RE: Back to conference stuff

[Shinkle, Randy]

Richard,

What excites me (from what I've read so far) is that there may be an "axis" forming, composed of UC, Louisville and Memphis from C-USA, and Pittsburgh, Virginia Tech and West Virginia from the Big East, which will collectively decide their futures.  This is significant in light of an exchange we had almost 4 years ago.  Here's some excerpts:

    "As I now see it, if you want a truly stable future in a Division 1-A
conference, you align yourself with other schools with similar attributes."

    "So, what is UC?  A large, urban university playing 'second fiddle' to the big state school."

The 6 "axis" members are clearly a good fit.  True, Virginia Tech and West Virginia are not "urban" but that is not likely a big concern; nor would it be for, say, East Carolina or Southern Miss.  West Virginia is also an exception because it *is* the "big state school," which would be a good thing.  And that description happens to fit Connecticut and Rutgers as well.

So, who would the "axis" add to make a new conference?  I think 4 are fairly clear.  Connecticut and Rutgers are in because of their fit, markets and existing Big East membership (UConn's strength in basketball helps as well).  East Carolina is in because of its fit and historical football strength.  And South Florida is in because of its fit, market, location and football potential.

That makes 10.  If this group wanted to keep membership at 9, one of the additional 4 would have to go.  But I think it's far more likely they would shoot for 12.  The candidates for the other 2 spots (the rest of C-USA, Marshall, Temple, Army, Navy, Central Florida, any others?) all have strengths and weaknesses, so the key will be, what factors decide?
  - If it's "fit" or "compatibility" then the private schools like TCU and Tulane are out.  However, almost every public school conference has a private school "exception" (e.g., Northwestern in the Big Ten, Vanderbilt in the SEC), so maybe there's still room for one of them.
  - If it's football strength then Southern Miss is probably in and Marshall might have a shot, West Virginia's objections notwithstanding.
  - Temple is a better fit than one might think; their location, market and basketball strength all work in their favor.

So, where does that leave us?  Here's one possibility:

New Conference "East":

    Connecticut
    Pittsburgh
    Rutgers
    Temple
    Virginia Tech
    West Virginia

New Conference "West":

    Cincinnati
    East Carolina
    Louisville
    Memphis
    South Florida
    Southern Miss

This grouping keeps the schools from the current Big East and C-USA together, half of each division is strong in basketball, and at least 8 of the 12 are competitive in football.  If Temple's football is just too weak, then move East Carolina to that division and add Tulane or UAB.

So, is this a BCS conference?  I don't see why not.

Randy '78


> -----Original Message-----
> From: richard l. kandell [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 5:48 PM
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [UC Basketball] Back to conference stuff
>
>
> There now apparently is a newspaper article quoting the Seton 
> Hall AD to the
> effect that if Miami, Syracuse, & BC leave the BE, he has already had
> discussions about the subject with the other 4 non-football 
> playing members
> and in all probability those 5 would leave the football 
> schools and try to
> establish a viable conference of non-football universities.  
> Clearly an
> amalgam of BE, C-USA, & A-10 catholic colleges would easily 
> yield such a
> situation, creating the much anticipated all-holy league.
>
> Also on another board the Memphis AD is openly discussing, albeit on a
> hypothetical basis, the jump of the 3 BE schools to the ACC, 
> and what the
> result would be for C-USA and the remaining BE universities.  
> He seems to be
> fairly explicit in that the combination would have 16 
> all-sports schools,
> and he feels that an all-sports conference of either 9 or 12 of those
> schools would be ideal.  He seems excited at the prospect.
>
> Richard K.