Assessment Of The Incoming Programs

[nelsonmuntz]

Boise is a powerhouse and I think joining the Big East will cement that status. Although, I think the difference between Boise being very good and great is Kellen Moore, and he is gone next year. Peterson is probably a lifer. He hasn't even sniffed at Oregon, Stanford or USC, which are the three best jobs on the West Coast. He isn't leaving for Arizona. The caliber of athlete is improving every year, and he is dominating the western states and doing very well in Texas, which will only improve being in a league with SMU and Houston.

Houston is Case Keenum right now, and he is gone next year too. Sumlin isn't a lifer, although he has already passed on Big 12 and Big East jobs. Houston was a strong program in the past, and its alumni are willing to do what it takes, good and bad, for Houston to compete. Houston could be a Top 25 basketball program with its history and local talent.

I am less impressed with UCF. It is in Florida, but I think O'Leary is a great coach, and UCF isn't great even by CUSA standards. They have a few wins against BCS programs the last few years, but some losing records too. O'Leary is old, and will be gone soon. I think both hoops and football will draw well. I like the hoops coach, although 3 losses to ECU in one season is a big warning flag.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Adding SMU feels a little reactive to losing to TCU. This program doesn't have a rich history other than when they were cheating. I like June Jones, but he is old too. Dallas is a big town and loves its football, but there is a lot of competition for fans there, with TCU in town and Baylor, Texas and Texas A&M all drivable on gameday. The basketball program sucks and would be lucky to win 2 games in Big East play.

Air Force and Navy aren't going to be helped that much on the recruiting front with membership. I think Air Force can handle the grind, having done so in a pretty good MWC the last few years and picked off the Big 3 in that league on a regular basis. I think Navy could really struggle.

Temple looks like a MAC team. Its claim to fame is two wins over Randy Edsall in the last two years, and giving Penn State a tough game. I would take Temple if Navy bailed or the league was going to 14, but would much prefer BYU as the last member.

BYU is on a completely different level from Temple, and would be a great addition. The Cougars got crushed by Utah and lost by 10 to TCU, but they should have beaten Texas, and they are breaking in a new and very talented QB. This will be a good team in a year, Mendenhall is a great coach that is never leaving, and the Cougars could join tomorrow if they wanted to.

 

[Vowelguy]

Adding SMU feels a little reactive to losing to TCU.

I think economics played a big role. Trips to Texas become a lot more reasonable if you can play 2 games, not 1.

I think Navy could really struggle.

I am baffled as to why Navy is joining. They've had a great stretch recently as an independent, with a schedule set up to get them to a bowl.

 

[NutmegState]

"I am baffled as to why Navy is joining. They've had a great stretch recently as an independent, with a schedule set up to get them to a bowl."

$$$

 

[huskyrob1]

Boise is a powerhouse and I think joining the Big East will cement that status. Although, I think the difference between Boise being very good and great is Kellen Moore, and he is gone next year. Peterson is probably a lifer. He hasn't even sniffed at Oregon, Stanford or USC, which are the three best jobs on the West Coast. He isn't leaving for Arizona. The caliber of athlete is improving every year, and he is dominating the western states and doing very well in Texas, which will only improve being in a league with SMU and Houston.

Houston is Case Keenum right now, and he is gone next year too. Sumlin isn't a lifer, although he has already passed on Big 12 and Big East jobs. Houston was a strong program in the past, and its alumni are willing to do what it takes, good and bad, for Houston to compete. Houston could be a Top 25 basketball program with its history and local talent.

I am less impressed with UCF. It is in Florida, but I think O'Leary is a great coach, and UCF isn't great even by CUSA standards. They have a few wins against BCS programs the last few years, but some losing records too. O'Leary is old, and will be gone soon. I think both hoops and football will draw well. I like the hoops coach, although 3 losses to ECU in one season is a big warning flag.

I don't disagree with your assesments but have these schools accepted the invites?

 

[gioff23]

I'm not sure I understand the historical references. Up until a few years ago, TCU had a horrible history and BSU has no history. TCU has as many good years as SMU, they are just more recent. The western schools were added in order to (a) cement BCS status and (b) make it a more palatable sell to BSU (and maybe BYU). Speaking of which I would argue UCF has been the 3rd best "upgraded" program over last 10 or so years, behind BSU and UConn.

I am long opposed to adding Temple. It is certainly better then they were wehen we kicked them to the curb, but be honest a lot of old girlfriends look good these days, but you need to remember why they are "ex-'s"! Move on. They have zero following, no stadium, and bring NOTHING to the table we don't already have. We are not getting more subscribers in Philly because we have Temple football. If we are looking to replace WVU, start w/BYU, next to ECU, then to Memphis, then to Temple.

Navy makes sense, geographically, and bring along was done to seal the deal with them.

 

[Mr.Phat]

Boise is a powerhouse and I think joining the Big East will cement that status. Although, I think the difference between Boise being very good and great is Kellen Moore, and he is gone next year. Peterson is probably a lifer. He hasn't even sniffed at Oregon, Stanford or USC, which are the three best jobs on the West Coast. He isn't leaving for Arizona. The caliber of athlete is improving every year, and he is dominating the western states and doing very well in Texas, which will only improve being in a league with SMU and Houston.

Houston is Case Keenum right now, and he is gone next year too. Sumlin isn't a lifer, although he has already passed on Big 12 and Big East jobs. Houston was a strong program in the past, and its alumni are willing to do what it takes, good and bad, for Houston to compete. Houston could be a Top 25 basketball program with its history and local talent.

I am less impressed with UCF. It is in Florida, but I think O'Leary is a great coach, and UCF isn't great even by CUSA standards. They have a few wins against BCS programs the last few years, but some losing records too. O'Leary is old, and will be gone soon. I think both hoops and football will draw well. I like the hoops coach, although 3 losses to ECU in one season is a big warning flag.

I wouldn't count out Southwick at QB. He has gotten some reps in the Bronco's blowout games. He isn't great but definitely serviceable. I don't know in the receiver corp who graduates but right now Moore has NINE guys to throw to including his brother. Fun to watch. The geography is an absurdity but the quality of football cannot be denied. They are as good if not better than Rodriguez/White/Slayton WVU.

 

[Adios]

UCF was a Division III program not too long ago. Probably the biggest leap in college football history.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

UCF was a Division III program not too long ago. Probably the biggest leap in college football history.

Boise was a junior college for nurses into the late 80's. Boise wins this contest every time.

 

[RS9999X]

Here's the Navy and Air Force rationale: "Hello Mr Media Consultant: What are the dollar figures between a 10-team BE Football Conference and a 12-team with Navy and Air Force as football only and a BE playoff game? Adding the service academies as football only and a playoff game is accretive per team? OK. Done!

SMU was viewed as the best available team in Texas. Obviously the TCU/Houston pairing made more sense on paper.

Temple won't happen IMHO. Adding Temple is a slap in the face to Villanova. Temple is on the Philly "rent a stadium" plan too and the basketball isn't as good as Nova's and lacks the important NOVA snob appeal for advertisers selling something besides kids sneakers. I can't think of a single reason to add Temple over Nova except as a concession to Football Schools to thumb their noses at Nova. A stupid, short-sighted move IMHO if NOVA will commit.

 

[broncobadger]

Boise was a junior college for nurses into the late 80's. Boise wins this contest every time.

no we became a 4 year university in 1968. We started as a womens school in 1932 and then it became a public junior college. I am in my mid 50's and for most of my life the UofI controlled the state board of education and they always voted no on any other universities in Idaho trying to grow or add programs. They even once fired our president when we tried to change conferences. This is the main reason our academics are behind where we should be. We got most of those people off the SBOE until a couple years ago and they let a couple of them on the SBOE. As you noticed the one nay vote to our changing conferences was from a board member who is also a professor at the UofI. He also voted no against us adding a Phd program in biomolecular science. Idaho has always had big problems coming from when we became a state because the original capitol was supposed to be in Lewiston which is very near the UofI. Boise ended up being the capitol of the state and the north part of the state has always hated the southern part because of this. The UofI has historically and will always continue to try and find ways to hurt BSU and ISU. It is a long and ugly story and you probably don't care but most people know very little about the state of Idaho.

 

[mavblues]

no we became a 4 year university in 1968. We started as a womens school in 1932 and then it became a public junior college. I am in my mid 50's and for most of my life the UofI controlled the state board of education and they always voted no on any other universities in Idaho trying to grow or add programs. They even once fired our president when we tried to change conferences. This is the main reason our academics are behind where we should be. We got most of those people off the SBOE until a couple years ago and they let a couple of them on the SBOE. As you noticed the one nay vote to our changing conferences was from a board member who is also a professor at the UofI. He also voted no against us adding a Phd program in biomolecular science. Idaho has always had big problems coming from when we became a state because the original capitol was supposed to be in Lewiston which is very near the UofI. Boise ended up being the capitol of the state and the north part of the state has always hated the southern part because of this. The UofI has historically and will always continue to try and find ways to hurt BSU and ISU. It is a long and ugly story and you probably don't care but most people know very little about the state of Idaho.

So are you saying Nelson was WRONG about something?

 

[Adios]

Boise was a junior college for nurses into the late 80's. Boise wins this contest every time.

BSU won the Division II title in 1980. If I am correct, they had rings made of platinum.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

UCF was a Division III program not too long ago. Probably the biggest leap in college football history.

UCF was playing 1-A (now FBS) football before USF was (and before we were).

 

[Adios]

UCF was playing 1-A (now FBS) football before USF was (and before we were).

USF started out at the 1-AA level. We were playing Division 1 football before it was divided into two subdivisions. We were in a "mid-major" conference.

 

[ctchamps]

no we became a 4 year university in 1968. We started as a womens school in 1932 and then it became a public junior college. I am in my mid 50's and for most of my life the UofI controlled the state board of education and they always voted no on any other universities in Idaho trying to grow or add programs. They even once fired our president when we tried to change conferences. This is the main reason our academics are behind where we should be. We got most of those people off the SBOE until a couple years ago and they let a couple of them on the SBOE. As you noticed the one nay vote to our changing conferences was from a board member who is also a professor at the UofI. He also voted no against us adding a Phd program in biomolecular science. Idaho has always had big problems coming from when we became a state because the original capitol was supposed to be in Lewiston which is very near the UofI. Boise ended up being the capitol of the state and the north part of the state has always hated the southern part because of this. The UofI has historically and will always continue to try and find ways to hurt BSU and ISU. It is a long and ugly story and you probably don't care but most people know very little about the state of Idaho.

Just a variation of what goes on everywhere. A certain percentage of people get into positions of power to ensure their own interests as opposed to promoting the welfare of the constituency they are supposed to represent.

How long has your SBOE been out of the grips of Idaho University and what has been the direction of BS academically since that grip was broken?

 

[broncobadger]

Just a variation of what goes on everywhere. A certain percentage of people get into positions of power to ensure their own interests as opposed to promoting the welfare of the constituency they are supposed to represent.

How long has your SBOE been out of the grips of Idaho University and what has been the direction of BS academically since that grip was broken?

It was a slow process to get them out, but it started around the time they fired Dr. Keiser for trying to move us into a better football conference and grow the school some more. It really started taking off in the 80's and 90's until a couple years ago when the gov let 2 more of them back on the board. Last year we tried to add three Phd programs and we only got one. Idaho used to have a really small population that started growing by leaps and bounds in the 80's so Boise has gotten much bigger. The way the state set up the higher ed system is really messed up. We cannot add a law school or a medical school etc. There is no medical school in Idaho yet there are tons of hospitals in the Boise area....we have some ancient agreement with washington for med school but the graduates don't come back here. The UofI has the law school so we can't have one yet they are located up north in the middle of nowhere. Concordia from oregon just opened a law school in Boise and in 10 years they will be the top law school in the state. Dr. Kustra has been trying to grow us into a metropolitan research university and we are making great strides but it is still a struggle just like it was when I was a kid. We should be rolling pretty good if we stay on the same pace and in about 10 years I think we will have some pretty strong programs.

 

[Adios]

It was a slow process to get them out, but it started around the time they fired Dr. Keiser for trying to move us into a better football conference and grow the school some more. It really started taking off in the 80's and 90's until a couple years ago when the gov let 2 more of them back on the board. Last year we tried to add three Phd programs and we only got one. Idaho used to have a really small population that started growing by leaps and bounds in the 80's so Boise has gotten much bigger. The way the state set up the higher ed system is really messed up. We cannot add a law school or a medical school etc. There is no medical school in Idaho yet there are tons of hospitals in the Boise area....we have some ancient agreement with washington for med school but the graduates don't come back here. The UofI has the law school so we can't have one yet they are located up north in the middle of nowhere. Concordia from oregon just opened a law school in Boise and in 10 years they will be the top law school in the state. Dr. Kustra has been trying to grow us into a metropolitan research university and we are making great strides but it is still a struggle just like it was when I was a kid. We should be rolling pretty good if we stay on the same pace and in about 10 years I think we will have some pretty strong programs.

I think BSU will succeed.

 

[UConnNick]

Adding SMU feels a little reactive to losing to TCU. This program doesn't have a rich history other than when they were cheating. I like June Jones, but he is old too. Dallas is a big town and loves its football, but there is a lot of competition for fans there, with TCU in town and Baylor, Texas and Texas A&M all drivable on gameday. The basketball program sucks and would be lucky to win 2 games in Big East play.

Air Force and Navy aren't going to be helped that much on the recruiting front with membership. I think Air Force can handle the grind, having done so in a pretty good MWC the last few years and picked off the Big 3 in that league on a regular basis. I think Navy could really struggle.

Temple looks like a MAC team. Its claim to fame is two wins over Randy Edsall in the last two years, and giving Penn State a tough game. I would take Temple if Navy bailed or the league was going to 14, but would much prefer BYU as the last member.

BYU is on a completely different level from Temple, and would be a great addition. The Cougars got crushed by Utah and lost by 10 to TCU, but they should have beaten Texas, and they are breaking in a new and very talented QB. This will be a good team in a year, Mendenhall is a great coach that is never leaving, and the Cougars could join tomorrow if they wanted to.

Not true regarding SMU. They were a national power in the old days. Ever heard of Doak Walker? The old guard at SMU are very serious about restoring the football program to its former glory days. They also have one of the best, relatively new on-campus stadiums in the entire country. They got Jones to leave Hawai'i by paying him 2 million per year to rebuild the program. Like Houston, they have the potential to become a national power again.

 

[RS9999X]

SMU has incredible potential. Sure they are behind the 3 big Texas Schools but after that the recruiting is damn good.. Getting guys ranked #4 through #7 at their position in Texas is still a good haul with plenty of 3 star players