Boise State holds the key to Big East's shaky future

Coach Bill Lewis · December 12, 2012

This is not the Big East that Bob Kustra bought into a year ago. Forget that, it's not the same Big East it was yesterday.

It's strange, then, that the Boise State University that Kustra oversees wields more power than ever in its 80-year history. If it bolts the Big East -- and it could, easily, today if it wanted to -- the reconfigured league falls apart.

Unless Cincinnati or the catholic basketball schools beat Boise State to it. But as long as the Big East's continued existence is based on football, that existence is based on Boise staying firm.

Kustra is the 69-year-old Boise president who was once a staunch anti-BCS crusader. Now he is one of the more powerful CEOs in college athletics. Here's why ...

• He oversees the best football program currently below the BCS level. When Boise announced it was going to the Big East (last Dec. 7) that gave the fractured, rebuilding league credibility. The Big East had to go cross-country to do it, but it got the best football fruit left on the tree.

Kustra's reasons for leaving his school's natural region: 1) Fair access to the new playoff system. That was decided last month; 2) East Coast exposure for his program; 3) TV revenue.

Actually, 3) is still to be determined. That's what is holding up the continued existence of the Big East. Boise State holds a lot of the cards to realignment below college athletics' Mendoza Line. Beginning in 2014, the Big East will go from BCS conference to a Group of Five (with Conference USA, the Sun Belt, MAC and Mountain West) participant competing for a guaranteed spot among the playoff bowls.

Long before we get there, though, the Big East has to transition from BCS league to that cross-country conference just trying to hang on. That's where Boise State comes in. A school that has played FBS football for all of 17 years is the key to the whole deal.

A quaint state school on the banks of the Boise River is the Big East's football flagship.

"There isn't another, other anchor team [in the Big East]," one college administrator said.

• Big East credibility has been damaged but no matter what happens, Boise is going to be OK. At the BCS level, conference brands sell. At the mid-tier level, individual schools give value to a conference.

CBSSports.com has learned that there was interest from a rights-holder in televising Boise State's home games only, similar to Notre Dame. That's not to say Boise would go independent, but it is a sign that the football program alone has television value no matter where it ends up.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...aky-future

Arkstfan · December 13, 2012

Right now, if it comes down to being a knife fight in the five non-contract conferences, my money is on Craig Thompson.

He has kept the lines of communication open with BYU, SDSU, and Boise. He has twice worked well to keep AFA in the fold despite the fact that they were generally regarded as one of the least happy members. He expanded effectively to negate Benson's BYU plan while not over-expanding in such a way that it would be an intolerable solution should one or more defector want to come back. The league has mostly stayed true to its desire to add quality football schools that sell tickets (SJSU failing the ticket side hugely but numbers for survival demanded it). Idaho hasn't been added because they are dealbreaker for Boise. NMSU hasn't been added because doing so would damage the chances of adding UTEP.

Meanwhile...

Mike Aresco appears less and less likely to be able to deliver the $6 million plus promised to Boise and SDSU, the league appears ready to fracture losing seven valuable propertities.

Brit Bankowsky, has expanded in such a way that if Houston, SMU, Tulane, Memphis, ECU, UCF are in a lurch, coming home isn't an option. 20 teams won't cut it. Plus the new league has added schools that are deal breakers for the schools that they would want to add to make it a better league.

Benson lost his ability to keep the doors open with the way the GaSt add was handled. His potential to better his situation doesn't exist because the schools needed to do that find the SBC brand objectionable or find one or two specific schools objectionable.

Steinbrecher has made one false move, adding UMass football only to balance out Temple but he is an inherently stable position since his most attractive teams in performance and attendance are either in lousy markets or to geographically remote from where the realignment action is or both.

Thompson may not get those schools back but he is the only one of the five who has the possibility that he can make an announcement in the next 7 months that clearly makes his league stronger than it is today.

meanrob · December 13, 2012

Right now, if it comes down to being a knife fight in the five non-contract conferences, my money is on Craig Thompson.

He has kept the lines of communication open with BYU, SDSU, and Boise. He has twice worked well to keep AFA in the fold despite the fact that they were generally regarded as one of the least happy members. He expanded effectively to negate Benson's BYU plan while not over-expanding in such a way that it would be an intolerable solution should one or more defector want to come back. The league has mostly stayed true to its desire to add quality football schools that sell tickets (SJSU failing the ticket side hugely but numbers for survival demanded it). Idaho hasn't been added because they are dealbreaker for Boise. NMSU hasn't been added because doing so would damage the chances of adding UTEP.

Meanwhile...

Mike Aresco appears less and less likely to be able to deliver the $6 million plus promised to Boise and SDSU, the league appears ready to fracture losing seven valuable propertities.

Brit Bankowsky, has expanded in such a way that if Houston, SMU, Tulane, Memphis, ECU, UCF are in a lurch, coming home isn't an option. 20 teams won't cut it. Plus the new league has added schools that are deal breakers for the schools that they would want to add to make it a better league.

Benson lost his ability to keep the doors open with the way the GaSt add was handled. His potential to better his situation doesn't exist because the schools needed to do that find the SBC brand objectionable or find one or two specific schools objectionable.

Steinbrecher has made one false move, adding UMass football only to balance out Temple but he is an inherently stable position since his most attractive teams in performance and attendance are either in lousy markets or to geographically remote from where the realignment action is or both.

Thompson may not get those schools back but he is the only one of the five who has the possibility that he can make an announcement in the next 7 months that clearly makes his league stronger than it is today.

This.

Give me Craig Thompson any day.

MDH · December 13, 2012

Brit Bankowsky, has expanded in such a way that if Houston, SMU, Tulane, Memphis, ECU, UCF are in a lurch, coming home isn't an option. 20 teams won't cut it. Plus the new league has added schools that are deal breakers for the schools that they would want to add to make it a better league.

Exactly why I didn't see the need to rush out and add MUTS & FAU. It's not like those 2 were a threat to join another conference.