August 3, 2004
C-USA officials still working out kinks
Championship game or no championship game? This is simply one of the many questions that C-USA officials are pondering as they work out the bugs of next year's new 12 team conference.
Under debate - designating certain pairs of teams "Permanent rivals" so they play each other every year during the 8-game conference schedule.
And of course whether or not the conference will go the route of adding a conference championship game, like the SEC, MAC and Big 12.
The new look conference will be shaped like so
In the East Division, holdovers USM, East Carolina, UAB and Memphis will be joined by former Mid-American Conference members Marshall and Central Florida.In the West Division, veteran C-USA members Houston and Tulane will welcome four former members of the Western Athletic Conference: Tulsa, Rice, SMU and Texas-El Paso.
Comments:
posted on August 3, 2004 2:29 PM — 198.207.0.5 — link — abuse?Josh McClain said:
Price's UTEP and Central Florida are sneaky additions, IMO.
The loss of Louisville is a killer, as Louisville, ECU and Marshall made the C-USA a favorite for the big dogs as they wouldn't hurt a team strength of schedule wise.
I don't see how the C-USA should be put in a rotation with the Mtn. West and the Big East for a final bid(or 2) for the BCS.
posted on August 3, 2004 2:54 PM — 69.73.43.133 — link — abuse?
C-USA is not losing Marshall, but gaining Marshall. Louisville and TCU are both big losses for the conference. ECU is staying, along with a strong USM team.
The teams at the top of C-USA will be competitive with the top teams from the MWC and the Big East.
The MAC will remain strong, still holding Miami(OH) NIllinois and Bowling Green, all teams that have done well the last couple of years. If the MAC has another good year this year, the move by Marshall and UCF may be called into question. C-USA is currently the strong conference, but the tide appears to be changing.
The BCS has the Big East with an automatic bid and is planning to give non-BCS teams a bid in the new system. By the time the new system is in place I feel the Big East will be downgraded from BCS status.
It would be unpopular with the college presidents for the BCS to take a bowl from the midmajors. I doubt they would use a rotation system for the mid-majors. Instead I would expect them to take the top 2 non-BCS champions, based on the BCS ranking, to fill the last 2 spots.
As for the conference chamionship issue, I think fi you have 12 teams there is no reason not to have one. I also like the way they devided up teams by former conference allignment.
Although the permanent rivalry structure was essential to the ACC expansion, and would probably be a factor if the MWC expanded to 12, C-USA doesn't appear to have as strong of a historical rivalry structure as those conferences have had. I don't really see any teams that would have strong rivalries across the lines that have been drawn. Try adding a few teams to the MWC and drawing a line without crossing a rivalry and you will be hardpressed.
Over the next 2 years it will be interesting to watch how the top non-BCS conferences shake out. The Big East, C-USA, MWC and MAC all have reason to be hopeful of the next few years.
posted on August 3, 2004 3:08 PM — 69.73.43.133 — link — abuse?
I will say that when the ACC went to a 12 team conference with 2 divisions and permanent rivalries I thought, this is the future of college football realignment. It is an elegant model that deals with most details of conference scheduling in a compromizing fasion.
Maurice said:
posted on August 4, 2004 9:36 AM — 208.17.179.33 — link — abuse?
If C-USA formula works out, this will be the model for College football. I believe with in a few years Pac 10, MWC,Big East, & Big 10 will be force move to a 12 team league.
The ACC has changed the landscape of College Football
posted on August 4, 2004 11:40 AM — 198.207.0.5 — link — abuse?
I would love to see the Pac 10 add 2 teams, but it will never happen, as long as the four California teams have a say, which they always will.
The Problem is finding a pair of teams, that they consider "equal" to them, which is no easy trick. The Southern Cal schools bristle at the idea of the San Diego States of the world being consider they're equal academically and athletically. Same with the Nor Cal schools and the likes of Fresno St.
That apparently was brought up a year or two ago, and was shot down, at every turn, by those four schools.
If I had my choice, Boise St and Utah would come marching in. But sadly that won't be happening, any time soon anyway.
As for the Big 10, I see Pittsburgh signing up before too long.
Matt Yeager said:
posted on August 4, 2004 7:51 PM — 4.12.29.71 — link — abuse?
Actually, inviting Boise State and IDAHO would make a TON of sense. You could split it up into N/S, and the rivalries would take care of themselves. That would be sweet. Utah makes some sense, though. Their football program should be strong for some time, and they'd be a basketball power. Academically, they'd be fine, too. But putting them in with BSU would mean they'd have to be in the North, which doesn't make a ton of sense. (And trust me, East/West wouldn't work, at all.) So maybe 10 works best, after all. =/
Back on topic: This looks like a really, really, really crappy football conference. It's like they chose the worst teams of last year to enter. Seriously. Memphis and SoMiss (and, if you're being lenient, maybe Houston) are the only good teams... and everyone else SUCKS. It's also a fairly bad BASKETBALL conference. You've got Memphis and UAB... and you add UTEP... and then what? This conference got six bids last year. Maybe three next year.
posted on August 4, 2004 8:54 PM — link — abuse?
I think you could be surprised, Josh. Depsite the mindsets of the traditional teams, you gotta put supper on the table, so to speak. Ask Duke, UNC, NC State, & Wake how they feel about the ACC expansion. Not thrilled, but they needed the money & had few options, because there was a better than zero chance that the other members could end up walking on them at some point.
The 12 team model works. Bix XII and SEC schools have been cashing in, and the ACC will too. Big 10 (11) expansion is a no brainer, but I rather suspect they'll dilly-dally around waiting for ND, which is "nevah-gonnah-happin".
PAC 10 should strike while they can and take the best of what's out there. Otherwise they're going to find themselves in a position of the MWC gaining BCS status and having less to offer potential mates.
Trey said:
posted on August 5, 2004 9:53 AM — 63.126.66.2 — link — abuse?
Boise St & Idaho in the Pac-10? Are you crazy...
If anything, keeping with the travel system the conference has set up and the big name schools - they would aim at Utah & BYU or Colorado & Col State before any schools in Idaho.
Come on now...Boise St should go to the Mountain West - sooner the better
posted on August 5, 2004 6:06 PM — 198.207.0.5 — link — abuse?
The only problem Kevin, is that in the Pac-10, those four schools stick together to veto even the thought of expansion right now.
Last year, when all the Big East/ACC hoopla was going on, a few reporters tried to feel out what he Pac-10's thoughts on that would be. Several AD's wouldn't go on the record, but said anonymously that it wasn't going to happen for those reasons, that they, meaning the Cal schools, were willing to fight tooth and nail to keep themselves up on that "pedestal".
That's what I'm basing the idea that it will not happen on.
posted on August 5, 2004 8:02 PM — 69.73.43.133 — link — abuse?
Hawaii needs to be comsidered in ANY PAC10 expansion picture. They are near the top of the WAC standings, bring their own bowl game with them, fit into the PAC 10 geography, bring in their 12 game exception for taems travaling to Hawaii and is VERY well regarded from an academic stand point.
Fresno State will never be in the PAC 10 due to academic reasons. Those where a large part of why SDSU was brought into the MWC over Fresno State.
SDSU would be a possibility if the california schools push for another California school. Utah and BYU have the academic regard to be considered as a good 2nd. Right now Utah has the edge in their football program.
Boise State's problem is not location, it is their academics. They are highly regarded for their type of University, but there range of programs is limited.
UNLV, San Jose State and Nevada should get a passign mention, but not much more.
Utah and Hawaii make the most sense to me at this time.
I don't see the MWC going to 12 before the PAC 10. If the PAC 10 went to 12, especially if they take 1 or 2 MWC members, I would expect the MWC to follow suit.
The order of interest the MWC has is close to this:
Boise State, Hawaii, Nevada, UTEP, Fresno State, Utah State and New Mexico State.The Big 10 will go to 12 teams when Notre Dame loses its big NBC contract.
PAC 10 expansion would create waves as big as the ACC expansion did, but the end result is a significantly more stable coference structure. (And the death of the WAC and or Sun Belt.)
posted on August 5, 2004 9:54 PM — link — abuse?
Hawaii will always be sidelined in mid-majors, because there's no good reason for PAC10 schools to pay the extra money to travel to Hawaii.
If you look at the number of sports the Pac10 schools run, it just makes zero since to run out to Hawaii a dozen or so times a year. When you can travel to {insert school name here} and still get the game in and (presumably) the same benefit, why spend the $ to go to Hawaii??
Matt Yeager said:
posted on August 6, 2004 5:45 PM — 4.12.29.71 — link — abuse?
Exactly. Maybe it's reasonable from a football sense, an academic sense, and (stretching a bit) a basketball sense. It's idiotic from a volleyball sense, a gymnastics sense, a wrestling sense, a swimming sense, etc. The Pac plays the most sports in division I. The travel costs for volleyball players are the same as for basketball players.
Boise State and Idaho still make sense. You think the California schools have a problem with expansion into Idaho?
Boise State isn't just good in football, remember. It has reasonably comptetive basketball and wrestling programs, and also offers its own bowl. (Washington wouldn't have had to sit out the bowl season last year, and would have killed Tulsa.)
Idaho is only troubling from an attendance standing, but they're the only other school that makes a lot of sense. (Also, if you're Washington State, you might not like playing your {currently} friendly rivals in EVERY SPORT, EVERY YEAR, TWICE in some sports. This is what turns friendly rivalries into resentment, since the Vandals would get pounded, again and again and again and again and again and again and again.)
But if you're going to add Boise State, you HAVE to add Idaho.
If you're going to add Utah, you HAVE to add Brigham Young (or maybe Utah State).
If you're going to add Colorado State, you HAVE to add either Colorado or Air Force (and probably Colorado, which would throw the Big XII out of whack).
If you're going to add Hawaii... that's the problem. I have no idea who Hawaii's archrival is. Hell, they might not even have one.
=/
posted on August 9, 2004 10:02 AM — 69.73.43.133 — link — abuse?
OK the MWC Rivalry tree, as I know it:
Utah BYU is the biggest rivalry in the conference.
CSU Air Force is close to next, though CSU's rival is Colorado.
Wyoming also looks towards CSU, though BYU is a big game for them too.
New Mexico's biggest rival is UTEP, soon to be in C-USA.
SDSU and UNLV look to be rivals from the schedule the big rivalry game last theory. UNLV has in-state Nevada to contend with as well.Utah State plays Utah, but the rivalry is not strong. Neither is the rivalry between New Mexico and New Mexico State. These are like Wyoming, having their big game, while the larger school has bigger fish to fry.
Lets not forget future member TCU. Their rival is the great and mighty SMU. Go MUSTANGS!...?
Please note that all comments are subject to the Fanblogs Comment Policy.
Kevin Donahue said:
posted on August 3, 2004 2:17 PM — link — abuse?I gotta tell ya, I love the alignment coming in the "new" C-USA. I think C-USA is going to miss the departing teams, but I love what they're doing...especially in the West. Naturals rivalries are just such a no brainer. I was somewhat concerned that they would do a North & South thing.