Why the end of the AQ may not save the MWC & C-USA from the Big East

and then let the bowls have a free for all.

I agree that the BCS is basically trying to figure out what it can do from this point on. They know that many folks out there hate the BCS, and they need to try to find a formula that keeps enough people satisfied that they maintain their power. The SEC & ACC proposed a “plus one” game (a four-game playoff) that was rejected a couple of years ago. I get more disgusted with the BCS all the time and am really hoping that it is not renewed (or at worst, it is renewed with eight bowls hosting first round matchups of a 16-team playoff).

The Big East – West Virginia lawsuits will certainly be interesting. I’m very curious as to whether or not a judge will actually force WVU to stay in a conference, or just force it to pay some amount of damages instead, or just let ‘em go (but I don’t think will happen). I don’t think the TCU thing will come into play – reportedly they had a separate agreement that said if they left before they officially joined, they wouldn’t be subject to the 27-month rule.

I hope that all of the schools considering joining the Big East (especially the western ones) consider their options very carefully. There’s no guarantee that the BCS will even exist in two years, let along whether or not the Big East will have an AQ status or even if there will be any such thing as AQ status. There’s also no guarantee that they’ll be offered a TV contract like the one ESPN made to them before (roughly the same amount for the conference per year as the ACC is receiving). As you pointed out, losing Syracuse, Pitt and West Virginia means that they’re losing marquee names, which is partially why they really want BSU and BYU for football.

My general thought is that the more “product” the conferences can offer the broadcasters, the better TV deal they’ll get. Having Mountain West conference games and Conference USA conference games is a start. But if they can add good interconference football matchups (especially Top 25 matchups) and additional basketball games with a MWC / C-USA Challenge to the deal, that helps more. Having programming that spans across four time zones also helps fill sports channels with content.

I’m not convinced a MWC / CUSA alliance would be able to get quite as much as what the other conferences were offered. I do think the alliance could get much better than either conference has now. Hopefully it would be at least $60 million per year, ideally more. It depends on how many bidders there, who they are and how much they want/need programming (which is apparently what the Big East was gambling on when they rejected the ESPN offer).

NCAA rules require that a conference must have eight full football members in order for the conference to sponsor football. If they’d lost Louisville & Cincinnati in addition to Pitt, Syracuse and WVU, they would have needed to add five full members to maintain conference sponsorship of football.

Theoretically, they could have tried for some of the other teams out there (Temple, UMass, Southern Miss, Memphis, etc.) but whether or not three leftover schools would be able to convince five schools to join as full members and four more to join as football-only members is a big question.

The Big East TV contract without football certainly wouldn’t be as good as a Big East contract with football. The basketball helps but football seems to be the “big thing” since it’s a once-a-week TV event that gets high ratings.

It is true that the Big 12 appears to be in no hurry to move back to 12 members (at least Texas and Oklahoma aren’t interested). Whether or not that will change in the future … who knows.

If the Big XII gets Louis and Cincy, it is all over. The Big XII holds the cards for the future of the Big east, so that would have a HUGE effect on the TV deal. Additionally, reports are out there hinting that if the Big East becomes unstable again, that ND will seek a permanent home in the ACC. The Big XII holds the keys and if it choses to act, it will start a domino effect that will kill the Big East as a football conference.
How would this effect the C-USA and MW deal: they would probably get the teams back and we would be right where we are now. Unless CT steps up and tries to actually strengthen the MW, we will never get anywhere. As the MW talks about adding no-name bottom feeders from the WAC, other conferences pick off the top of the MW. My big question about all of this speculation is: What is Craig Thompson doing about all of this? Will we really have to replace BSU and AF/SDSU with USU and SJSU? If that’s all he’s got, we need a new commissioner.

I’m not convinced the ACC will be inviting Rutgers and UConn to join them anytime really soon. If they’d really wanted them, they could have invited them at the same time (or immediately after) they got Syracuse and Pitt.

Conventional wisdom is that the ACC will hold a spot open for Notre Dame, at least for a little while. Last month, some of the basketball coaches were talking about wanting to go to 16, but the ACC commish also said that for the moment they were comfortable at 14 (source).

Personally, I’ve grown less fond of Notre Dame, and I hate UConn. I think if the ACC moves to 16 it should grab Temple and Rutgers to try to take over the huge markets of Philly and New Jersey/NYC. But that’s another discussion.

I do think it makes sense to try to get BYU back, even if only as a football-only member, but whether or not the TV networks could be convinced to allow simulcasting is another question. But if BYU is successful scheduling good non-conference opponents, they’ll be less likely to give up their independence.

Since Hawaii will be a football-only member, adding BYU as a football-only member would actually allow the conference to have balance if it added a tenth full member. Then the MWC would have 12 football teams and 10 full members (or adding three would mean a 14/12 setup).

Currently, with just eight football teams, the conference only has 28 football games to sell to TV networks. By moving to 10 for next year, they will have 45 (a 60% increase), if they keep all of those teams. If the conference moved to 12 football teams and a 9-game schedule, it would have 54 games. A 14-team 8-game schedule would mean 56 games. Either of these scenarios could result in a better TV contract in the future (or now, if the MWC can renegotiate its contract).

You’re right regarding negotiating contracts from a position of strength, but there’s only so much that the MWC can do. Getting SJSU helps, but that market is dominated by Stanford and Cal. Getting USU helps, but that market is dominated by Utah and BYU. Getting UTEP would help with the El Paso market, but it’s not all that big compared to other markets.

That’s why I tend to think a MWC-CUSA alliance would help, because both conferences working together strengthens their positions.

If we assume that the MWC can hold onto its current teams (for next year) and add San Jose State, Utah State and UTEP, there could be two sensible divisions:

West: San Diego State, Fresno State, San Jose State, UNLV, Nevada, Boise State (and Hawaii for football)
East: Utah State, Wyoming, Colorado State, Air Force, New Mexico, UTEP (and BYU for football)

Sticking to eight football games would allow BYU (and everyone else) to continue having four non-conference football games, helping to preserve rivalries and/or schedule stronger OOC opponents.

I’ve thought about Texas schools a bit. Ideally, it’d be great if the MWC could pick up Houston, SMU and Tulsa, as well as possibly UTEP. It would create a “central time zone” block of three teams in the conference.

But based on history, I don’t think it’s a good strategy for the long term. I think any western-based conference is going to have a lot of difficulty holding on to teams based in the Central Time Zone. TCU bailed out as soon as it had another option. I think Houston and SMU would do the same. UTEP is actually in the Mountain Time Zone and has former rivals in the MWC, so they might be the one exception regarding the Texas schools.

There are exceptions to the above; Texas and Oklahoma were trying for the Pac-12, so they wanted to move west. But the Pac-12 makes an absurd amount of money from its TV contract – the MWC does not.

When the WAC underwent massive expansion in the mid-90s, it picked up TCU, Rice, SMU and Tulsa from the Central Time Zone, and it already had UTEP. All five of those programs left relatively quickly, all moving to Conference USA. It’s my opinion that any school in the Central TZ that is in a conference with primarily Mountain & Pacific TZ schools will leave at the first good opportunity available.

While it would be nice to have Texas teams in the league, I think the only likely option is UTEP, since it’s in the Mountain TZ and already has some past rivalries with MWC teams. I’ve heard it likes being in a league with other Texas schools, but if they all leave for the Big East, UTEP might think about the MWC.

I’m generally looking at all of the schools for all sports, except BYU. USU was suggested because it brings another presence in Utah for all sports, not just football. It’s not a football power but it is very good in basketball. It also has a large student population (29K) and a large alumni base can only help.

After thinking it over, I think that San Jose State should be considered first, USU second, and and UTEP third. All three schools bring value to the conference (admittedly not a ton with football, although I know UTEP fans support their team well) and make geographic sense. UTEP is less likely to go if it can maintain ties to Texas schools in C-USA.

Adding BYU for football and SJSU for all sports would be a great simple start to expansion, Although it makes a lot of sense, I’m not sure the MWC can pull it off. If BYU is able to consistently schedule good opponents, it will be much harder for the MWC to get them back as a football-only member, unless some scenario changes that allows. Looking at their future schedules, they may be able to get teams that they want (future games with Texas and Georgia Tech point to that).

If the MWC can’t get BYU back, there is a possibility for creating a balanced schedule, even with one football-only member, and that is with one non-football member. One possible candidate is a school that recently transitioned to Division I, wanted to become a Big West member but was denied membership, and is currently an independent with no football program: Cal State Bakersfield.

CSB is not a big name in D-I athletics but has a history of successful sports teams in D-II. They’ve placed in the top five in the D-II Director’s Cup standings seven times from 1995-96 to 2005-06, winning it in 1997-98. They also have a built-in rival in the MWC because of incoming Fresno State.

If the MWC was unable to get BYU, but was able to hold onto its existing teams and grab SJSU, USU and CSB, it could have this lineup:

Hawaii (football only)
Cal State Bakersfield (non-football)
San Diego State
San Jose State
Fresno State
UNLV
Nevada
Boise State
Utah State
Wyoming
Colorado State
Air Force
New Mexico

The advantages as I see ’em:
(1) Geographic sensibility. All teams (except Hawaii for football) are in the Mountain & Pacific time zones.
(2) Stronger presence in California. Adding SJSU and CSB would mean four California schools … more eyeballs is certainly good for TV.
(3) Potential for additional in-conference rivalries. Fresno – Bakersfield. Boise State – Utah State. San Jose – Fresno.
(4) Better basketball. Utah State has won 7 conference championships in the past 11 years.

Whether or not CT would implement anything like this … I dunno. I wonder if it’s a similar situation to the Big East, in which the conference has no coherent plan of any kind for the future.

The ACC had a “4-4-4” committee (four faculty reps, four university presidents, and four athletic directors, one person from each ACC school) that researched expansion scenarios, possibilities and consequences. They talked for a year and a half before they decided that the time was right to move (and they promptly invited and then accepted Pittsburgh and Syracuse).

The Mountain West should have something similar, but they need to move much, much faster.

I do think that in theory, adding the Texas schools (and possibly Tulsa) is a good plan. My worry is mainly that those schools might always be on the lookout for something better towards the east. CT (or someone) would have to have serious discussions with those schools to see what their goals are, short-term and long-term, to see what might work as a good short-term and long-term setup.

Having a presence in California would be minimal for the TX/OK teams if the divisonal setup would pit them primarily against “mountain” opponents (in TX, NM, CO & WY). If they did travel to California a lot, their travel costs and time would be higher vs. staying in a conference geographically based either in the southeast or in the plains.

The only two recent real-world examples of what we might have are Texas and Oklahoma attempting to join the Pac-12 (and their rejection), and TCU, Rice, SMU and Tulsa joining the WAC in 1996 (all of which were gone, along with UTEP, by 2005).

Schools in Texas have the advantage of the potential to affiliate with either conferences to the east or conferences to the west. Schools to the west generally don’t have that option (although with the Big East, apparently anything is possible).

I’m not trying to throw the idea out, because it would certainly benefit the MWC if it could grab Houston, SMU and Tulsa. But they need to be convinced its in their best interest to be in a western conference vs. an eastern one.

If the MWC leadership is going to convince Boise State, San Diego State and Air Force that it is in their best interest to stay put and not to join the Big East for football, it needs to have a viable short-term and long-term plan in place. If it’s going to try to convince Houston, SMU and Tulsa to join the MWC instead of the Big East, the same thing applies. The potential Big East football TV contract money is hard to ignore.

I have little confidence that the MWC leadership will be able to do what it needs to do. A 14-team or 16-team league spanning from California to Texas, if done right, could be successful. But there has to be a solid plan in place to make it work.

The “pod system” the WAC tried to use would be out. It would have to be fixed divisions.

For never-ending discussion, here’s one more version of the potential league:

West: Hawaii(FB)/Cal State Bakersfield(non-FB), San Diego St, Fresno St, San Jose St, UNLV, Nevada, Boise St, BYU or Utah St

East: Wyoming, Colorado St, Air Force, New Mexico, UTEP, Houston, SMU, Tulsa

I kind of wish though that there was less speculation and more actual action by all of the parties involved. I’d hoped that the Big 12 would have already gone ahead and taken two teams, whichever ones they might be. There are obviously folks in the Big 12 that want to move back to 12 teams. They should stop waiting and get it done. If they don’t want ’em in yet, they can say “you are invited to join the Big 12 for the 2014-2015 season” … or whatever.

The ACC has made it clear that they might go to 16 but are currently comfortable with 14. I still think they’re (for now) leaving a spot open for Notre Dame, although I’m starting to be of the opinion that Notre Dame can flail in the wind (along with UConn) for all I care about ’em.

If the Big 12 grabs Louisville & Cincinnati, I think that would be the best scenario for all involved. Conference USA members could then stay put, and the conference could invite some of the Big East members to associate (either as full members or football-only members). Any “leftovers” could associate with the MAC or become football independents for the short term.

The Big East has been reactive (rather than proactive) for its entire existence … it will be a sad thing if it continues to survive as a football conference primarily because an awful system (the BCS) proclaimed that it has “Automatic Qualifier status” and it is able to use that to lure other schools in.

Oddly enough, if UCF, Houston and SMU leave C-USA, then that conference will have but 9 members. If BSU, AF and SDSU leave the MW, which now seems possible, the MW will have only 7 members and 6 for all sports (Hawaii)!! Adding USU and SJSU would bring the MW back to parity with C-USA, both at 9. 9 teams won’t be enough for scheduling and each conference will most likely have to add 1 more. At that point, the pickins get mighty slim! Does the MW add Idaho, thereby killing the WAC? Whom should C-USA add for the alliance? These are serious hits to the credibility of both conferences, not to mention the alliance or full merged conferences.

CUSA takes UTSA, Texas State, and Louisiana Tech, with UTEP to MWC, ending with 11
MWC takes UTEP and Idaho to go to 11
WAC dies

Thanks for the link … hadn’t seen that before …

I can’t blame Boise State (or any team) for not wanting a championship game because of the potential problems related to getting a BCS invite. Look at what happened with Houston … Southern Miss’ victory actually hurt Conference USA financially, since the Cougars would have been guaranteed a BCS bid. It’s yet another reason that the BCS sucks.

The reason that the risk of a championship game is worth it in the Big East and not in the Mountain West is primarily because the Big East already has the AQ status. Therefore, even if BSU doesn’t win the conference championship, they’re guaranteed to get BCS money from the Big East’s payout – a loss by BSU wouldn’t cost the entire conference its BCS bid. They’ll also have decent (possibly better) bowl tie-ins from the Big East.

This, of course, is assuming that AQ status still exists after the current BCS contract expires. If that AQ status vanishes (presumably for all conferences) that may change things enough for Boise State to reconsider. But they still might consider going to the Big East because of the potentially larger TV money (as mentioned in the original post).

I know Houston is theoretically the best option out there, but I’m still thinking about major problems the WAC had in the 90s and do not believe it is a viable move for the long-term. TCU also bailed out (admittedly, TCU recently hasn’t stayed in any conference for long). I believe other teams in that area would do the same thing, once given a better option.

The Mountain West is somewhat similar to the Big East in that it seems to be more reactive than proactive. It’s a sad situation; I don’t know enough about CT to comment on his ability to get much done, but I haven’t been impressed with the moves that have been made so far.

The MWC could definitely cripple (kill?) the WAC if they took SJSU and USU. That would cut a big hole in the league, leaving Seattle & Idaho more isolated. I could see Idaho giving up and moving back to the Big Sky and FCS (its stadium barely has enough seats for an FBS team). Seattle could try to rejoin the West Coast Conference. The WAC might not die but it would become more Texas-centric. I don’t see any strong reasons for the MWC to go after Idaho.

I think that the leadership of the MWC and C-USA should immediately put together a serious plan on how an alliance can help everyone involved in both conferences regarding exposure, TV money, out of conference agreements and whatever else they can work together on. If it’s even possible, they should try to convince the teams that want to leave on why it is best for them to stay. I think that both conferences would be in much better shape if they worked together rather than separately (or against each other).

Whether or not there’s enough time left to try to save the schools that plan on leaving is highly questionable.