(12-26-2010 02:07 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  You need a Scout membership to see the thread. Interesting reading for sure. This was added this morning:

"Got a couple of PMs asked why current BE members have had a change of heart about adding UH over UCF, I'll answer it here....Media and PR: Adding UH actually gets the BE better press than UCF, this according to my source is from a PR firm out of NYC. Houston's history and name recognition is better. It's all about perception, UCF might have better programs right now, but Nationwide they have not been around long enough to build a rep.Media deal: Houston's market is better, and because of perception the BE would get a more favorable TV deal with UH than UCF.Travel: BE members were worried about travel costs, but once they added TCU they've sort of warmed up to the idea of traveling to Texas anyway so many of those concerns are mitigated."

Apparently the poster is well respected. Coog fans here would have to confirm but I believe this guy was on TCU to The Big East before anyone in the media reported it. As for opposition to UCF growing, that is what I expected to happen.
CJ

RangerCoog has a connection in the Big East office in Providence. I don't know how high up, but he always has a LOT of information before it goes public.

(12-26-2010 01:33 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(12-26-2010 01:29 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  If we were going to get a CCG with less than 12, I think it would have happened already. The ACC wanted before Boston College was invited. The Big Ten and PAC-10 probably would have been in favor and may well have not expanded at all if they thought they could get one with fewer teams. The Big 12 might be in favor now, but I doubt that's enough. Also, it's not like these rules are easy to change. It was an error in the wording of rules which allows them to begin with ([the NCAA never intended for them to apply to college football).

That said, a 20/13 Big East would be very interesting.

My understanding was that it was meant to apply to college football. But only to D1AA to crown champions to join the playoff. The wording made it applicable to all of D1. The SEC jumped in and exploited that.

That may be right, but the way I read it before, it was made more for smaller sports. The idea was that you had some bigger conferences where there were fewer games. To mitigate that, you could have divisions and a CCG. At the time, the biggest football conferences were 10 teams and no thought was given to them ending the traditional format for a divisional format, particularly since revenue wasn't the reason the rule was being put into place.

(12-26-2010 02:15 PM)chrisharper80 Wrote:  

(12-26-2010 02:07 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  You need a Scout membership to see the thread. Interesting reading for sure. This was added this morning:

"Got a couple of PMs asked why current BE members have had a change of heart about adding UH over UCF, I'll answer it here....Media and PR: Adding UH actually gets the BE better press than UCF, this according to my source is from a PR firm out of NYC. Houston's history and name recognition is better. It's all about perception, UCF might have better programs right now, but Nationwide they have not been around long enough to build a rep.Media deal: Houston's market is better, and because of perception the BE would get a more favorable TV deal with UH than UCF.Travel: BE members were worried about travel costs, but once they added TCU they've sort of warmed up to the idea of traveling to Texas anyway so many of those concerns are mitigated."

Apparently the poster is well respected. Coog fans here would have to confirm but I believe this guy was on TCU to The Big East before anyone in the media reported it. As for opposition to UCF growing, that is what I expected to happen.
CJ

RangerCoog has a connection in the Big East office in Providence. I don't know how high up, but he always has a LOT of information before it goes public.

Thanks Chris,
I knew I had remembered reading that.
CJ

Outside of USF, I simply can not understand where all the UCF hate comes from in the Big East...

Well it would make sense that the Big East would be looking in Texas for a second team. It is very obvious that the non BCS Texas schools stand no chance of getting into the Big 12 with four teams already in Texas from the same conference. I'm cheering for you Houston to be the next Big East team.

(12-26-2010 02:36 PM)UCF-ENG Wrote:  Outside of USF, I simply can not understand where all the UCF hate comes from in the Big East...

I believe most of the opposition against UCF is being driven by a vocal USF.
CJ

(12-26-2010 02:45 PM)Sir Galahad Wrote:  Well it would make sense that the Big East would be looking in Texas for a second team. It is very obvious that the non BCS Texas schools stand no chance of getting into the Big 12 with four teams already in Texas from the same conference. I'm cheering for you Houston to be the next Big East team.

It's interesting that some consider UCF's biggest drawback to be that it would be the 5th BCS program in the state (at which point all 4 large "state schools" would be AQ), yet no one mentions that adding another Texas team would mean SIX BCS programs all in one state.

(12-26-2010 01:10 PM)UHCougar07 Wrote:  Well you have the Big XII -2 pushing for the same thing, so there can be some outside support to help the Big East maneuver.

The Big XII has not been pursuing a CCG game. They are getting paid for one, while not having it, and not having it knock a potential second BCS team our of the running. They have no interest in having one at this time. I do not know where this keeps coming from. Now, Jerry Jones wants them to have one, but that should not be confused with the conference itself.

(12-26-2010 02:16 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(12-26-2010 01:33 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(12-26-2010 01:29 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Also, it's not like these rules are easy to change. It was an error in the wording of rules which allows them to begin with ([the NCAA never intended for them to apply to college football).

My understanding was that it was meant to apply to college football. But only to D1AA to crown champions to join the playoff. The wording made it applicable to all of D1. The SEC jumped in and exploited that.

That may be right, but the way I read it before, it was made more for smaller sports. The idea was that you had some bigger conferences where there were fewer games. To mitigate that, you could have divisions and a CCG.

This is correct. It was NEVER meant for football, especially not D1A. The SEC stumbled upon it by accident, and decided to go with it. The NCAA actually told them that "that rule was not meant for you," and tried to stop them from having it, but they couldn't since the rule was in place on their own books.

(12-26-2010 02:58 PM)UCF-ENG Wrote:  

(12-26-2010 02:45 PM)Sir Galahad Wrote:  Well it would make sense that the Big East would be looking in Texas for a second team. It is very obvious that the non BCS Texas schools stand no chance of getting into the Big 12 with four teams already in Texas from the same conference. I'm cheering for you Houston to be the next Big East team.

It's interesting that some consider UCF's biggest drawback to be that it would be the 5th BCS program in the state (at which point all 4 large "state schools" would be AQ), yet no one mentions that adding another Texas team would mean SIX BCS programs all in one state.

Yes Florida has four BCS teams in one state but they are in three different conferences. The Big 12 has four in one state, they won't add any more. The Big 12 will expand back to 12, I just believe they are looking at completely different markets to capture. Adding Houston and or SMU/TCU added nothing for the Big 12, they have all those markets today.

(12-26-2010 02:58 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-26-2010 02:16 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(12-26-2010 01:33 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(12-26-2010 01:29 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Also, it's not like these rules are easy to change. It was an error in the wording of rules which allows them to begin with ([the NCAA never intended for them to apply to college football).

My understanding was that it was meant to apply to college football. But only to D1AA to crown champions to join the playoff. The wording made it applicable to all of D1. The SEC jumped in and exploited that.

That may be right, but the way I read it before, it was made more for smaller sports. The idea was that you had some bigger conferences where there were fewer games. To mitigate that, you could have divisions and a CCG.

This is correct. It was NEVER meant for football, especially not D1A. The SEC stumbled upon it by accident, and decided to go with it. The NCAA actually told them that "that rule was not meant for you," and tried to stop them from having it, but they couldn't since the rule was in place on their own books.

Pretty Interesting, I've never heard this before...

(12-26-2010 03:01 PM)Sir Galahad Wrote:  

(12-26-2010 02:58 PM)UCF-ENG Wrote:  

(12-26-2010 02:45 PM)Sir Galahad Wrote:  Well it would make sense that the Big East would be looking in Texas for a second team. It is very obvious that the non BCS Texas schools stand no chance of getting into the Big 12 with four teams already in Texas from the same conference. I'm cheering for you Houston to be the next Big East team.

It's interesting that some consider UCF's biggest drawback to be that it would be the 5th BCS program in the state (at which point all 4 large "state schools" would be AQ), yet no one mentions that adding another Texas team would mean SIX BCS programs all in one state.

Yes Florida has four BCS teams in one state but they are in three different conferences. The Big 12 has four in one state, they won't add any more. The Big 12 will expand back to 12, I just believe they are looking at completely different markets to capture. Adding Houston and or SMU/TCU added nothing for the Big 12, they have all those markets today.

I wasn't talking about the Big 12

Houston, while not currently great has a great hoops tradition as well. Would love to see a Doctors of Dunk vs Phi Slamma Jamma annual matchup!

This goes along with what I mentioned a few days ago was being reported by the UH reporter on rivals.com. He has 3 different sources reporting the same exact thing, but he takes it even further by discussing the marketing strategy the Big East office has been working on once UH is announced. This was reported by Rob Sellers on the premium UH board on Rivals.com about 2 weeks ago. Rangercoog's contact in Providence has just passed this along to him within the past 48 hours.
My opinion is if they have a marketing strategy they are already working on then that means they are alot further along than most suspect. My gut says, no matter what happens UH and UCF will be in BE by 2014 regardless.

(12-26-2010 03:09 PM)Borncoog74 Wrote:  This goes along with what I mentioned a few days ago was being reported by the UH reporter on rivals.com. He has 3 different sources reporting the same exact thing, but he takes it even further by discussing the marketing strategy the Big East office has been working on once UH is announced. This was reported by Rob Sellers on the premium UH board on Rivals.com about 2 weeks ago. Rangercoog's contact in Providence has just passed this along to him within the past 48 hours.
My opinion is if they have a marketing strategy they are already working on then that means they are alot further along than most suspect. My gut says, no matter what happens UH and UCF will be in BE by 2014 regardless.

I think UH and UCF both make a lot of sense...

(12-26-2010 03:11 PM)UCF-ENG Wrote:  

(12-26-2010 03:09 PM)Borncoog74 Wrote:  This goes along with what I mentioned a few days ago was being reported by the UH reporter on rivals.com. He has 3 different sources reporting the same exact thing, but he takes it even further by discussing the marketing strategy the Big East office has been working on once UH is announced. This was reported by Rob Sellers on the premium UH board on Rivals.com about 2 weeks ago. Rangercoog's contact in Providence has just passed this along to him within the past 48 hours.
My opinion is if they have a marketing strategy they are already working on then that means they are alot further along than most suspect. My gut says, no matter what happens UH and UCF will be in BE by 2014 regardless.

I think UH and UCF both make a lot of sense...

Who will be the eventual 12th team? I don't see or want Nova moving up. I like both UH and UCF. BE would really solidify itself as at least the 6th best conference - way ahead of Mountain West and the others. Must be tough to lose Utah, BYU and TCU so quickly.

I would go with Memphis because basketball is really being diluted with the other additions and I'm not a ECU fan (although they are fine for football). We'd get the Liberty Bowl, good hoops, good market, new state in the footprint and their football will improve being in the BCS. They haven't always been this bad.

Interesting. Thanks for the post.

(12-26-2010 04:03 PM)Iamready Wrote:  Who will be the eventual 12th team?

I would go with Memphis because basketball is really being diluted with the other additions

Let me first restate, that I am opposed to a 12 football team alignment. That said, if I had to choose one, I'd remember not to live in the moment. Memphis has been revived in the past few years, but historically is no better a basketball school than Houston or Temple, or for that matter the dreaded Depaul and Seton Hall that people want to boot. Hell Western Kentucky and Penn can make cases for having better basketball programs, especially when you consider they only have one Final Four that actually counts.

To answer the question, since I really don't consider Houston to be a team to be added even if going to 12, I'd say the next logical team to add would be ECU, with Temple next in line, if only because of their location, and they too are historically a good basketball team. I hate even saying Temple, but after ECU they would be the next best bet.

(12-26-2010 02:07 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:   As for opposition to UCF growing, that is what I expected to happen.
CJ

Glad you are continuing to offer the laugh track...even after Christmas Day.

(12-26-2010 04:52 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(12-26-2010 02:07 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:   As for opposition to UCF growing, that is what I expected to happen.
CJ

Glad you are continuing to offer the laugh track...even after Christmas Day.

And if that happens so be it. I have always believed and President Hitt and AD Tribble hinted to it in the Florida Today article that there is more than one BCS conference in play for UCF right now. If the Big East can go to Texas for a member than it is foolish to believe that UCF can't be in play outside the southeast.

(12-26-2010 04:52 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(12-26-2010 02:07 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:   As for opposition to UCF growing, that is what I expected to happen.
CJ

Glad you are continuing to offer the laugh track...even after Christmas Day.

lol. Try listening to people instead of attacking people and maybe you won't be so upset next time.