nelsonmuntz
Point Center
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 44,281
- Reaction Score
- 33,236
With TCU never showing up, the BCS bid is not quite the slam dunk I thought it would be. We are still probably OK, but it may make political sense to try a merger with the MWC for football only.
The Big East would add Temple for all sports, Navy for football only, and Butler for basketball. If there was a football only that was clearly additive from a TV perspective, such as UMass, you add them, but it has to be as clear cut as the TV partner saying they will pay X dollars more if UMass is in the league than without them, and that number is much more than UMass' take.
I would prefer the MWC to dump New Mexico and Wyoming, and replace them with SMU and Houston. New Mexico and especially Wyoming are small states and markets, and the programs are very limited in terms of how good they could ever be, especially compared to SMU and Houston, who would compete at a high level in a major.
The league would be split East/West, and would do 6 conference games within the division, 2 against the other division. If there were 9 BE teams and 10 MWC teams, every year 2 BE teams might have to play an additional MWC team.
Each division of the MWC and BE is responsible for their own TV deal, with some revenue sharing. The kicker would be that I think the Big East could get a "buy in" whereby the BCS revenue would be split 2:1 or something like it to the Big East and the Big East could get a disproportionate share of the next TV deal. the MWC would do anything to get a BCS bid and keep Boise locked down, so they would probably go for it.
Pros:
1) BCS bid is locked down. No way the BCS takes the bid if 19 teams are playing for it and Boise's perma at-large bid is not there anymore.
2) The Big East is not diluted. All these proposals for 10 and 12 team Big Easts bring in a lot of detritus that will not add TV dollars but will clutter the schedule. If there are more rounds of expansion left to go, the Big East needs to be nimble. A 9 team division of Cincinnati, Louisville, UMass, UConn, Rutgers, Temple, Navy, WVU and USF will be geographically concentrated (except USF) and result in some pretty good rivalries.
3) The basketball conference is protected. While Temple and Butler do not offset Pitt and Syracuse, they are the best choices available and the basketball league will still be the top league in the country.
4) The MWC gets out of its lousy TV deal that runs through 2015 or 2016.
5) The MWC/Big East championship game would be a big hit most years.
6) Most of the MWC stadiums are in beautiful settings. There will be some cool conference games.
Cons:
1) The chances of getting the BCS bid go from 1 in 8 to 1 in 19, with Boise standing in the way every year. The reality is that joining another major conference probably all but eliminates the chance of UConn going to a BCS game again anyway. And at least we keep the bid.
2) There are others, but relative to the alternatives, this is a pretty good solution.
The Big East would add Temple for all sports, Navy for football only, and Butler for basketball. If there was a football only that was clearly additive from a TV perspective, such as UMass, you add them, but it has to be as clear cut as the TV partner saying they will pay X dollars more if UMass is in the league than without them, and that number is much more than UMass' take.
I would prefer the MWC to dump New Mexico and Wyoming, and replace them with SMU and Houston. New Mexico and especially Wyoming are small states and markets, and the programs are very limited in terms of how good they could ever be, especially compared to SMU and Houston, who would compete at a high level in a major.
The league would be split East/West, and would do 6 conference games within the division, 2 against the other division. If there were 9 BE teams and 10 MWC teams, every year 2 BE teams might have to play an additional MWC team.
Each division of the MWC and BE is responsible for their own TV deal, with some revenue sharing. The kicker would be that I think the Big East could get a "buy in" whereby the BCS revenue would be split 2:1 or something like it to the Big East and the Big East could get a disproportionate share of the next TV deal. the MWC would do anything to get a BCS bid and keep Boise locked down, so they would probably go for it.
Pros:
1) BCS bid is locked down. No way the BCS takes the bid if 19 teams are playing for it and Boise's perma at-large bid is not there anymore.
2) The Big East is not diluted. All these proposals for 10 and 12 team Big Easts bring in a lot of detritus that will not add TV dollars but will clutter the schedule. If there are more rounds of expansion left to go, the Big East needs to be nimble. A 9 team division of Cincinnati, Louisville, UMass, UConn, Rutgers, Temple, Navy, WVU and USF will be geographically concentrated (except USF) and result in some pretty good rivalries.
3) The basketball conference is protected. While Temple and Butler do not offset Pitt and Syracuse, they are the best choices available and the basketball league will still be the top league in the country.
4) The MWC gets out of its lousy TV deal that runs through 2015 or 2016.
5) The MWC/Big East championship game would be a big hit most years.
6) Most of the MWC stadiums are in beautiful settings. There will be some cool conference games.
Cons:
1) The chances of getting the BCS bid go from 1 in 8 to 1 in 19, with Boise standing in the way every year. The reality is that joining another major conference probably all but eliminates the chance of UConn going to a BCS game again anyway. And at least we keep the bid.
2) There are others, but relative to the alternatives, this is a pretty good solution.