Interesting take on all the moves that went down today, and the widening divide between the top 6 conferences and the rest.

From Scout.com

Bigger Won't Be Better
The new C-USA and M-West



By Pete Fiutak
Follow Us ... #ColFootballNews

The WAC looked around the college football realignment poker table and couldn’t figure out who the sucker was.

The massive shuffling of the non-BCS conferences is just starting to make headlines with the NFL draft, NBA and NHL playoffs, and the death of Junior Seau taking up all the attention, so in case you missed it, the Mountain West and Conference USA are on the verge of raiding the WAC for enough programs to potentially wipe the league off the face of the college football map.

To give you the basic gist of all the latest moves, and to explain this as easily as possible, all you really have to know about the latest round of athletic department musical chairs is one thing.

The newly-formed non-BCS conferences are going to suck.

Never before has there been such a gigantic disparity between the haves and have-nots, and by next year it’ll be so bad that someone in a position of power - once the BCS commissioners figure out the playoff plan - will have to seriously consider the idea that the BCS leagues need to break free to form a whole new level of college football. That’s how bad these new conferences are going to be.

This won’t be like the last decade when the Patron Saints of Lost BCS Causes made things interesting.

Boise State (Big East) and TCU (Big 12) went from fighting against the big boys to becoming part of the establishment. Utah is long gone to the Pac-12, and BYU decided to dive into obscurity by going independent.

Oh sure, there will still be a few restaurant-quality programs around the lower ranks like East Carolina, Southern Miss, Nevada, and Fresno State, but they’re all just hanging around until they get the call up to the big leagues. At this point, with the BCS conferences becoming even more dominant and even more important, if you’re not in the ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, or SEC, you’re playing AA ball.

Read the rest of the article here: http://cfn.scout.com/2/1183373.html

I'm glad for the local school here (North Texas). Going to C-USA with division opponents UTEP, Tulsa, Rice, UTSA, Tulane, and La Tech is a big step for them.

But the gap between the haves & have nots is solidifying. Thank God the Big East threw a rope to SMU.

Love the Jan Brady wig pic.

(05-04-2012 06:40 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I'm glad for the local school here (North Texas). Going to C-USA with division opponents UTEP, Tulsa, Rice, UTSA, Tulane, and La Tech is a big step for them.

But the gap between the haves & have nots is solidifying. Thank God the Big East threw a rope to SMU.

Love the Jan Brady wig pic.

This is very familiar territory for UNT. When they were in the Sun Belt, they also reached into the FCS ranks for new members.
Now, with start-ups UTSA and UNCC, and (probably) ODU from the FCS ranks, they're actually one of the better football additions. That's a scary thought but at least they'll be competitive with half the league.
CUSA really needs its vets to get serious about football now. There is no reason for Rice, UAB, Tulane, etc, to continue to field such awful teams. Those are three of their bigger markets and they nullify the CUSA brand with their lackluster efforts.

And don't even get me started about basketball..

I think there is a lot of truth in the article. The MWC is no longer a threat to the Big East. It is a question which is better, the new C-USA or the new Mtn West or are both now on par with the new Sun Belt. Those 3 conference along with the stable MAC should have a playoff of their own. Each conference sends its championship team to the playoff.

The best the WAC can do now is be a non f/b conference.

CUSA and MWC simply did what they had to do. All n all I think they did a decent job reloading.

Thank you Big East!

(05-04-2012 09:33 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  CUSA and MWC simply did what they had to do. All n all I think they did a decent job reloading.

... but like with the Big East in 2003 and now 2011, the "reloading" is always done at a lower level, because the raiding conferences always skim the cream away.

We're just one step above in the pecking order:

SEC/B1G/PAC take from Big 12
.... Big 12 and ACC take from Big East
...... Big East takes from MWC/CUSA
.... MWC/CUSA take from WAC/Sun Belt

(05-04-2012 09:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  pecking order

That's another argument all together.

The point of the article wasn't about rank order in the conferences.

It's about the steep dropoff from the #5-#6 BCS program level (ACC/Big East)

...to the non-BCS level (CUSA/MWC). It's a cliff. The author likened the non-BCS to AA ball.

(05-04-2012 06:40 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I'm glad for the local school here (North Texas). Going to C-USA with division opponents UTEP, Tulsa, Rice, UTSA, Tulane, and La Tech is a big step for them.

But the gap between the haves & have nots is solidifying. Thank God the Big East threw a rope to SMU.

Love the Jan Brady wig pic.

Is that North Texas St., that used to be in the old Missouri Valley Conference in the 60's? Along with Cincy, Louisville, Memphis, Tulsa, Bradley, Wichita St (the Wheat Shockers back then)...

(05-04-2012 09:51 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 09:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  pecking order

That's another argument all together.

The point of the article wasn't about rank order in the conferences.

It's about the steep dropoff from the #5-#6 BCS program level (ACC/Big East)

...to the non-BCS level (CUSA/MWC). It's a cliff. The author likened the non-BCS to AA ball.

Yes he did. But, many observers think there is a steep drop-off between the "big 5" and the Big East, we are regarded as a 'tweener' conference.

When it comes to on-field performance, they have been wrong about that (we'll see about the new Big East), but with regard to media appeal, no.

(05-04-2012 10:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes he did. But, many observers think there is a steep drop-off between the "big 5" and the Big East, we are regarded as a 'tweener' conference.

When it comes to on-field performance, they have been wrong about that (we'll see about the new Big East), but with regard to media appeal, no.

ROFL! Another straw man.

You already argued that in a different thread. This is a different topic.

Quo.. You always try to bait others into having the same argument(s), and it clogs up new threads.

How is Quo not banned? He constantly takes shots with every post

(05-04-2012 10:09 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  You already argued that in a different thread. This is a different topic.

Quo.. You always try to bait others into having the same argument(s), and it clogs up new threads.

This thread was originally largely OFF TOPIC, as it had little to do with the Big East. The header didn't mention the Big East, and the article cited is only tangentially related to us, it is about how the MWC and CUSA have declined since they were raided and had to re-load as a consequence. I performed the public service of making it much more ON TOPIC by tying the theme of the thread explicitly to the Big East, specifically how, in the eyes of the more prestigious formerly-AQ conferences, the Big East has also declined despite getting bigger, and that this is the natural consequence of getting raided.

And posting the overall pecking-order was helpful in demonstrating that.

This is a Big East forum, after all. If you want to post something that's primarily about the MWC and CUSA, then do so on their forums.

Quo
We already know your stand on the issue and no one is disputing tat the Big East right now is behind the other 5. But that has nothing o do with what this article is about regarding the disparity between the BE and the others,and how it may lead to a split.
You have made your point it has been debated ad nauseum in other threads. Stop bringing it up in every thread on this board.

(05-04-2012 09:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 09:33 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  CUSA and MWC simply did what they had to do. All n all I think they did a decent job reloading.

... but like with the Big East in 2003 and now 2011, the "reloading" is always done at a lower level, because the raiding conferences always skim the cream away.

We're just one step above in the pecking order:

SEC/B1G/PAC take from Big 12
.... Big 12 and ACC take from Big East
...... Big East takes from MWC/CUSA
.... MWC/CUSA take from WAC/Sun Belt

Every one on that list grabbed cream from below.

(05-04-2012 10:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 09:51 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 09:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  pecking order

Yes he did. But, many observers think there is a steep drop-off between the "big 5" and the Big East, we are regarded as a 'tweener' conference.

The BE has been seen that way ever since the last shake out.

(05-04-2012 09:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 09:33 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  CUSA and MWC simply did what they had to do. All n all I think they did a decent job reloading.

... but like with the Big East in 2003 and now 2011, the "reloading" is always done at a lower level, because the raiding conferences always skim the cream away.

We're just one step above in the pecking order:

SEC/B1G/PAC take from Big 12
.... Big 12 and ACC take from Big East
...... Big East takes from MWC/CUSA
.... MWC/CUSA take from WAC/Sun Belt

It doesn't matter where we are below the other five, we are still high enough to be part of any split that could occur in the future. No way where we stand right now we get left out.

This was a great article. I hope all the folks from Boise, Houston et see this. Of course, they probably know already, that's why they are onboard with us. As the internet filled with folks (mostly from Morgantown and ESPN) who gleefully predicted the 'demise' of the BE... A few of us in the level headed crowd were calmly explaining how the BE position had changed very little. Still firmly, even moreso, the #6 conference. (Frankly, it's #5 after last years orange bowl) And from all the leaks from the BCS talks, we're still going to be fine there too. New media deal will shock everyone, simply because there is more competition now for the product.

In the end, the nBE will actually be BETTER than the oBE. Look at what we lost. Look at what we gained. (Houston, SMU, Boise and UCF have already shown the can beat the 'big boys', and these schools will only get better) Look at our position now. No problemo...

(05-05-2012 07:19 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 09:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 09:33 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  CUSA and MWC simply did what they had to do. All n all I think they did a decent job reloading.

... but like with the Big East in 2003 and now 2011, the "reloading" is always done at a lower level, because the raiding conferences always skim the cream away.

We're just one step above in the pecking order:

SEC/B1G/PAC take from Big 12
.... Big 12 and ACC take from Big East
...... Big East takes from MWC/CUSA
.... MWC/CUSA take from WAC/Sun Belt

Every one on that list grabbed cream from below.

And I think its indesputable that the latest reconfiguration resulted in a net gain on the football side, adding a perennial top 10 caliber program and 5 programs that went to bowl games - who beat teams like Penn State, Pitt, Arizona State, etc (those games were all blow outs, btw).

The decision to go to 14 was a huge positive for the Big East, not only in closing the gap between 5-6, but in WIDENING it between the "Big 6" and the rest.

(05-04-2012 10:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 09:51 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(05-04-2012 09:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  pecking order

That's another argument all together.

The point of the article wasn't about rank order in the conferences.

It's about the steep dropoff from the #5-#6 BCS program level (ACC/Big East)

...to the non-BCS level (CUSA/MWC). It's a cliff. The author likened the non-BCS to AA ball.

Yes he did. But, many observers think there is a steep drop-off between the "big 5" and the Big East, we are regarded as a 'tweener' conference.

When it comes to on-field performance, they have been wrong about that (we'll see about the new Big East), but with regard to media appeal, no.

Nov 2003 called...they want to know why you have been asleep for the past 9 years?