CougarCorner
Sign in
Archived Topic

BCS President's Meeting: Likely No Expansion This Year

by Mars · 4/23/2010

Advertisement
M
Mars


The Big Ten had to notify the Big East and/or the Big XII yesterday if they were going to contact one or more of their schools about switching conferences. They didn't.



" Delany tells USA TODAY's Steve Wieberg the Big Ten "not anywhere near" the point of identifying and approaching prospective new schools. The Chicago Tribune has backed off its report that said the Big Ten conference would accelerate its discussion of expanding. The newspaper says commissioner Jim Delany informed colleagues at the Bowl Championship Series meetings in Arizona that the Big Ten will stick to the plan it announced in December, and take a 12-to-18-month look at the issue."

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2010/04/big-ten-wont-rush-into-expanding/1



And as a result of the Big Ten staying pat for right now, the PAC-10 looks to do the same for the time being:



" What does this mean for the Pac-10? Perhaps nothing. Scott reiterated that he doesn't feel expansion outside of the West Coast would force the Pac-10 to expand. He also admitted that, much like Delany, he has little -- nothing, actually -- to report on his conference's potential expansion plans. He noted his message is nearly identical since he first was asked about expansion at Pac-10 media day last July. "If I said anything different since, it hasn't been purposeful," he said. "

http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/21604/news-notes-and-factoids-from-the-bcs-meetings



With the Big Ten and the PAC-10 not expanding this year, I doubt the Mountain West adds Boise State either. Too bad. I'm still keeping my fingers crossed for, what's the last day to announce the Broncos' conference change, July 31st?
C
CannonCougar85
I'm still keeping my fingers crossed too. The MWC has really been a thorn in the side of the BCS in recent years and I expect them to keep on the offensive. This means that the MWC would expand regardless of what the BCS conferences do I would think. With that in mind I think adding BSU adds more ammunition that the MWC has to work with so not only am I hoping that BSU joins, I also won't be surprised in the least.
S
scott715
Expand BSU and Houston to get two more top 25 teams and one other team to make a 12 team conference. This also raises the overall teams average ranking. Before doing it talk to the Mtn and get more money for adding quality teams making the channel more attractive. You can't hope that you make it with the current 9 teams. You got to make sure you make it and compete agressively to ensure that you are there.



The lower teams in the conference really have to pick it up the next two years.
M
Mars
scott715 wrote:
Expand BSU and Houston to get two more top 25 teams and one other team to make a 12 team conference.

Did Houston finish in the Top 25 after Air Force blew them out? I would rather see Fresno State and/or Nevada added.
B
BigCougsFan
The ESPN article also stated,
Scott also added that he will appoint a "TV consultant" next month to explore the conference's media options, which could include a Pac-10 network.


A Pac-10 network??? If there was an expansion... It would say Pac-12 network.
Advertisement
M
Mars
BigCougsFan wrote:
A Pac-10 network??? If there was an expansion... It would say Pac-12 network.

I think a PAC-10 network will happen soon, and a PAC-12 may never happen.
C
cscoug
The MWC needs to proceed independent of other leagues. In other words, they need to add Boise St to solidify their numbers in the current BCS evaluation. This is a multi-million dollar gamble not to do so. If we are close to earning acceptance without Boise St, would should be on solid ground with them. It makes no financial sense now to go to 12 teams. A MWC title game will not be very lucrative, initially. Who know down the road. For sure it would dilute the money we expect to gain with BCS entrance.
Y
Y 4 Ever
If the MWC can get an autobid WITHOUT adding anybody...why bring in a Boise State? Or 3 teams? Its not like anyone else is chasing Boise State around to join their conference. I say wait and see. If :utard: doesn't join their tree-hugging, gay-marriage-supporting, pro-choice, granola-munching hippies out West, and if TCU doesn't get gobbled up by the Big 12 (which probably won't happen unless the Pac-10 takes CU - I don't see the Big Ten taking anyone from the Big 12 unless Texas changes their minds), then I don't know that bringing in Boise helps.



If they DO decide to invite Boise...then I agree - bring in two more, and make it 12. I agree on Fresno St - bring them in. And then I say bring in either Houston or SMU (preferably Houston) to give us another team in Texas. And then make the divisions look like this:



Left-Wing (aka the Hippies):

:utard:

SDSU

UNLV

Fresno

Boise

New Mexico





Right-Wing (aka the NRA):

BYU

TCU

AFA

CSU

Houston

Wyoming



Of course, BYU would play :utard: every year...but by begin in a different division from them, there's a chance we could play them in the MWC title game. THAT would be fun!
L
Lawboy
I think the writing is on the wall here that the Big Conferences are going to wait until after the 2011 season to see how things shake out. If the MWC has another BCS team, and had 2-3 more ranked teams, it will be clear that they will meet the criteria by 2012 to get BCS inclusion. At that point, the dominoes will begin to fall.



I then see the Big 10 starting things off and adding 1-3 teams. If they can get Notre Dame, then just 1 team. And if that is it, the ball will then be in the PAC10's court. At that point, they would be the only BCS conference with less than 12 teams, so not enough for a conference title game. That will bring pressure. So I expect them to add 2 teams, but ONLY if they can get Colorado. If so, it will be Colorado and Utah. if Colorado will not move, they will not expand. It really is that simple.



Next up will be the Big 12 because they will need to add 1 team. I suspect that they will choose from TCU, Houston and BYU. I would suspect TCU, but they are a small school, add nothing to the conferrence footprint, and really do not sell many tickets and push the TV dial. This is about $$$, so BYU makes the most sense, for many reasons. After that, the MWC would be forced to add BSU, FSU, whether BYU leaves or not.
C
cscoug
33311710 wrote:
If the MWC can get an autobid WITHOUT adding anybody...


It appears the MWC can't do it without expansion.



http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/andy_staples/04/23/bcs-aq/index.html?eref=twitter_feed



http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/21656/the-non-aq-to-aq-formula-revealed-sort-of



As I said earlier, this is a multi-million dollar gamble. The MWC cannot afford to play this too cautiously. We need access, and we have a shot. We are very close, but we are not there yet. Proper expansion will get us there. I think adding TCU was great. Adding only what is necessary to get us into the BCS is what needs to happen next.
Advertisement
M
Mingjai
Any team considering leaving the MWC is best served by waiting until it's clear the the MWC is not getting an automatic BCS bid. If the MWC gets an auto bid (even if it required adding Boise State), BYU, Utah, and TCU would be better off in the MWC than any other conference. It'll be interesting to see the MWC convince BSU to join, because it seems that they've developed enough credibility that the BCS doesn't care that they're in the WAC.



I'd much rather have to go through TCU or Utah to make the BCS than to have to get past USC and Oregon or Oklahoma and Texas.
C
cougfan1
Mars, I hope you are right about the Pac-10 not expanding. I have heard from a very good source that coaches (or at least one coach) is telling people that it will be announced in the next two months that Utah will be in the Pac-10. I was VERY skeptical of all the talk initially on cougarboard and the media in the last few months about expansion. Then it resurfaced again on cougarboard and 1280 about how it will be announced very soon. 1280 says in June. All of the talk and having many more people claim that they know that Utah will be in, made me more curious. So, I inquired of a source close to the Utah program. All I will say is that a Utah coach is saying that they will announce by June that they are in (and this is not just some graduate asst coach at Utah). From what I have gathered, it is not inked yet, so that still leaves me a little skeptical. I will NOT like seeing Utah go BCS if BYU doesn't at least get into the BCS through all the shuffling. I am hoping that if Utah is getting told they are the choice of Pac-10 expansion, that it is just as an emergency plan. Hopefully, the arrogant BCS and Pac-10 officials hold off on expansion if this is the case with Utah, and Utah's opportunity goes down the tubes.That would be awesome if the coaches are telling people this and the opportunity dissolves, making them look foolish.
D
Dcr36
Mars wrote:
Expand BSU and Houston to get two more top 25 teams and one other team to make a 12 team conference.

Did Houston finish in the Top 25 after Air Force blew them out? I would rather see Fresno State and/or Nevada added.


Is there ANY West Coast non-BCS team other than BSU, BYU, TCU and Utah that you can consistently bet on to have a good season most years? I don't think so, because whenever these threads get started, it's always "add BSU and/or the current non-BCS flavor of the season/past few seasons" with very little regard as to whether the team was noteworthy in the past. Especially since a surprise BCS season is usually the result of a QB/RB carrying the team, or a talented coach that you KNOW will be shopped away before long. Can you count on Houston to consistently have a worthy successor to Kevin Kolb/Case Keenum? (Who, by the way, combine for a wicked alliteration.) Note that BYU, BSU, Utah and TCU all have outstanding coaches that, for whatever reason, are content to be where they are.



I've got nothing to add regarding conference expansion because my word would be the same as pretty much everyone else's: speculation and appeals to authority of questionable authenticity.
W
Wickchad
Lawboy wrote:

I then see the Big 10 starting things off and adding 1-3 teams. If they can get Notre Dame, then just 1 team. And if that is it, the ball will then be in the PAC10's court. At that point, they would be the only BCS conference with less than 12 teams, so not enough for a conference title game. That will bring pressure. So I expect them to add 2 teams, but ONLY if they can get Colorado. If so, it will be Colorado and Utah. if Colorado will not move, they will not expand. It really is that simple.




The Big East only has 9 teams. 8 if the Big 10 takes Pitt or Rutgers. Then again they aren't really a BCS conference anyway...
C
CougarPeasant
Wickchad84087 wrote:

I then see the Big 10 starting things off and adding 1-3 teams. If they can get Notre Dame, then just 1 team. And if that is it, the ball will then be in the PAC10's court. At that point, they would be the only BCS conference with less than 12 teams, so not enough for a conference title game. That will bring pressure. So I expect them to add 2 teams, but ONLY if they can get Colorado. If so, it will be Colorado and Utah. if Colorado will not move, they will not expand. It really is that simple.




The Big East only has 9 teams. 8 if the Big 10 takes Pitt or Rutgers. Then again they aren't really a BCS conference anyway...


I've not checked, but I thought they only have 8 teams. The BE comprises: Pitt, West Va, Cincinnatti, Louisville, UConn, Syracuse, Rutgers, and So. Fl. Did I miss any?
Advertisement
S
snoscythe
CougarPeasant wrote:
Lawboy wrote:

I then see the Big 10 starting things off and adding 1-3 teams. If they can get Notre Dame, then just 1 team. And if that is it, the ball will then be in the PAC10's court. At that point, they would be the only BCS conference with less than 12 teams, so not enough for a conference title game. That will bring pressure. So I expect them to add 2 teams, but ONLY if they can get Colorado. If so, it will be Colorado and Utah. if Colorado will not move, they will not expand. It really is that simple.




The Big East only has 9 teams. 8 if the Big 10 takes Pitt or Rutgers. Then again they aren't really a BCS conference anyway...


I've not checked, but I thought they only have 8 teams. The BE comprises: Pitt, West Va, Cincinnatti, Louisville, UConn, Syracuse, Rutgers, and So. Fl. Did I miss any?


8 is correct.
S
scott715
Now that the formula has been released, we don't need more top 25 teams (by the way Houston was top 25 in the final BCS poll). We need the team average ranking up a bit. Adding quality teams can do the trick. The argument about the flash in the pan, Houston is off. The last two years they have good rankings and their QB is a senior so they should have another good ranking this year. The only other team besides BSU and Houston that could help is Navy and they are on the other side of the country.



I think SMU is an up and coming team with June Jones as coach but their first year ranking was an 1-1 team. They would have to really turn it on next year to be of benefit in the evaluation.
M
Mars
cougfan1 wrote:
I have heard from a very good source that coaches (or at least one coach) is telling people that it will be announced in the next two months that Utah will be in the Pac-10... 1280 says in June... I inquired of a source close to the Utah program. All I will say is that a Utah coach is saying that they will announce by June that they are in (and this is not just some graduate asst coach at Utah). From what I have gathered, it is not inked yet, so that still leaves me a little skeptical.

From what I understand, the PAC-10 has contacted Colorado, just sending out unoffical feelers. The PAC-10 has not offered the Buffs, and Colorado is not favored towards accepting. The PAC-10 is waiting to see if the Big Ten expands before they vote to offer Colorado, and that vote would still have to be 10-0, which in and of itself is highly unlikely, with voters like Oregon State and Stanford. The Big Ten is not expanding this year now, it appears, and may wait to expand next year until after the PAC-10 does. Both may sit and wait for the other to act first, indefinitely. But Utah will not be invited if Colorado does not accept first, and Colorado has not been invited yet, and Colorado would likely not accept if they were invited.



So that's where we seem to be right now. Nothing happening.



The PAC-10 IS likely to start up their own TV network. And the Utah coaches telling recruits they could be a part of the PAC-10 soon? They're lying through their teeth, hoping by a miracle that they somehow end up right... or at least aren't exposed until after some LOIs are signed.....
M
Mars
Dcr36 wrote:
Is there ANY West Coast non-BCS team other than BSU, BYU, TCU and Utah that you can consistently bet on to have a good season most years? I don't think so...
Agreed. That's why we should simply add Boise State. They are just as solid a promise, if not more so, than BYU, Utah, and TCU.



The Mountain West's overall strength is 7th over the evaluation period. There is no one team or combination of teams good enough to move us up to 6th. But we don't need to. Technically we qualify right now. The inclusion of Boise State is the safest bet we can make though to keep us in the top 5 of the top-ranked teams category (we are currently #3, with the WAC #6) and above 50% of the top-ranked conference in the Top 25 teams weighted category (where we are also currently #3, and the WAC still qualifies at #7 since they are above 33.3%).
Y
Y12
Why not just kick out some of the worst teams. I hear so much about add, add, add, but I hate the "mega conference" idea. The day we left the WAC for the MWC was one of the best days in BYU sports history. I don't want to see more than 9 teams in the MWC. Why not get rid of New Mexico and Colorado State if we want to add teams so bad. Then get Boise State and have 8 teams. Houston if you want 9 (yeah, they might be a flash in the pan, but the Houston metropolis won't disappear with their coach or players, so for media and recruiting purposes snag Houston). Shouldn't that boost our stock enough to get in?



I know that kicking teams out is like the unpardonable sin for sports, but don't you have to draw a line in the sand sometime? Utah is not the only school deserving to be part of the BCS inside, and they definately can't take credit for getting to the point they are at by themselves. If we believe the rumors, then Utah will be the only one to benefit from the years of joint effort. Why not say good bye to those who have not carried their weight all these years and get rid of the added baggage?
Page 1 of 2
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.