It would keep them until 2013, that is two years on the next evaluation cycle. Makes a huge difference in the 4 year evaluation period, 2012-15. Of course, I've heard some goofy things about when a team leaves how their last 2-3 years follow them to the next conference and don't count on their previous one, even though that's where they played. So, who knows. I don't think the Big East is in danger of losing AQ until after 2015, personally. But, I don't think they want to chance it and let all these teams leave early, possibly jeopardizing their AQ status after this current evaluation period.
West Virginia to Big 12? Sounds good! Now bring in Louisville and Cincinnati as well. BYU, Air Force and South Florida. Get yourself to 16 teams. Just let the Big East die.
People are looking at the top conference realignment, but there's other conferences realigning, too. http://www.kfdm.com/sports/southland-45440-conference-university.html They don't have football, but otherwise, Oral Roberts is a great fit for the Southland.
Beauty of playing in the MWC and BigEast. I imagine if A&M or Mizzou were in the BigEast, they'd have racked up quite a few BCS bids over the last 15 years. I think, as a program, it's easy to argue WVU is equal to Mizzou. But there's no way to argue that TCU is the equivalent of A&M. 10 or 15 years from now, if both teams were in the same conference and you had to predict who'd be better, it would be A&M every time. Academically, both are a steep drop down, and the SEC has now passed the Big12 in academic prestige. Interestingly, one of the reasons OU always sighted for having no interest in the SEC was academics. If this all blows up again a few years down the line, SEC may be a viable option for them now.
Here's what ESPN is saying about ND. Who knows what's going on. http://espn.go.com/college-football...ns-texas-tech-red-raiders-week-8-performances
Apparently not. McMurphyCBS Brett McMurphy Big East spokesman John Paquette tells @CBSSports John Marinatto will not meet w/C-USA & MWC commishes about merger as reported elsewhere McMurphy is really the only guy who I trust in regards to the Big East, he's been solid. Andy Katz has been flinging poo at the wall hoping something sticks. Not surprised Katz is floating this idea though, because ESPN is losing the Big East as a television partner, so they'd probably do anything they could to paint doom and gloom for that conference.
Man, this is getting confusing. If UH and SMU move to the Big East, it looks like they will be the marque teams. Isn't there supposed to be some announcement by UH on Thursday about their move to the Big East? What a mess, how can UH make a decision about moving to the Big East, when they don't really know what they will be joining?
IIRC Thursday is just a meeting that will give the Chancellor the authority to negotiate and execute a move to a new conference. Nothing for certain that it will be done that day. http://www.chron.com/sports/cougars/article/UH-regents-to-meet-Thursday-discuss-possible-2234097.php
WVU release: "Contrary to media reports, there is no press conference scheduled for Wed. concerning WVU's athletic conference affiliation."
Seems like ESPN is constantly spreading bad rumors about the Big East realignment. Their articles are so off base from some of the other East Coast media.
If you asked 10 years ago who would've been better, even in there respective conferences, I bet you would have gotten the same answer as well. Reality is that TCU had a ton more success than A&M did the past decade. Even if in different conferences, I don't think you would have that many people that would have predicted that.
Absolutely - I'm not trying to denigrate what TCU has accomplished. I've been a big supporter of what they did and giving them and Boise chances in BCS games, etc. What I'm saying is that what TCU accomplished will be hard to sustain. It's what Northwestern did under Gary Barnett, what Boise & Stanford are doing now, etc. Their success can be traced to things that are transitory - like great coaches. Stanford is no doubt better than USC today. But if you were predict 10 years from now, you'd pick USC. So if you were picking a program to be in your conference for the next 20 years, you'd pick them over Stanford. The reason is that certain schools have "programs" that will sustain - they may suck for a while, or even for long periods, but ultimately, you kind of assume they will become good again. Other programs don't have that - TCU, Stanford, and NW fall into that latter category. A&M falls into the former (though certainly not at the level of Texas or OU).
I'm sure they'll find some other programming for ESPN Ocho. I think the last Big East game I paid attention to was that WV vs Pitt game a few years ago where WV was on the brink of maybe being the championship game and lost in an ugly game. Seriously, an 8-5 UConn in a BCS game with Oklahoma? What a joke.
Uh, not really. In fact, TCU's undergrad business school is ranked ahead of A&M and Baylor http://www.businessweek.com/interactive_reports/bs_ugrank_tab_0303.html
There's a lot more to a University than an undergrad business school. In the latest US News rankings, A&M is #58, while TCU is #97, just behind Iowa State. I'm pretty sure other rankings will give you similar results. Of the schools involved: A&M: 58 Mizzou: 90 TCU: 97 WVU: 164
Here is a pretty well respected ranking of world universities: http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2010.jsp A&M comes in at 95 Mizzou is between 201-300 TCU and WVU do not make the top 500.
http://maysbusiness.tamu.edu/index....ba-program-breaks-into-top-10-public-ranking/ Pee-pee games my friend... pee-pee games.
