Posted: Wed February 20, 2013 12:55PM; Updated: Wed February 20, 2013 12:57PM
Stewart Mandel
Stewart Mandel>INSIDE COLLEGE FOOTBALL

Big East vs. Mountain West: Which has better long-term prospects?

Decrease font Decrease font
Enlarge font Enlarge font
Chris Petersen and Boise State opted to stay in the MWC after Louisville and Rutgers chose to leave the Big East.
Boise State opted to stay in the Mountain West after Louisville and Rutgers chose to leave the Big East.
David Bergman/SI

In a sign of just how precipitously the once-powerful Big East has plummeted in two years' time, the conference will soon finalize new television deals worth less than $30 million annually, SportsBusiness Journal reported. To put that in perspective, the ACC -- for years considered the Big East's relative equal in football -- earned more than eight times that much ($240 million annually) from its latest ESPN deal announced last year.

The Big East still has a BCS automatic qualifying berth for one more year, but after that it will no longer exist in the same stratosphere as its five former power-conference colleagues. Starting with the 2014 playoff system, it will be among the so-called Group of Five conferences -- along with the Mountain West, Conference USA, Sun Belt and MAC -- that will share a guaranteed berth in one of the six premium bowls.

When the Group of Five agreement was announced last November, it was considered a victory for the Big East, since that league would likely boast the group's highest-ranked team most years. But later that month, Rutgers and Louisville announced their departures, and then, most notably, Boise State opted to remain in the Mountain West. Now, there's reason to ask the question: Will the Big East remain the sport's No. 6 conference? Or will the newly emboldened Mountain West pass it up?

On the one hand, Boise's reversal alone could seal the latter perception. Using the two leagues' expected 2014 memberships, the Mountain West would have produced the highest-ranked Group of Five champion in six of the past seven years, with Boise responsible for all but one of those hypothetical berths. However, a conference should be measured by the strength of its entire membership, not just its champion. After all, few would have considered the WAC the best non-AQ conference back when the Broncos (2006 and '09) and Hawaii (2007) represented that league in BCS bowl games.

Before the BCS commissioners blew up their own system, they'd created a formula to determine whether one of the then non-AQ leagues had played itself into a guaranteed a spot. It consisted of three criteria, measured over a four-year period: 1) each league's highest-ranked team in the season's final BCS standings; 2) the average BCS ranking of all league members; and 3) the number and placement of Top 25 teams, using a complicated points system and expressed as a percentage of the highest conference's total.

Back then, the Mountain West had begun making a case for inclusion based on the annual strength of its teams at the top (TCU, Utah and BYU), but it lagged behind the Big Six in overall depth. Annual bottom feeders like New Mexico and UNLV dragged down its average ranking. Meanwhile, the Big East, with just eight teams, was fairly competitive throughout. Here's how the top eight conferences stacked up in 2010, halfway through the 2008-11 review period.

Automatic Qualifying Formula Breakdown For 2008-09
Prong 1Prong 2Prong 3
1. Big 12 (1.5)1. SEC (38.63)1. SEC (22, 100 percent)
1. SEC (1.5)2. ACC (40.34)2. Big Ten (20.25, 92 percent)
3. Mountain West (5)3. Big East (42.69)3. Big 12 (20, 90.9 percent)
4. Pac-10 (6)4. Big 12 (46.38)3. Mountain West (20, 90.9 percent)
5. Big East (7.5)5. Pac-10 (49.85)5. Pac-10 (15.75, 71.6 percent)
6. WAC (7.5)6. Big Ten (50.91)6. Big East (15, 68.2 percent)
7. Big Ten (9)7. Mountain West (58.61)7. ACC (12, 54.5 percent)
8. ACC (11.5)8. WAC (72.28)8. WAC (8.75, 39.8 percent)

Mass realignment subsequently rendered that data moot, but let's use the same criteria to determine how the Big East and Mountain West stack up in 2013.

First, let's review the 2012 performances of both leagues' lineups for this coming season, when the Big East will get one more year out of Louisville and Rutgers. Last season, the Mountain West claimed the higher conference champion in the BCS standings; Boise State, which finished the regular season ranked 19th, checked in ahead of eventual Sugar Bowl champion Louisville, which ranked 21st. Also, 25 percent of the MWC's 2013 teams (three of 12) finished in the Top 25 as opposed to 10 percent (one of 10) for the Big East.

As for average ranking ...

Big East vs. Mountain West: Expected 2013 lineup comparison
Mountain West2012 BCS rankingBig East2012 BCS ranking
Boise State19Louisville 21
Utah State22Rutgers32
San Jose State24Cincinnati 34
Fresno State35UCF43
San Diego State36SMU78
Nevada74Connecticut80
Air Force85 Temple 84
Wyoming96 USF88
Colorado State98 Houston91
New Mexico107 Memphis 101
Hawaii111
UNLV113
AVERAGE68.3 AVERAGE65.2

The two leagues are fairly comparable at the top, and both experience a hefty drop-off in the middle. But once again, the Mountain West was beset by too many low-quality teams at the bottom. While the gap isn't as wide as it was in 2010, the Big East still finished with a slightly better BCS average.

But even if the Big East is in stronger position for next year, what should we make of the two leagues' long-term prospects? Beginning in 2014, the Big East loses its top two performers from last year, Louisville and Rutgers, while adding longtime doormat Tulane. In 2015, it adds Navy, a regular bowl team but not one that generally cracks the Top 25. Surely this will be when the Mountain West moves ahead, right?

If you're going to look two years (or more) down the road, it's best to first look two years (or more) into the past. Teams and leagues' experience ebbs and flows. As was intended in the original formula, let's evaluate the two leagues' future lineups over a four-year period (2009-12).

Once again, Boise State helped the Mountain West notch the highest team ranking in three of the four years (Big East champ Cincinnati was No. 3 in 2009) and a higher percentage of Top 25 teams (16.7 percent compared with 6.8 percent for the Big East). As for average BCS ranking ...

Mountain West BCS rankings 2009-12
2012201120102009Average
Boise State19710610.5
Nevada7466154650.25
San Diego State3652389555.25
Fresno State3598495258.5
Air Force8569396063.25
Utah State2272849167.25
Wyoming9650976677.25
Hawaii11197248278.5
San Jose State248611311083.25
Colorado State9810893101100
UNLV11311110281101.75
New Mexico107114110115111.5
AVERAGE68.377.564.575.471.44

Top 25 teams in bold.

Big East BCS rankings 2009-12
Team2012201120102009Average
Cincinnati342778335.5
UCF4389255653.25
Navy5683314654
Houston9119812654.25
East Carolina4381643255
Connecticut8078264457
USF8875405163.5
SMU7857656566.25
Temple8470694567
Tulane111116101106108.5
Memphis101115114112110.5
AVERAGE73.573.663.153.265.88

Top 25 teams in bold.

As suspected, once you take Louisville and Rutgers out of the equation, the Mountain West's future lineup had a better 2012 than the Big East's. But that was not the case in any of the three years before that, or in the four-year average. Interestingly, whereas the Mountain West had an expected up-and-down pattern, the Big East's new membership has gotten progressively worse since peaking in 2009.

And that's precisely why the Big East will probably remain ahead of the Mountain West going forward.

The Big East had a better four-year average despite significant regression by onetime regular bowl participants USF, UConn and Houston. Meanwhile, it took historic years from Nevada (in 2010) and San Jose State and Utah State (in 2012) for the Mountain West to attain its peaks; all may come back to earth in the near future after losing their respective savior coaches. And remember, the Big East may eventually add a 12th team, which, if it's a respectable mid-major like Tulsa (four-year average: 49.5), will improve the league's depth.

But "depth" is a relative term here. Back in 2008-09, the sixth-deepest conference (the Big Ten) had an average ranking of 50.91. The Big East of 2014 will have just one team (Cincinnati) that averaged a ranking that high over the past four seasons.

Here is the average BCS ranking for the top eight conferences from 2009-12, based on their expected 2014 membership.

Conference BCS rankings 2009-12
ConferenceAverage BCS ranking
Big 1234.43
SEC35.63
Pac-12*44.23
Big Ten*49.94
ACC*53.36
Big East65.88
Mountain West71.44

* -- Does not include one or more teams' seasons when ineligbile for the BCS.

So in all likelihood, the Big East will still be regarded as the sixth-best conference. But, tellingly, a TV network is only willing to pay one-eighth as much as for the fifth-best conference for you to see it.

BCS data comes from Jerry Palm of CollegeBCS.com and CBSSports.com.

SI Videos
Videos from the Web
 
SI.com
Hot Topics: NBA Playoffs NHL Playoffs Golden State Warriors Bryce Harper Paul Pierce Masai Ujiri
TM & © 2014 Time Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved. Terms under which this service is provided to you. Read our privacy guidelines and ad choices.
SI CoverRead All ArticlesBuy Cover Reprint