would help strengthen the BCS credentials of the conference, without adding to the large number of basketball only schools. However, there are still basketball schools that need to be replaced, especially if Connecticut also leaves.
This is where the Big-12 comes in. Kansas, Kansas State and Baylor. Invite them now. If Oklahoma jumps ship, have the press conference within the hour. Or better yet, have them join before. That way the Big East is on the offensive and can have more latitude with other schools.
In basketball, the big east is already the first "superconference." Will it stay so in football?
The conference does still have the reigning men's basketball champ. Even with the losses of two power basketball programs, it remains one of the marquee basketball conferences.
However, football is hanging by life support. With TCU coming on board, they would be left with just 7 football teams. West Virginia is the only one that has a significant long-term national reputation.
A number of schools, such as UCF, are eager to move up to the ranks of the "BCS" leagues. However, should the league implode, or lose its BCS auto-bid, things could be even worse for them. They may want to play it slow.
The first step would be to get some of the football independents on speed dial. Notre Dame would be the obvious coup. They have an interest in having a place to park their non-football sports. They may be willing to add football to help save the league. Or they may just decided to jump to the Big-10.
Navy is in the right geographical footprint, and could easily join as a football-only school. They have a large following and a record of recent success that would help with the BCS standings.
BYU is a new independent with recent football success and a national following. They are not close, but they are eager for the cachet that being in an auto-bid conference would give them. By joining in football only, they get the advantage without having to undo their recent paring of sports in the WCC. If things don't go well, they can go back to being independent.
Hawaii could be another alternative. Their football team is separate from the other sports and may be willing to move. Geographically, it would be a huge mess, but a trip from connecticut to Hawaii in November doesn't sound all that bad.
The football only schools would help strengthen the BCS credentials of the conference, without adding to the large number of basketball only schools. However, there are still basketball schools that need to be replaced, especially if Connecticut also leaves.
This is where the Big-12 comes in. Kansas, Kansas State and Baylor. Invite them now. If Oklahoma jumps ship, have the press conference within the hour. Or better yet, have them join before. That way the Big East is on the offensive and can have more latitude with other schools.
In basketball, the big east is already the first "superconference." Will it stay so in football?
Sunday, December 05, 2010
Oregon State vs. Connecticut
Continuing the "using UConn to bash on the BCS" theme:
Oregon State finished 5-7. Their season is over. Revenue-wise, they should do ok. The Pac-10 has two teams in BCS bowls. However, they failed to fill the Sun Bowl spot. (The other two Pac-10 bowls would probably just cover the expenses of a team.)
Connecticut? They are 8-4, the Big East champs and are going to the BCS Fiesta bowl. A total of 6 BCS teams are going to various bowl games. With only an 8-way revenue split, Connecticut should be doing rather well.
Now, does UConn deserve a big game, while OSU stays home?
Not according to Sagarin rankings: UConn is #54, while Oregon State is #31.
Not according to similar opponents: OSU beat Louisville, while UConn was shut out.
So why is UConn bowling and not Oregon State?
You can blame the Pac-10.
Oregon and Stanford dominated the Pac-10. Even without them, you are still left with a strong conference with close parity.
Sagarin rankings of the conference teams:
Both the Big East and Pac-10 have full round robin schedules. However, the Pac-10 has two additional teams, and thus two extra non-conference games. With Stanford and Oregon dominating at the top, that means two additional losses for each team.
If each Big East team had to lose to Stanford and Oregon, only two teams would be bowl eligible. Similarly, if each Pac-10 team could replace their Stanford/Oregon loses with "easy" games, then every Pac-10 team save Washington State would be bowl eligible.
In addition to the conference schedule, the Pac-10 also tends to hurt itself with hard non-conference scheduling. Oregon State was the poster child for this. Their easy non-conference game happened to be Big East member Louisville. For their other opponent, they got two top-10 teams on the road. Talk about fun!
Here are the comparisons of Sagarin rankings of all Oregon State and UConn opponents: (bold+ denotes a win)
OSU played 7 teams ranked higher than anyone UConn played (and won 3).
UConn played 4 teams ranked lower than anyone OSU played (and lost 1).
Hand Oregon's top four opponents to UConn in exchange for their bottom four and the Huskies could easily be 4-8 instead of 8-4.
Oregon State is a little baffling. They lost to all the top-10 teams (4) they played. However, they beat everyone between 20-40. (4) Then they lost 3 of 4 to teams ranked below 40.
UConn had a similarly odd performance. The beat their highest ranked team (#30), then went won,loss,won,loss,won,loss,won,loss between 41 and 100 before beating the three remaining teams rankings above 100.
Were OSU in the Big East, they would have had a high probability of securing a BCS bowl bid. Alas, they were in the Pac 10 and had a to stay home.
Oregon State finished 5-7. Their season is over. Revenue-wise, they should do ok. The Pac-10 has two teams in BCS bowls. However, they failed to fill the Sun Bowl spot. (The other two Pac-10 bowls would probably just cover the expenses of a team.)
Connecticut? They are 8-4, the Big East champs and are going to the BCS Fiesta bowl. A total of 6 BCS teams are going to various bowl games. With only an 8-way revenue split, Connecticut should be doing rather well.
Now, does UConn deserve a big game, while OSU stays home?
Not according to Sagarin rankings: UConn is #54, while Oregon State is #31.
Not according to similar opponents: OSU beat Louisville, while UConn was shut out.
So why is UConn bowling and not Oregon State?
You can blame the Pac-10.
Oregon and Stanford dominated the Pac-10. Even without them, you are still left with a strong conference with close parity.
Sagarin rankings of the conference teams:
Big East: 30,41,54,65,68,70,78,100 Pac10: 1,3,22,23,24,31,34,42,59,82
Both the Big East and Pac-10 have full round robin schedules. However, the Pac-10 has two additional teams, and thus two extra non-conference games. With Stanford and Oregon dominating at the top, that means two additional losses for each team.
If each Big East team had to lose to Stanford and Oregon, only two teams would be bowl eligible. Similarly, if each Pac-10 team could replace their Stanford/Oregon loses with "easy" games, then every Pac-10 team save Washington State would be bowl eligible.
In addition to the conference schedule, the Pac-10 also tends to hurt itself with hard non-conference scheduling. Oregon State was the poster child for this. Their easy non-conference game happened to be Big East member Louisville. For their other opponent, they got two top-10 teams on the road. Talk about fun!
Here are the comparisons of Sagarin rankings of all Oregon State and UConn opponents: (bold+ denotes a win)
OSU: 1,3,4,8,22+,23+,24+,34+,42 ,59 , ,68+, ,82 UConn: 30+,41+,48 ,65+,68 ,70+,73,78+,100,122+,159+,183+
OSU played 7 teams ranked higher than anyone UConn played (and won 3).
UConn played 4 teams ranked lower than anyone OSU played (and lost 1).
Hand Oregon's top four opponents to UConn in exchange for their bottom four and the Huskies could easily be 4-8 instead of 8-4.
Oregon State is a little baffling. They lost to all the top-10 teams (4) they played. However, they beat everyone between 20-40. (4) Then they lost 3 of 4 to teams ranked below 40.
UConn had a similarly odd performance. The beat their highest ranked team (#30), then went won,loss,won,loss,won,loss,won,loss between 41 and 100 before beating the three remaining teams rankings above 100.
Were OSU in the Big East, they would have had a high probability of securing a BCS bowl bid. Alas, they were in the Pac 10 and had a to stay home.
Connecticut vs. Temple
Connecticut and Temple both finished the regular season 8-4.
Both are located in the northeast.
Both have played football in the Big East (Connecticut 'replaced' Temple's football spot.)
Temple defeated Connecticut by two touchdowns.
Connecticut is going to an elite $18 million payout BCS bowl game.
Temple? They're staying home.
So, suppose the Big East divides revenue equally, and Connecticut splurges and spends $2 to "travel" to Arizona for the game. They get an extra month of practice time, a load of extra money and perks for their players and coaches, and then they get the $2 million extra for their program on top of that. Temple? Nada. The rich get richer.
Both are located in the northeast.
Both have played football in the Big East (Connecticut 'replaced' Temple's football spot.)
Temple defeated Connecticut by two touchdowns.
Connecticut is going to an elite $18 million payout BCS bowl game.
Temple? They're staying home.
So, suppose the Big East divides revenue equally, and Connecticut splurges and spends $2 to "travel" to Arizona for the game. They get an extra month of practice time, a load of extra money and perks for their players and coaches, and then they get the $2 million extra for their program on top of that. Temple? Nada. The rich get richer.
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
College Football Conference Rankings
Conference Rankings using "similar team" methodology:
1. Big 10
2. WAC
3. Mountain West
4. Pac 10
5. ACC
6. Big East
7. SEC
8. big 12
9. Conference USA
9. MAC
11. Sun Belt
Rankings are computed by comparing the results of teams against "similar teams" from other conferences. Games against independent FBS are not included, while only loses to FCS teams are included. A good win is a victory over a team with an equal or better record in conference play. A bad loss is a loss to a team with an equal or worse record in conference play. Loses to FCS teams also count as bad loses. (Of course, comparing this seasons records would be better, but we don't know them yet.)
This helps to exclude "body bag" games where a conference champion blows out the cellar-dweller from another conference. A game such as Alabama's victory over San Jose State really tells us nothing about the quality of the two conferences. After all, the WAC teams had no trouble disposing of San Jose State, while Alabama had no trouble disposing with the rest of the SEC.
The games that are included are ones such as Michigan State's victory over Middle Tennessee. Michigan State finished in the middle of the Big-10, while MTSU was at the top of the Sun Belt. This is a better indicator of the overall strength of one conference versus others.
The MAC, Sun Belt and Conference-USA are clearly the "lower conferences". None have quality wins over non-conference foes, while many have ugly loses to teams from other conferences with worse records.
The Big East is slightly above these, with Syracuse's victory over a similar Akron team from the MAC.
The ACC does not have any directly comparable games - mainly due to a schedule full of FCS games. However, they did lose the two games to teams within a game of their teams. Similarly, the Pac-10 didn't win or lose any games against similarly ranked teams. The closest was the loss to by UCLA to Kansas State.
The Big 12 and SEC have some wins over the "lower 3" conferences. However, they both have ugly loses to FCS teams.
The only unblemished conferences are the Big-10, WAC and Mountain West. All three have quality victories over Big East teams. The Big-10 also has sunbelt and MAC victories.
Big-12
Bad Loss: FCS: Kansas lost to FCS North Dakota State
Good Wins: CUSA: Texas Tech (5-3 in conference last year) over SMU (6-2 in conference)
MAC: Iowa State (3-5) over Northern Illinois (5-3)
SEC
Bad Loss: FCS: Mississippi lost to FCS Jacksonville State
Best wins: Sun Belt: Georgia over Louisiana Lafayette (both had 4-4 conference records)
Sun Belt: Auburn over Arkansas State (both had 3-5 conference records)
CUSA: South Carolina (3-5) over Southern Miss (5-3)
Big East:
Bad Losses: WAC: Cincinnati (7-0) to Fresno (6-2)
MWC: Pittsburgh (5-2) to Utah (6-2)
B10: Michigan over Connectiut
Best Wins: MAC: Syracuse (1-6) over Akron (2-6)
Big 10:
Best Wins:
Sun Belt: Minnesota (3-5) over Middle Tennessee (7-1)
MAC: Michigan State (4-4) over Western Michigan (4-4)
Big East: Michigan (3-5) over Connecticut (3-4)
No bad loses
Pac 10:
No unexpected or comparable wins or losses (Kansas St over UCLA is closest)
ACC:
No unexpected or comparable wins or losses (LSU over North Carolina and Boise over Virginia Tech are the closest)
Mountain West
Wins: Big East: Utah (6-2) over Pittsburgh (5-2)
loses: none
WAC:
wins: Big East: Fresno State (6-2) over Cincinnati (7-0)
loses: none
Sun Belt:
Bad Loses: B10: Middle Tennessee (7-1) to Minnesota (3-5)
SEC: Louisiana Lafayette (4-4) to Georgia (4-4)
SEC: Arkansas State (3-5) to Auburn (3-5)
Good Wins : none
Conference USA:
Bad Loses: SEC: Southern Miss (5-3) to South Carolina (3-5)
B12: SMU (6-2) to Texas Tech (5-3)
Mid American
Bad Loses: B12: Northern Illinois (5-3) to Iowa State (3-5)
BE: Akron (2-6) to Syracuse (1-6)
1. Big 10
2. WAC
3. Mountain West
4. Pac 10
5. ACC
6. Big East
7. SEC
8. big 12
9. Conference USA
9. MAC
11. Sun Belt
Rankings are computed by comparing the results of teams against "similar teams" from other conferences. Games against independent FBS are not included, while only loses to FCS teams are included. A good win is a victory over a team with an equal or better record in conference play. A bad loss is a loss to a team with an equal or worse record in conference play. Loses to FCS teams also count as bad loses. (Of course, comparing this seasons records would be better, but we don't know them yet.)
This helps to exclude "body bag" games where a conference champion blows out the cellar-dweller from another conference. A game such as Alabama's victory over San Jose State really tells us nothing about the quality of the two conferences. After all, the WAC teams had no trouble disposing of San Jose State, while Alabama had no trouble disposing with the rest of the SEC.
The games that are included are ones such as Michigan State's victory over Middle Tennessee. Michigan State finished in the middle of the Big-10, while MTSU was at the top of the Sun Belt. This is a better indicator of the overall strength of one conference versus others.
The MAC, Sun Belt and Conference-USA are clearly the "lower conferences". None have quality wins over non-conference foes, while many have ugly loses to teams from other conferences with worse records.
The Big East is slightly above these, with Syracuse's victory over a similar Akron team from the MAC.
The ACC does not have any directly comparable games - mainly due to a schedule full of FCS games. However, they did lose the two games to teams within a game of their teams. Similarly, the Pac-10 didn't win or lose any games against similarly ranked teams. The closest was the loss to by UCLA to Kansas State.
The Big 12 and SEC have some wins over the "lower 3" conferences. However, they both have ugly loses to FCS teams.
The only unblemished conferences are the Big-10, WAC and Mountain West. All three have quality victories over Big East teams. The Big-10 also has sunbelt and MAC victories.
Big-12
Bad Loss: FCS: Kansas lost to FCS North Dakota State
Good Wins: CUSA: Texas Tech (5-3 in conference last year) over SMU (6-2 in conference)
MAC: Iowa State (3-5) over Northern Illinois (5-3)
SEC
Bad Loss: FCS: Mississippi lost to FCS Jacksonville State
Best wins: Sun Belt: Georgia over Louisiana Lafayette (both had 4-4 conference records)
Sun Belt: Auburn over Arkansas State (both had 3-5 conference records)
CUSA: South Carolina (3-5) over Southern Miss (5-3)
Big East:
Bad Losses: WAC: Cincinnati (7-0) to Fresno (6-2)
MWC: Pittsburgh (5-2) to Utah (6-2)
B10: Michigan over Connectiut
Best Wins: MAC: Syracuse (1-6) over Akron (2-6)
Big 10:
Best Wins:
Sun Belt: Minnesota (3-5) over Middle Tennessee (7-1)
MAC: Michigan State (4-4) over Western Michigan (4-4)
Big East: Michigan (3-5) over Connecticut (3-4)
No bad loses
Pac 10:
No unexpected or comparable wins or losses (Kansas St over UCLA is closest)
ACC:
No unexpected or comparable wins or losses (LSU over North Carolina and Boise over Virginia Tech are the closest)
Mountain West
Wins: Big East: Utah (6-2) over Pittsburgh (5-2)
loses: none
WAC:
wins: Big East: Fresno State (6-2) over Cincinnati (7-0)
loses: none
Sun Belt:
Bad Loses: B10: Middle Tennessee (7-1) to Minnesota (3-5)
SEC: Louisiana Lafayette (4-4) to Georgia (4-4)
SEC: Arkansas State (3-5) to Auburn (3-5)
Good Wins : none
Conference USA:
Bad Loses: SEC: Southern Miss (5-3) to South Carolina (3-5)
B12: SMU (6-2) to Texas Tech (5-3)
Mid American
Bad Loses: B12: Northern Illinois (5-3) to Iowa State (3-5)
BE: Akron (2-6) to Syracuse (1-6)
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
Big East as WCC template
The Big East has 8 mostly small religious schools that play basketball, combined with 8 larger, mostly public schools that play basketball and football. The West Coast Conference has 8 small religious basketball schools, and just added 1 large football-playing school. Could it be going down a western model of the Big East?
With the battles going on in the conferences west of the Mississippi, there could easily be some "remains" to gather to form a conference. Cast-offs from the Big-12, WAC and MWC could band together within the existing banner of the WCC. Or big schools like Texas may do the casting off.
Far fetched? Yes. But there is the template.
With the battles going on in the conferences west of the Mississippi, there could easily be some "remains" to gather to form a conference. Cast-offs from the Big-12, WAC and MWC could band together within the existing banner of the WCC. Or big schools like Texas may do the casting off.
Far fetched? Yes. But there is the template.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)