Will the Big East Expand?

[bugatti]

Now that is a good idea. I know 6 good cupcakes, how about Texas St., Central Michigan, La. Monroe, Vandy, Ole Miss and Miss St.

:confused:

[sportsfan1977]

Now that is a good idea. I know 6 good cupcakes, how about Texas St., Central Michigan, La. Monroe, Vandy, Ole Miss and Miss St. How did UK get them all to commit.

UL gets them to schedule but they always back out.

 

 

LOL

[5wide]

Notre Dame has no reason to join a conference. They already have a BCS tie-in...they could only lose by joining one, IMO.

 

As for the Big East...what in the world has ND done to make anyone think they would dominate the Big East. Let's just look at the Charlie Weis era...nice record, in 3 games against elite opponents they have two ugly losses to Michigan and OSU...their biggest claim to glory is a 3-point loss to Southern Cal last year. They have struggled to beat some average teams (UCLA, Michigan State)... and their best win is a 4 point victory against GaTech.

 

I wouldn't give ND any edge over U of L or West Virginia. There isn't a big difference, so I suspect the Irish would be just like the rest of the top Big East teams...they'd have at least one loss...either to the Cards or the Mountaineers. There is zero evidence to support the notion that they would own the Big East. In fact, you could make a better case that they wouldn't win it.

[woodsrider]

Your kidding right? They would win the big East every year in football.

 

ND wouldn't win the Big East this year. They would mostly likely lose to UofL and WVU. Their defense is AWLFUL and the offense isn't good enough to out score Louisville or WVU.

[Jim Schue]

If the BEast is going to expand, it would need to be for football only. They're bursting at the seams with basketball teams.

 

If they do expand for FB, it needs to be Memphis St. and maybe Southern Miss.

[bugatti]

If the BEast is going to expand, it would need to be for football only. They're bursting at the seams with basketball teams.

 

If they do expand for FB, it needs to be Memphis St. and maybe Southern Miss.

Can you expand just for one sport and be in different conferences? I realize some teams may be D1 in one sport and D2 in another and play in different conferences... In other words, could UK be in the SEC in football but Big 10 in basketball?

[Jim Schue]

Can you expand just for one sport and be in different conferences? I realize some teams may be D1 in one sport and D2 in another and play in different conferences... In other words, could UK be in the SEC in football but Big 10 in basketball?

 

This is the case with a couple of the BEast schools — Villanova, for example, plays in D-IAA. With other sports it also happens — UK is in the MAC in certain other sports including soccer, if memory serves me.

[gchs_uk9]

Can you expand just for one sport and be in different conferences? I realize some teams may be D1 in one sport and D2 in another and play in different conferences... In other words, could UK be in the SEC in football but Big 10 in basketball?

 

I think its tricky and probably not advised. You see this occasionally when schools play a "minor" sport in a "minor" conference, while playing a "major" sport in their normal conference. It usually has something to do with your main conference not offering the sport, such as the situation with UK soccer (Conference USA, previously the Mid-American Conference), because the Southeastern Conference doesn't offer mens soccer.

 

I can't imagine the Big East would want to add any more football teams, outside of Notre Dame, because they wouldn't be able to facilitate them in basketball. The evidence is becoming clearer that perhaps bigger isn't better (ACC, SEC- just too tough to win every game) and thus the Big East will likely remain where they are.

[mexitucky]

The same Notre Dame team that hasn't won a Bowl game in a decade? Before last season they had been very average for a lot of years. Would they win the Big East this year...maybe. UL and WVU are very good and Notre Dame is....to be kind...untested.

 

Maybe we'll get a UL v. ND game in a Bowl and you'll have an idea if they'd have won the Big East this year. Although I think the thought of that might make RP have a breakdown.

 

Who have UL and WVU played in comparison with ND? I don't see how you throw out those two teams, compare them with ND's schedule and say that ND is untested. UL has played a good WVU team, a slumping Miami team and blew it against Rutgers. WVU has beaten Maryland and noone else. ND has beaten GT on the road, beat a slumping Penn State team, and beat a decent UCLA team. Outside of the military academies, they've played decent teams. To me, all three teams seem similar in the lack of competition they've played this year.

[gchs_uk9]

*Notre Dame annually plays Michigan, Michigan State and Purdue from the Big Ten, with periodic appearances by Penn State and to a lesser extent, Ohio State.

 

*Notre Dame annually plays Southern California, with occasional appearances by one or two more Pac-10 teams like Stanford, Washington and UCLA.

 

*Notre Dame annually plays Navy and often plays Air Force and Army.

 

*Notre Dame already signed a deal to play three Big East teams per year, starting in a couple seasons.

 

I think Notre Dame is too full to play a full Big East schedule. They already have a BCS tie-in and why would they want to litter their schedule with the entire Big East, when they can just play the big names of the Big East, plus continue playing big-time national opponents. Notre Dame may eventually join a conference, but I think it would take the instituting of a Division I playoff before they joined.

[5wide]

I think its tricky and probably not advised. You see this occasionally when schools play a "minor" sport in a "minor" conference, while playing a "major" sport in their normal conference. It usually has something to do with your main conference not offering the sport, such as the situation with UK soccer (Conference USA, previously the Mid-American Conference), because the Southeastern Conference doesn't offer mens soccer.

 

I can't imagine the Big East would want to add any more football teams, outside of Notre Dame, because they wouldn't be able to facilitate them in basketball. The evidence is becoming clearer that perhaps bigger isn't better (ACC, SEC- just too tough to win every game) and thus the Big East will likely remain where they are.

 

I also don't like the unbalanced schedule in bigger conferences...it doesn't make for a level playing field for everyone.

[gchs_uk9]

I also don't like the unbalanced schedule in bigger conferences...it doesn't make for a level playing field for everyone.

 

The SEC has a rule that guarantees one opponent from the opposite division every year, correct? This keeps Alabama-Tennessee, Auburn-Georgia playing every year, if I'm not mistaken. I agree totally that this unbalances the schedule, allowing for an Arkansas, South Carolina, Ole Miss or Kentucky to rise up and win the division without having to play the best from across the conference. While I understand you "play who's in front of you," it would be a better indicator of conference champion if you played everyone.

 

However, even in the old days, SEC schools only played six conference games, then moved to seven and finally to eight before expansion. You always had to leave somebody off.

 

I like what the Pac-10 has done, making everyone play everyone this year. Twelve game season, nine conference games. Ties should be limited and tiebreakers should be more accurate.

[5wide]

The SEC has a rule that guarantees one opponent from the opposite division every year, correct? This keeps Alabama-Tennessee, Auburn-Georgia playing every year, if I'm not mistaken. I agree totally that this unbalances the schedule, allowing for an Arkansas, South Carolina, Ole Miss or Kentucky to rise up and win the division without having to play the best from across the conference. While I understand you "play who's in front of you," it would be a better indicator of conference champion if you played everyone.

 

However, even in the old days, SEC schools only played six conference games, then moved to seven and finally to eight before expansion. You always had to leave somebody off.

 

I like what the Pac-10 has done, making everyone play everyone this year. Twelve game season, nine conference games. Ties should be limited and tiebreakers should be more accurate.

 

:thumb: I love what the Pac-10 did. Every conference should try to do that...