another domino falls... - Page 7

Sea Bass · #**601** 10-18-2011, 11:24 AM

that is why as I have said all along that all bets are off and every school is looking out for number one because they don't want to be without a chair when the music stops.

Honestly the logical way for this play out is for the B12 to take UofL, UC and WVU while the ACC takes UConn and Rutgers. BE football is finished, all that is left is to see how the final shuffling plays out.

The only wildcard left in the deck is ND football. They haven't shown any interest in joining a conference for football and IMO there is no reason to believe they are looking to at this point.

Once the football sorts out then the basketball shuffling will begin. At this point there is only conjecture as to what will happen with that.

UACFlyer · #**602** 10-18-2011, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by Bat'71

If conference realignment moves toward a crescendo this Fall, will UConn and RU (along with USF)be left without a chair at the BCS table when the music stops? Cinci may be able to ride UofL's coattails into the Big XII, due to their long-standing relationship and a logistical fit with WVa. If UConn places it's hopes for an ACC invite based on it's relationship with ESPN , I think they're just a tad misguided...wasn't ESPN one of the motivating forces cited for BC's recent veto of the Huskies admittance to the ACC (not that BC probably needed any additional motivation, given their past history)? As far as the Nutmeg State "playing" the ESPN card, given the state of the economy, ESPN (and it's payroll) may be more important to Connecticut than Connecticut is to ESPN. RU may have a better shot at ACC acceptance than UConn since it's FB program at least brings into play both the Philly, NJ and NYC markets, while UConn adds what exactly...the Connecticut market? We need to remember it is FB that is driving this bus, not men's and women's BB.

Bat, there is at least a suggestion that ESPN may have hurt UConn by pushing for Pitt and SU for ACC expansion. Perhaps that's true...perhaps it isn't. Whether it's true or not, you can be sure that ESPN executives were stunned when the Boston College AD said publically that "ESPN told us what to do".

Now, it's true that CT needs ESPN's ~3000 jobs more than ESPN needed CT....note, "needed" CT. But, ESPN made a decision to stay and expand in CT with major help from the state and its taxpayers. The decision to stay in CT has been made.and now ESPN needs a friendly CT and its government. If you were to drive by ESPN's campus in Bristol CT you'd think you were driving by the NASA space center in Fla. It's a very big deal and ESPN is here to stay.

The Governor of CT is very well positioned to lean hard on ESPN. If ESPN did act contrary to CT's interests it's time for some big-time fence mending. If they didn't, they still have some serious PR work to do because of what the BC AD said.

As for the CT "market"...look at a map, please. The southern one-third of CT where all the people live is a bedroom community for NYC, where CT's presence is, arguably, more apparent than that of RU. UC is as important for the NYC market as is RU. UC has an edge academically....and its overall sports program is light years ahead of Rutgers. True, FB drives the bus; but BB is very important to the ACC,...more so than to any of the other power conferences.

Whatever, it appears as if WVU, UL and Cincy may be better positioned than UConn, Rutgers and USF as regards opportunities for a move to a more stable conference. We really need near-term action on the part of the Big 12 and SEC before the mess can be sorted out.

So far, there has not been a move by any power conference toward 16 teams..at the moment 14 is the number. A move by any one of them to 16 would benefit RU and UC because there just aren't that many attractive schools available....I believe longtimer pointed that out.

Let's just get it over already!

Bat'71 · #**603** 10-18-2011, 01:56 PM

You can wear yourself out with all the possibilities that exist when it comes to conference realignment. Who knows, maybe the ACC picks up UConn and Temple...just kidding. I guess that it's possible that if Mizzu leaves the Big XII for the SEC, then the Big XII could look to add Houston, SMU and maybe BYU and leave the BE alone. It's possible that no other conference wants to be held responsible for the "death" of another BCS conference and then things can settle down for a while and the BE can stabilize itself. Anything can happen, obviously, and we'll all find out sooner or later. I just hope that when all is said and done, that UD's position is not negatively impacted.

Sea Bass · #**604** 10-18-2011, 02:00 PM

IMO the football teams in the BE want a safe landing spot even more than the other conferences want them. They are banging on the door asking to be let in.

UACFlyer · #**605** 10-18-2011, 02:04 PM

....and enthusiasm being shown by UCF, SMU and UH over the prospect of joining the Big East. I've been reading the papers in Dallas, Orlando and Houston.....apparently these schools think joining the Big East is a really good thing. Go figure!

Sea Bass · #**606** 10-18-2011, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by UACFlyer

....and enthusiasm being shown by UCF, SMU and UH over the prospect of joining the Big East. I've been reading the papers in Dallas, Orlando and Houston.....apparently these schools think joining the Big East is a really good thing. Go figure!

everyone wants a seat at the BCS table. The schools outside of the BCS want in a BCS conference. Why not roll the dice and hope the BE doesn't collapse? They really have little to lose and much to gain. The schools in the current BE want out because the tea leaves say there won't be a BCS conference by 2014 and they don't want to be left out so they are looking for a more secure place to be.

San Diego Flyer · #**607** 10-18-2011, 09:44 PM

Originally Posted by UACFlyer

....and enthusiasm being shown by UCF, SMU and UH over the prospect of joining the Big East. I've been reading the papers in Dallas, Orlando and Houston.....apparently these schools think joining the Big East is a really good thing. Go figure!

Same enthusiasm that TCU exhibited. Until something better came along---- quickly.

UACFlyer · #**608** 10-18-2011, 10:41 PM

Originally Posted by San Diego Flyer

Same enthusiasm that TCU exhibited. Until something better came along---- quickly.

...when TCU signed on the Big East appeared to be a stable conference. These guys are enthusiastic about jumping on a sinking ship.

bobber · #**609** 10-19-2011, 10:59 AM

Can't say how reliable this blog is, but he is saying what most must be thinking at this juncture.

http://www.rantsports.com/big-east-f...ted-by-big-12/

Bat'71 · #**610** 10-19-2011, 11:32 AM

A new article in the NY Post addresses the BE problems once again...Temple is mentioned in this one.
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/colle...wATJuf6itEl7xI

flyerfanatic86 · #**611** 10-19-2011, 12:49 PM

From Twitter: Oliver Purnell on realignment: "It's not over. At DePaul, we don't have much control of it."

How strange it would be if UD ends up in the Big East. OP would have made a long journey to end up back in the same conference as us. Fingers crossed.

Medford · #**612** 10-19-2011, 12:56 PM

I do wonder what the time line is on the Big East potential football additions. As aTm and Missouri have shown, it can sometimes take a while once it was obvious they were heading to the SEC. The Big East raising their exit fee is dependent upon one of Boise, Navy or Air Force committing to the Big East, the invite won't go out until it is known they will join.

I can't see any of the three joining until they know for sure what the B12 is doing. I find it interesting that all of a sudden, Houston is being mentioned as a possibility. Is that real, or is it a smoke screen, keeping Houston from making a commitment to the Big East while the possibility of a B12 invite is in the air?

I wish the Big East Commish could be honest. He says they've had no discussions about what to do if football completely falls apart. How does he expect us to believe that. Perhaps there are no formal plans in writing or outlined, but I can't believe Providence, Seton Hall, DePaul, etc... haven't said, uh guys, what are we doing if football falls apart? If they haven't already had off the record conversations with the ADs at UD, Xavier, Butler, St Louis, Richmond, Temple, etc.. about a non-football invite then they're foolish. Or is it just assumed that any of those would jump at the chance to play DePaul, Marquette & G'Town every season.

bobber · #**613** 10-19-2011, 01:20 PM

Saw OP over Labor Day on a flight from Chicago to Charleston. He looks a little older, but seemed to be in good health and good spirits.

UACFlyer · #**614** 10-19-2011, 02:43 PM

.....apparently the Big 12 is quite happy with 10 schools, which UT strongly prefers. So, if UM stays put the Big 12 will be happy and the Big East relieved. But, if UM leaves it's probable that the Big 12 will grow to 12 for geographic reasons.

The UM Curators meet tomorrow...after which there may be an announcement re UM's intent. A big day for the Big East.

Bill McPeek · #**615** 10-20-2011, 04:01 PM

Geno Auriemma is pretty outspoken in placing the blame for the Big East's problems on Notre Dame.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/womens-...emma-notredame

San Diego Flyer · #**616** 10-20-2011, 04:18 PM

That's like saying UD is one player short of a National Championship, and it's LaBron James' fault for turning pro and not playing at Dayton.

You are a good coach Geno, and lets just leave it at that.

UACFlyer · #**617** 10-20-2011, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by San Diego Flyer

That's like saying UD is one player short of a National Championship, and it's LaBron James' fault for turning pro and not playing at Dayton.

You are a good coach Geno, and lets just leave it at that.

Did Geno say one thing that is inaccurate?

As schools abandon conferences it is often said that it's understandable, "each school has to do what's in its best interest"..at all times could be added.

I don't happen to agree with that. If a school decided to remain independent it can always focus 100% on "its best interests". But, when a school joins a conference, with that comes obligations to the well being of the conference and its members collectively. It's a trade. There are advantages and benfits to conference membership or schools wouldn't join. In order to gain said advantages a school gives up a portion of its right to always act entirely in its own best interests. That's the deal.

When acting in one's own best interest causes great hardship to the other conference members and to the conference organization itself, it seems to me that ethical issues come into play.

Clearly, this is a grey area. A school does not sacrifice completely its right to look out for its best interests. But, it does sacrifice a certain portion of its freedom of action....otherwise it has no ethical obligation whatsoever as regards the well being of other members.

Notre Dame means nothing to the Big East...it adds nothing. But for nearly 20 years the Big East has been of absolutely enormous benefit to ND. ND has derived all the benefits of conference membership at no cost and feels not the slightest sense of obligation to the conference.

That is Geno's point

Medford · #**618** 10-20-2011, 05:07 PM

Can't blame ND when the Big East continued to give them the option.

While the Big East still had Miami, BC & VTech, they should have given ND an ultamatium, join in all sports or find somewhere else to play hoops, baseball, gymnastics, etc..

FWIW, I saw it mentioned on MRSEC.com, linking a missouri message board/blog and is now being reported on the Boston Globe that WVU is the top choice to replace Missouri if/when they leave for the SEC.

Would Boise St still be interested in the Big East w/o West Virginia? How long until Louisville gets the invite, is it contigent upon finding a satasifactory team (ie BYU) to come along at the same time and take them to 12?

UACFlyer · #**619** 10-20-2011, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by Medford

Can't blame ND when the Big East continued to give them the option.

While the Big East still had Miami, BC & VTech, they should have given ND an ultamatium, join in all sports or find somewhere else to play hoops, baseball, gymnastics, etc..

FWIW, I saw it mentioned on MRSEC.com, linking a missouri message board/blog and is now being reported on the Boston Globe that WVU is the top choice to replace Missouri if/when they leave for the SEC.

Would Boise St still be interested in the Big East w/o West Virginia? How long until Louisville gets the invite, is it contigent upon finding a satasifactory team (ie BYU) to come along at the same time and take them to 12?

The eight BE FB schools have consistently acted against their own interests.

We hear that "it's all about FB". Yet the eight BE FB schools have allowed themselves to be led around by the nose by a group of small Catholic schools.

About 3-4 years ago after the BE had digested UC, UL and USF, the conference was relatively strong. Had the eight separated from the BB schools at that time....and added TCU, UCF, Houston and Navy, today they would have a solid 12 team league with a very good TV contract and a very good BB conference. And 3-4 years ago those schools would have fallen all over themselves to join a BCS league.

Just think how much better off the BE FB publics would be today had they done that. Instead they allowed themselves to be dominated by the small Catholics plus ND. Absolutely nuts!

ud69 · #**620** 10-20-2011, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by UACFlyer

Did Geno say one thing that is inaccurate?

As schools abandon conferences it is often said that it's understandable, "each school has to do what's in its best interest"..at all times could be added.

I don't happen to agree with that. If a school decided to remain independent it can always focus 100% on "its best interests". But, when a school joins a conference, with that comes obligations to the well being of the conference and its members collectively. It's a trade. There are advantages and benfits to conference membership or schools wouldn't join. In order to gain said advantages a school gives up a portion of its right to always act entirely in its own best interests. That's the deal.

When acting in one's own best interest causes great hardship to the other conference members and to the conference organization itself, it seems to me that ethical issues come into play.

Clearly, this is a grey area. A school does not sacrifice completely its right to look out for its best interests. But, it does sacrifice a certain portion of its freedom of action....otherwise it has no ethical obligation whatsoever as regards the well being of other members.

Notre Dame means nothing to the Big East...it adds nothing. But for nearly 20 years the Big East has been of absolutely enormous benefit to ND. ND has derived all the benefits of conference membership at no cost and feels not the slightest sense of obligation to the conference.

That is Geno's point

So it is ND's fault that the Big East gave the Irish what they asked for? To me, the stupidity lies with the Big East for allowing this *******ized conference approach in the first place. Either you're all in or you're out. Both sides were a party to the agreement. If the Big East made a bad agreement, then shame on them - not shame on the Irish.

bobber · #**621** 10-20-2011, 05:37 PM

Posted without comment. But thanks to the A10 board posters who dig these things out.

http://www.boston.com/sports/college...irginia_l.html

http://voices.idahostatesman.com/201..._be_21_million

bobber · #**622** 10-20-2011, 05:57 PM

If I was the AD or the president of any of the universities being courted by the Big East, I'd think long and hard about jumping on a ship that's taking water badly. Decisions like one to jump headlong into the Big East, which some may see as attractive, could be, as they say, A CAREER-ENDER.

OK, you would pay a big exit fee to leave your old conference, play for a year or two in the Big East, which continues to lose programs, then loses its BCS AQ status, then pay a hefty exit fee to get out of the sinking-fast Big East and come crawling back to your constituents/board of regents/governor/legislature begging for money to be reinstated in your old (or maybe a new) conference.

Doing this sounds........insane!

Medford · #**623** 10-20-2011, 06:03 PM

Bottom line, it would appear Boise State wouldn't leave for the big East until the 2013-2014 season at the earliest, if at all. that would give them 1 season of AQS before whatever changes to the 2014 BCS contract go into effect.

Glad I'm not the one making decisions, it all appears to be a big mess to me.

Medford · #**624** 10-20-2011, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by bobber

If I was the AD or the president of any of the universities being courted by the Big East, I'd think long and hard about jumping on a ship that's taking water badly. Decisions like one to jump headlong into the Big East, which some may see as attractive, could be, as they say, A CAREER-ENDER.

OK, you would pay a big exit fee to leave your old conference, play for a year or two in the Big East, which continues to lose programs, then loses its BCS AQ status, then pay a hefty exit fee to get out of the sinking-fast Big East and come crawling back to your constituents/board of regents/governor/legislature begging for money to be reinstated in your old (or maybe a new) conference.

Doing this sounds........insane!

As I said over on the A-10 board, if I was in charge of things in the Mountain West, I'd let Boise State know, in no uncertain terms, if you depart for the Big East, don't expect an invite back any time soon should the conference fall apart and/or lose its automatic qualifying status.

Chris R · #**625** 10-20-2011, 06:26 PM

Originally Posted by Medford

Can't blame ND when the Big East continued to give them the option.

Exactly. ND couldnt join the Big East in everything but football unless the Big East offered such an invitation and the schools within the conference felt it was good for the league. The BE could have told ND to take a hike 17 years ago. Instead, they jumped on the chance.

In one sense you have to credit Notre Dame for never showing deception in anything they ever wanted from the league or out of the league. They were upfront on their membership requirements and have never wandered from those. They had never asked nor been suspected of looking to leave the conference for something better up until the football schools began jumping out.

Thats not the case for schools like Miami, BC, Virginia Tech, Pitt, Syracuse etc. Some of these schools were partial members as well. Tech was a football only member of the Big East. Why was that any worse than ND being everything BUT football? BC jumped to the ACC and has leveraged their influence to keep other schools from following. ESPN has been accused of being a player in re-alignment. And Syracuse and Pittsburgh basically took the BE oath one day and filed papers to leave 48hrs later.

The Irish look like veritable saints compared to most other schools in the BE. UConn has publicly stated the ACC is intriguing to them. Notre Dame has never publicly commented on any interest in any other league, only that they were monitoring things and cherished football independence.

Now, should the BE have ever let ND in without football? Maybe not. But thats a 17yr old headline. Blaming ND for this mess is like blaming the Year 2000 computer scare on why your laptop stopped booting up this weekend.

Now the Big East is considering adding a bunch of schools from two time zones away for football only. Why is that any more holy?

UACFlyer · #**626** 10-20-2011, 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by Chris R

Exactly. ND couldnt join the Big East in everything but football unless the Big East offered such an invitation and the schools within the conference felt it was good for the league. The BE could have told ND to take a hike 17 years ago. Instead, they jumped on the chance.

In one sense you have to credit Notre Dame for never showing deception in anything they ever wanted from the league or out of the league. They were upfront on their membership requirements and have never wandered from those. They had never asked nor been suspected of looking to leave the conference for something better up until the football schools began jumping out.

Thats not the case for schools like Miami, BC, Virginia Tech, Pitt, Syracuse etc. Some of these schools were partial members as well. Tech was a football only member of the Big East. Why was that any worse than ND being everything BUT football? BC jumped to the ACC and has leveraged their influence to keep other schools from following. ESPN has been accused of being a player in re-alignment. And Syracuse and Pittsburgh basically took the BE oath one day and filed papers to leave 48hrs later.

The Irish look like veritable saints compared to most other schools in the BE. UConn has publicly stated the ACC is intriguing to them. Notre Dame has never publicly commented on any interest in any other league, only that they were monitoring things and cherished football independence.

Now, should the BE have ever let ND in without football? Maybe not. But thats a 17yr old headline. Blaming ND for this mess is like blaming the Year 2000 computer scare on why your laptop stopped booting up this weekend.

Now the Big East is considering adding a bunch of schools from two time zones away for football only. Why is that any more holy?

...very badly managed since the time UM, VaT and BC left. That should have been the wake-up call for the FB schools...and it was not. As soon as UL, UC and USF were added and digested the writing was clearly on the wall. But the BE FB schools appear never to have understood the inevitable. It took about five years for the train wreck.....but that the train was bearing down fast should have been apparent when there was still plenty of time to avoid it.

Had the BE FB schools acted in their collective self interest ~ 5 years ago they could have a strong 12 team conference today....solid BCS in FB and very strong in BB. Instead, disaster for at least a few of the FB schools.

bobber · #**627** 10-20-2011, 07:40 PM

Posted without comment.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/st...college-sports

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/st...-amid-sec-buzz

UACFlyer · #**628** 10-20-2011, 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by Chris R

Exactly. ND couldnt join the Big East in everything but football unless the Big East offered such an invitation and the schools within the conference felt it was good for the league. The BE could have told ND to take a hike 17 years ago. Instead, they jumped on the chance.

In one sense you have to credit Notre Dame for never showing deception in anything they ever wanted from the league or out of the league. They were upfront on their membership requirements and have never wandered from those. They had never asked nor been suspected of looking to leave the conference for something better up until the football schools began jumping out.

Thats not the case for schools like Miami, BC, Virginia Tech, Pitt, Syracuse etc. Some of these schools were partial members as well. Tech was a football only member of the Big East. Why was that any worse than ND being everything BUT football? BC jumped to the ACC and has leveraged their influence to keep other schools from following. ESPN has been accused of being a player in re-alignment. And Syracuse and Pittsburgh basically took the BE oath one day and filed papers to leave 48hrs later.

The Irish look like veritable saints compared to most other schools in the BE. UConn has publicly stated the ACC is intriguing to them. Notre Dame has never publicly commented on any interest in any other league, only that they were monitoring things and cherished football independence.

Now, should the BE have ever let ND in without football? Maybe not. But thats a 17yr old headline. Blaming ND for this mess is like blaming the Year 2000 computer scare on why your laptop stopped booting up this weekend.

Now the Big East is considering adding a bunch of schools from two time zones away for football only. Why is that any more holy?

...the BB Catholics out-voting the inept FB publics. Not getting much/any media attention outside the east may be the fact that for about the last five years BE FB coaches have been very outspoken expressing the view that ND should be given an ultimatum....join as a full member or leave the conference.
To the best of my knowledge there was never any media follow-up. By that I mean the media would faithfully report a FB coach's remarks re ND.....but that was the end of it. Never a response or comment from the BE office.

Now for sure, the BB Catholics loved ND's presence in their league...for the same reason that Dayton would do back flips to be in a conference with the all-mighty ND. Given the BB voting block, perhaps that's why the "boot ND" movement never got any further than FB coaches complaints.

longtimefan · #**629** 10-20-2011, 07:58 PM

Originally Posted by Chris R

Exactly. ND couldn't join the Big East in everything but football unless the Big East offered such an invitation and the schools within the conference felt it was good for the league. The BE could have told ND to take a hike 17 years ago. Instead, they jumped on the chance.

Bingo! The Big East allowed Notre Dame to be in the conference in everything but football, so the Big East obviously felt this was in the conference's best interest. Don't blame Notre Dame for not joining in football when you let them be in the conference in everything but football for all those years. (Crap, am I actually defending Notre Dame???

) Many MAC fans are saying a similar thing about Temple and UMass. They are upset that the MAC is letting them in for football only. They should have required them to be in for everything or nothing.

UACFlyer · #**630** 10-20-2011, 08:36 PM

Originally Posted by longtimefan

Bingo! The Big East allowed Notre Dame to be in the conference in everything but football, so the Big East obviously felt this was in the conference's best interest. Don't blame Notre Dame for not joining in football when you let them be in the conference in everything but football for all those years. (Crap, am I actually defending Notre Dame??? ) Many MAC fans are saying a similar thing about Temple and UMass. They are upset that the MAC is letting them in for football only. They should have required them to be in for everything or nothing.

...is certainly doing both Temple and UMass a favor. One wonders why. What's in it for the MAC? Must be something, right? Or could the MAC be simply being altruistic.....helping out a couple of similar schools in need of a home for FB? Would the MAC take in UConn and Rutgers? I'll bet in a heartbeat.

And longtimer, your spirited defense of Notre Dame strongly suggests that, contrary to the front you put on, you are secretly a member of the Irish's subway alums. I knew it all along. Good for you!

San Diego Flyer · #**631** 10-21-2011, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by UACFlyer

Did Geno say one thing that is inaccurate? (No, but you did)

Notre Dame means nothing to the Big East...it adds nothing. That is Geno's point

I don't see anywhere that Geno even IMPLIED that. Those are your words UAC.

My take would be that ND has irritated Geno by not subscribing to BE football for what seems like decades (and thereby saving the Conference from a lot of this disruption).
I would also say Geno could give rats *ss about football, but the whole whole uncertainty that has come out of this is causing Geno some grief in his basketball endeavors.

"Coach, I would love to play basketball for UConn. But what conference is it that you will play in, and who will we play against?"

Atlantic 10 · #**632** 10-21-2011, 09:26 AM

Talking about ND, some experts pick them to win it all in Womens BB this year

Hyde Park Flyer · #**633** 10-21-2011, 09:55 AM

i think geno's point is much bigger. he coaches the top women's program (clearly uconn has pushed tenn out of the top spot) and is facing conference uncertainty. the conference uncertainty has nothing to do with his team. it has nothing to do with the men's team. they've both won national championship's in the last 10 years. instead, he's forced to deal with whatever football, and i include teams in and out of the big east, determines for him. i'm sure that pi@#es him off. worse, he's probably right that the big east would not be scrambling if nd would have joined big east football. it may not have stopped the miami defection and va tech still could have looked south, but it's doubtful bc, pitt and syracuse would have left. all awhile, nd women's b-ball program has told every recruit for 17 years that they play in a basketball conf with uconn. now, nd's program is looking great and uconn is in a sinking conf. any chance nd sticks with the big east and throws them a football life line? no. a resounding no. if the changed landscape forces nd football to join a conference, it will join the acc or big10. the big east isn't on that radar. and, the acc hasn't opened its arm to uconn and the sec doesn't seem like a match. it doesn't look like the big10 is a mate either. uconn is in a position similar to kansas...great basketball schools with football teams that have had some measure of recent success but are f^&$#ed if their conferences fall apart. so, i think that geno's contempt makes sense. plus, we should take note of his comment about "dating" long enough. it sounds like his understanding, which i would bet is not unfounded, is that nd was feeling out the big east for football and would consider it later. maybe the basketball schools were on to something a few years ago and voted to break up the conference. of course, it was nd's vote that defeated their effort. though uconn has football, that may have rubbed geno wrong at that time. we just don't know. regardless of what nd represented privately (c'mon, we all know that things may be represented differently in private than public), they could or at least could have saved the conference. instead, nd will ultimately look at other conferences. nd's fine. arrogant, but fine.

UACFlyer · #**634** 10-21-2011, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by San Diego Flyer

I don't see anywhere that Geno even IMPLIED that. Those are your words UAC.

My take would be that ND has irritated Geno by not subscribing to BE football for what seems like decades (and thereby saving the Conference from a lot of this disruption).
I would also say Geno could give rats *ss about football, but the whole whole uncertainty that has come out of this is causing Geno some grief in his basketball endeavors.

"Coach, I would love to play basketball for UConn. But what conference is it that you will play in, and who will we play against?"

SDF, Geno said publically what other BE ADs and coaches have been saying for years.

As for UC women's BB...SD, BE women's BB is average at best. UConn's OOC schedule against top ten teams is what makes women's BB at UC,....not BE games.

San Diego Flyer · #**635** 10-21-2011, 10:18 AM

I'm pushing back at the notion that "Notre Dame means nothing to the BE.....it adds nothing". No ND fan here, but really, that falicy is just born out of frustration no matter how many AD's have said it.

Geno's comments are born out of frustration. Here he is the king of gals basketball, with an enviable program and endless scheduling choices---and he has to answer questions weekly about the University's conference affiliation and future. None of which will likely cause a dent in his rocket ship, but the frustration of it all boiled over.

ND is a coveted product--period.

UACFlyer · #**636** 10-21-2011, 10:23 AM

..for the BE....but wouldn't provide even a minimum assistance. There was talk of ND playing four BE teams every every year,...making the rounds so that each BE played ND occasionally. Didn't happen.

UConn had a ten game series planned with ND...initiated by ND,....all but signed, sealed and delivered.....the game and dates appeared on ND's "future schedule" list. Half the games were to be ND home games and half UConn home games, naturally.

But Notre Dame refused to play games in the state of Connecticut. UConn's home games had to be played in NYC and/or Boston. When the CT legislature and Governor learned of that there was an explosion.

That's the kind of conference mate ND is/was.

Medford · #**637** 10-21-2011, 11:43 AM

except ND isn't a conference member in football. As an indepent, their only loyalty is and should be to themselves. As far as I know, ND has never made any allusion that they'd consider full membership in the Big East.

Geno's beef shouldn't be with Notre Dame, it should be w/ his atletic director, and the other ADs in the Big East that have placated ND's olympic programs. In truth, the biggest problem the Big East has right now, is that is foundation was built by schools with split allegiances. They have non-football members, they have full sport members, they used to have VTech playing football in the Big East, and other sports in the A-10; its a mix of large public/city universities and smaller private universities. They've had so many divergent agenda's pulling in different directions for the life of their conference that its almost impossible to unite and forge a path in one direction.

Consequently, the basketball program programs have all been great, where its significanly easier for a school of smaller means to make a large impact, however the football side, which requires a large investment and in most cases fails to turn a profit has fallen behind the other big conferences. Any football program looking to find the golden egg was force to look elsewhere, to conferences filled with more schools that want to be like them, than schools having no resemblance to their choosen path.

UACFlyer · #**638** 10-21-2011, 12:00 PM

.....the Big East is/was the only major conference willing to accept ND as a menber in all sports except football. That is/was of enormous value to ND. It gave ND a home,....its only viable home,....for BB and all its olympic sports.

What did the BE receive in return? Was there any benefit to BE FB? Did the ND BB teams add significantly to BE BB? Did the ND name and associated cachet help the BE in any way?

ND has been a free-rider for the duration,...and still is.

Hyde Park Flyer · #**639** 10-21-2011, 12:01 PM

nd backed out of their promises but certainly took advantage of big east membership. the women's b-ball team was nothing before it joined the big east. now, while assuredly boasting about being in a conference with uconn, it's made the ncaa tourney a record 16 years in a row! it's made the tournament every year it's been in the big east. the men's team used it's big east status to return to glory that it enjoyed in the 70's and 80's under digger. after the program falling on hard times, it only took a few years to parlay its big east membership into success. they made the ncaa tourney 6 out of 10 years from 2001-2010. they were considered for the tourney in the other 4 years. nd has unquestionably milked the big east to its full benefit. but, now, while the big east is crumbling, there's nothing. instead, they're observing the changing landscape and will remain a football independent unless forced to join a conference. this is just code for we'll join a football conference when the money demands it. then, it's off to the acc or big10 while the big east is in shambles. i freely admit that i'm not a nd fan, but this is just wrong.

Fudd · #**640** 10-21-2011, 12:13 PM

ND is just using their leverage like every other football and basketball program does.

I am entertained by all of the Big East fans who say they have lost faith in college basketball because now it's "all about the money". It's been all about the money for a long time, with the Big East being benefactors and trying to protect their pot of gold like every other conference. Now that they have picked the short straw, the system is suddenly unfair. Those that are able to make the leap to safety to one of the other BCS conferences will surely regain their faith in the system once they are in the fold again.

Medford · #**641** 10-21-2011, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by UACFlyer

.....the Big East is/was the only major conference willing to accept ND as a menber in all sports except football. That is/was of enormous value to ND. It gave ND a home,....its only viable home,....for BB and all its olympic sports.

What did the BE receive in return? Was there any benefit to BE FB? Did the ND BB teams add significantly to BE BB? Did the ND name and associated cachet help the BE in any way?

ND has been a free-rider for the duration,...and still is.

I'd say most definently, the ND name and its following certainly helped the Big East garner more money in TV revenue for its basketball package than Seton Hall, Depaul, Providence, St Johns, Marquette & 'Nova ever did. Perhaps its a philosophical question, but I fail to see where Notre Dame owes the conference anything other than a commitment to field the strongest olympic sports programs possible.

UD would love, I repeat LOVE to play ND in basketball every season like they've done in the past. I have no doubt that the ND ticket is one of the bigger tickets each season when they come rolling into Providence, Seton Hall, DePaul, Marquette & St Johns.

ND most definently is a net positive to the conference as an olympic only competitor. They'd obviously offer a ton more if they brought in their football program, but the Big East has never forced them to make such a choice, and ND has never been shy about its desire to remain independent and do what's best for ND in football. The Big East could have potentially forced ND into a conference for all sports, including football by giving them an all in or nothing option, but I think the Big East knew ND would have packed their bags and played elsewhere in basketball if forced to house their football program in a conference.

On the football side, I think ND added a benefit as well in their bowl agreement. I don't know if it still exists, but the quasi Big East - Notre Dame bowl tie in, which would allow a 7 or 6 win ND team to take a spot in a Big East bowl over a 2nd place Big East team probably helps the Big East secure better bowls. As it is, aside from the BCS tie-in, the Big East's bowl tie ins are terrible in comparision to what the B10, ACC, SEC, B12 & P12 have. I'm not even sure if the Big East has a traditional Jan 1 bowl tie in other than the BCS slot. Its a collection of bowl games you catch because there's nothing better on TV after a long day of christmas shopping/parties/decorating/etc.. Having ND as a possibility for those bowls raises the level of Bowl tie ins the Big East can generate.

I can't believe I'm defending ND, but its not ND's job to raise the profile of the other Big East football schools.

UACFlyer · #**642** 10-21-2011, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by Medford

I'd say most definently, the ND name and its following certainly helped the Big East garner more money in TV revenue for its basketball package than Seton Hall, Depaul, Providence, St Johns, Marquette & 'Nova ever did. Perhaps its a philosophical question, but I fail to see where Notre Dame owes the conference anything other than a commitment to field the strongest olympic sports programs possible.

UD would love, I repeat LOVE to play ND in basketball every season like they've done in the past. I have no doubt that the ND ticket is one of the bigger tickets each season when they come rolling into Providence, Seton Hall, DePaul, Marquette & St Johns.

ND most definently is a net positive to the conference as an olympic only competitor. They'd obviously offer a ton more if they brought in their football program, but the Big East has never forced them to make such a choice, and ND has never been shy about its desire to remain independent and do what's best for ND in football. The Big East could have potentially forced ND into a conference for all sports, including football by giving them an all in or nothing option, but I think the Big East knew ND would have packed their bags and played elsewhere in basketball if forced to house their football program in a conference.

On the football side, I think ND added a benefit as well in their bowl agreement. I don't know if it still exists, but the quasi Big East - Notre Dame bowl tie in, which would allow a 7 or 6 win ND team to take a spot in a Big East bowl over a 2nd place Big East team probably helps the Big East secure better bowls. As it is, aside from the BCS tie-in, the Big East's bowl tie ins are terrible in comparision to what the B10, ACC, SEC, B12 & P12 have. I'm not even sure if the Big East has a traditional Jan 1 bowl tie in other than the BCS slot. Its a collection of bowl games you catch because there's nothing better on TV after a long day of christmas shopping/parties/decorating/etc.. Having ND as a possibility for those bowls raises the level of Bowl tie ins the Big East can generate.

I can't believe I'm defending ND, but its not ND's job to raise the profile of the other Big East football schools.

...Med, you're right, UD would go chasing around after ND like a little dog if ND would lower itself to play UD in BB.

Now suppose ND agreed to play a home-and-home BB series with the Flyers....but only under the condition that UD's "home" game be played in Chicago or Saint Louis. What would that tell you about ND's view of UD? How about arrogance combined with utter contempt?

Suppose it was a mult-years series with five UD "home" games...with UD agreeing to play twice in Chicago and twice in Saint Louis if only ND would come to UD once....please, play us once in Dayton? ND's response...nothing doing.

ND will not budge a single inch to support or otherwise accommodate a Big East conference member. Shame on the Big East for allowing itself to be treated so shabbily and still come back for more.

longtimefan · #**643** 10-21-2011, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by UACFlyer

...Med, you're right, UD would go chasing around after ND like a little dog if ND would lower itself to play UD in BB.

Now suppose ND agreed to play a home-and-home BB series with the Flyers....but only under the condition that UD's "home" game be played in Chicago or Saint Louis. What would that tell you about ND's view of UD? How about arrogance combined with utter contempt?

Suppose it was a mult-years series with five UD "home" games...with UD agreeing to play twice in Chicago and twice in Saint Louis if only ND would come to UD once....please, play us once in Dayton? ND's response...nothing doing.

ND will not budge a single inch to support or otherwise accommodate a Big East conference member. Shame on the Big East for allowing itself to be treated so shabbily and still come back for more.

I'm glad you finally agree with those of us who say the situation is the Big East's fault and not Notre Dame's fault. Your last sentence says exactly that. Nobody put a gun to the Big East's head and forced them to take (and keep) Notre Dame in everything but football. The Big East obviously feels Notre Dame adds a great deal to the conference. The Big East has created its own problems. (And UD did play a similar "home-and-home" to the one you describe - with Louisville, with UD's "home" game being in Cincinnati.)

ud69 · #**644** 10-21-2011, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by UACFlyer

ND will not budge a single inch to support or otherwise accommodate a Big East conference member. Shame on the Big East for allowing itself to be treated so shabbily and still come back for more.

I am certainly not a ND apologist, but what is it that you would want ND to do? The only thing I could see ND doing to help the BE would be to bring its football into the conference. That is not budging an inch, it is a fundamental change in its historical position - whether you agree with that position or not. IHHO, if you want to throw brickbats, throw them at BC, Syracuse, and Pitt. They're the ones who fled the conference.

Bat'71 · #**645** 10-21-2011, 12:59 PM

I'm sorry, Geno...cry me a river. I think the fact that the ND women's team is picked to finish first in the BE this year has Geno's goat. He probably feels that it was NDs ability to play against his team that helped it's recruiting and elevated NDs program to a level it couldn't have achieved on its own; he may be right in thinking this way, but it just sounds like sour grapes.

As Chris and others have pointed out, ND was forthright in it's intentions when it joined up with the BE as a member in all sports but FB. Yes, I'm sure they made representations about playing other BE FB teams a few times each year (I had heard they'd agreed to schedule three teams a year), but can you blame them for not wanting to play in Storrs? UConn should have taken them up on games in NYC or Boston...it may have actually helped UConn's brand of FB; if parochial political interests got in the way of that, don't blame ND. It was the inherent problems of the BE Conference's configuration that IMO has caused it's difficulties and may lead to it's demise as a BCS designated conference. Pitt and 'Cuse left the conference for reasons that didn't pertain to ND, as did BC, VT and Miami before them. Now, if ND had been a full-fledged member, would those schools have left...maybe not. On the other hand, maybe ND would have been the catalyst to reduce the sway of the BB-only schools or it may have caused a break with the BB-only schools years ago...who knows? Gee, if the FB member schools had to choose between an affiliation between ND in all sports or an affiliation with 'Nova, G'town, St. Johns, et.al. in everything but FB, how do you think that would have worked out? It seems to me that instead of addressing what may be the root cause of the problems in the BE (the out-sized say of BB-member schools in the affairs of the FB member schools), the commissioner is looking to double down once again on a failed structure by inviting in more disparate groups to join a disjointed conference; but then again, he may have little choice.

I don't see why Boise State would join the BE (I still don't know why they signed that suicidal pact with the MTW after the likes of TCU, BYU and Utah left); Boise has been getting to BCS bowls all on their own...they don't need the BE, thank you very much.

Medford · #**646** 10-21-2011, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by UACFlyer

...Med, you're right, UD would go chasing around after ND like a little dog if ND would lower itself to play UD in BB.

Now suppose ND agreed to play a home-and-home BB series with the Flyers....but only under the condition that UD's "home" game be played in Chicago or Saint Louis. What would that tell you about ND's view of UD? How about arrogance combined with utter contempt?

Suppose it was a mult-years series with five UD "home" games...with UD agreeing to play twice in Chicago and twice in Saint Louis if only ND would come to UD once....please, play us once in Dayton? ND's response...nothing doing.

ND will not budge a single inch to support or otherwise accommodate a Big East conference member. Shame on the Big East for allowing itself to be treated so shabbily and still come back for more.

You mean like what UD did to play Louisville? Once in Louisville, once at US Bank Arena? I'd do that again, I'd do that over a 10 year period as its a good game on our schedule. With enough forward planning, ND could get a home & home with just about any school in america in football. UConn doesn't have that luxory, so ND is in position to work it to its advantage and get a handful of games in NYC & Boston.

Chris R · #**647** 10-21-2011, 01:44 PM

Considering UConn took a $2M bath for playing in the Orange Bowl when they sold only 2,500 tickets of their 17,500 allocation, Im not sure they deserve much respect in the football community for filling seats -- home or away. Who else can make a BCS bowl with a $17M payout and even with their conference cut, still lose 2 Large?

CE80 · #**648** 10-21-2011, 02:07 PM

UConn would have made huge $$s playing ND in NYC. Toledo played a home game against tOSU in a sold out Cleveland Browns stadium. Don't know if tOSU required that but it only made sense for everyone. It certainly helped Toldeo's finances.

It would be real interesting to see what would happen if the BE gave ND the boot and the ACC and Big 10 had the same view. ND will never play football in a conference because they know with their academic standards, they will never be able to compete with the top of the top conferences. Maybe the A10 is the right place for ND.

UACFlyer · #**649** 10-21-2011, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by Bat'71

I'm sorry, Geno...cry me a river. I think the fact that the ND women's team is picked to finish first in the BE this year has Geno's goat. He probably feels that it was NDs ability to play against his team that helped it's recruiting and elevated NDs program to a level it couldn't have achieved on its own; he may be right in thinking this way, but it just sounds like sour grapes.

As Chris and others have pointed out, ND was forthright in it's intentions when it joined up with the BE as a member in all sports but FB. Yes, I'm sure they made representations about playing other BE FB teams a few times each year (I had heard they'd agreed to schedule three teams a year), but can you blame them for not wanting to play in Storrs? UConn should have taken them up on games in NYC or Boston...it may have actually helped UConn's brand of FB; if parochial political interests got in the way of that, don't blame ND. It was the inherent problems of the BE Conference's configuration that IMO has caused it's difficulties and may lead to it's demise as a BCS designated conference. Pitt and 'Cuse left the conference for reasons that didn't pertain to ND, as did BC, VT and Miami before them. Now, if ND had been a full-fledged member, would those schools have left...maybe not. On the other hand, maybe ND would have been the catalyst to reduce the sway of the BB-only schools or it may have caused a break with the BB-only schools years ago...who knows? Gee, if the FB member schools had to choose between an affiliation between ND in all sports or an affiliation with 'Nova, G'town, St. Johns, et.al. in everything but FB, how do you think that would have worked out? It seems to me that instead of addressing what may be the root cause of the problems in the BE (the out-sized say of BB-member schools in the affairs of the FB member schools), the commissioner is looking to double down once again on a failed structure by inviting in more disparate groups to join a disjointed conference; but then again, he may have little choice.

I don't see why Boise State would join the BE (I still don't know why they signed that suicidal pact with the MTW after the likes of TCU, BYU and Utah left); Boise has been getting to BCS bowls all on their own...they don't need the BE, thank you very much.

....you'd know that being picked 2nd does not bother him. Indeed, he loves it. Geno has been pressuring for improved BE women's teams for years. And, when questioned about being picked 2nd he remarked that he thought that might be a little hign considering the teams losses due to graduation...and that the other coaches were probably basing their votes on past performance. To suggest being picked 2nd "got his goat"....well...

As for ND playing in Storrs...UConn's beautiful new stadium is in E. Hartford across the river from Hartford, the state capital. C'mon Bat, CT is not out in the woods. The stadium is perfectly situated right in the middle of the state, an easy drive from NYC, Boston, etc.

ND tried the same crap on Rutgers...which, to its credit, informed ND that RU plays its home games in its own stadium, without exception. UConn folded at first; but ultimately told ND the same thing. So, there will be no games with ND.

The word "compromise" is not in ND's vocabulary. They will do nothing for anyone, ever....period!

UACFlyer · #**650** 10-21-2011, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by Chris R

Considering UConn took a $2M bath for playing in the Orange Bowl when they sold only 2,500 tickets of their 17,500 allocation, Im not sure they deserve much respect in the football community for filling seats -- home or away. Who else can make a BCS bowl with a $17M payout and even with their conference cut, still lose 2 Large?

Chris, as I recall, when the Hartford papers wrote about UConn's $2 million loss they pointed out that Oklahoma also lost mohey...and they had a table showing losses in BCS bowl gamess...and Ohio State was listed among teams losing money.

UACFlyer · #**651** 10-21-2011, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by CE80

UConn would have made huge $$s playing ND in NYC. Toledo played a home game against tOSU in a sold out Cleveland Browns stadium. Don't know if tOSU required that but it only made sense for everyone. It certainly helped Toldeo's finances.

It would be real interesting to see what would happen if the BE gave ND the boot and the ACC and Big 10 had the same view. ND will never play football in a conference because they know with their academic standards, they will never be able to compete with the top of the top conferences. Maybe the A10 is the right place for ND.

Were ND to lose its NBC contract it would be forced into a conference. The net loss would be about $30-40 million to remain independent....$15 million from the NBC contract and another ~$20 million from not being in a conference. Even a sharp drop to about $10 million from NBC might do it.

A big deal for ND, I think, is that if ND were to join the Big Ten, the prestigious universities of the Big Ten would make no special accommodation for ND...and would take no ND crap. I'm less sure about the ACC. There has been some talk of allowing a special arrangement in the ACC for ND FB...sort of a quasi independence. Don't know. But I think the ACC is a more likely home for ND than the Big Ten.

At the time ND was crapping all over CT one sports writer pointed out that ND treats everyone so badly because they can...and get away with it.

San Diego Flyer · #**652** 10-21-2011, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by UACFlyer

...Med, you're right, UD would go chasing around after ND like a little dog if ND would lower itself to play UD in BB.

Now suppose ND agreed to play a home-and-home BB series with the Flyers....but only under the condition that UD's "home" game be played in Chicago or Saint Louis. What would that tell you about ND's view of UD? How about arrogance combined with utter contempt?

Arrogant, contemptuous, condescending...call it what you like, but ND does not have a patent on those traits among the power schools.

Personally, I would take the above offer in a heartbeat. And we would kick their arse some more!

Chris R · #**653** 10-21-2011, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by UACFlyer

Chris, as I recall, when the Hartford papers wrote about UConn's $2 million loss they pointed out that Oklahoma also lost mohey...and they had a table showing losses in BCS bowl gamess...and Ohio State was listed among teams losing money.

Was it attendance related, or some other force. UConn had to eat the cost of 15,000 empty seats at the Orange Bowl. My guess is Ohio State and Oklahoma did not have an attendance problem and the losses (if there were losses) were from something else.

UConn's poor football support is the only piece of it that interests me.

UACFlyer · #**654** 10-21-2011, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by Chris R

Was it attendance related, or some other force. UConn had to eat the cost of 15,000 empty seats at the Orange Bowl. My guess is Ohio State and Oklahoma did not have an attendance problem and the losses (if there were losses) were from something else.

UConn's poor football support is the only piece of it that interests me.

I think the main source of loss is the same for all teams. They are required to buy say, 15,000, "packages",....which can be three nights at a hotel, plus TX and other forced expenses. That's not the way people prefer to buy there TX. They make their own arrangements and save money...with schools left holding the bag.

The clamor among schools to get to a BCS bowl baffles me. It's a money-losing deal.

The last number I heard re FB finances is that 22 of the ~ 120 FBS FB schools turn a profit...all the others lose money. And it's likely that losses are hidden in many cases. FBS FB is a very bad investment except for a handful of schools. It's one of the nutty things we do.

Medford · #**655** 10-21-2011, 03:50 PM

http://mrsec.com/

FWIW, Missouri has wrapped up their meeting and all but announced their intentions to move to the SEC. Pretty similar to the time frame as the aTm to SEC move, so I guess we can expect an official missouri to the SEC announcement around this time next week. Coincidentally, Missouri travels to aTm next week, so it would certainly be beneficial to the SEC as an SEC preview game.

So I guess the next domino is to see what the B12 does in response, and how quickly. If the Big East is indeed going to hold departing members to a 27th month waiting period, well then the B12 will need someone to fill the gap in the schedule pretty quickly. Word is that WVU is option #1, and it appears that WVU is ready to say yes. However, BYU has also indicated that they've talked w/ the B12 and word is the combination of TCU and the secured tv revenue profits deal they're more receptive. BYU is now an independent, so other than the hassle of moving games on the schedule for next year and beyond (and I'm sure there are out clauses in those contracts) BYU could move to the B12 pretty quick. I've also read that BYU would like to honor their 3 year commitment to the WCC in all other sports, even if they do leave, so if WVU & Louisville were to become schools 11 & 12 in 2 more years, it would be pretty convienent that BYU could play football as the 10th team the next 2 seasons and all could join in all sports beyond that.

Hyde Park Flyer · #**656** 10-21-2011, 03:53 PM

i understand the lack of sympathy for the big east in allowing nd to remain independent. I also recall that the ncaa allowed nd to be included in the count of fb teams in the big east, which allowed them to be bcs eligible. however, i can't help but think that nd's promise to play 3 games a year against big east schools in fb was a consideration when extending them an invite. then, once nd was assured the substantial benefit to its other teams (again, the spike in nd's basketball programs directly resulted from joining the big east - the men joined the preeminent bb conference and the women can use its conference affiliation with uconn), it backed out of the deal. again, it's wrong. to argue that other wrongs have occurred does not make this any less wrong.

Hyde Park Flyer · #**657** 10-21-2011, 03:58 PM

med, i'm not sure about byu to the big12. their negotiations hit a snag 2 weeks ago. i haven't read anything that indicates that they resolved any issues. it seems to me that at least the media has annointed wvu and louisville the next 2 teams to join the big12. however, i had a cbs broadcaster tell me that uc was likely to be included rather than wvu. as recent as 2-3 weeks ago, there was a belief that uc and louisville were going to be announced at any time. uc is in a strange situation as it has an interim ad, which may explain why it's flying under the radar. regardless, i expect the big12 to expand to 12. here comes another round of craziness.

UACFlyer · #**658** 10-21-2011, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by Medford

http://mrsec.com/

FWIW, Missouri has wrapped up their meeting and all but announced their intentions to move to the SEC. Pretty similar to the time frame as the aTm to SEC move, so I guess we can expect an official missouri to the SEC announcement around this time next week. Coincidentally, Missouri travels to aTm next week, so it would certainly be beneficial to the SEC as an SEC preview game.

So I guess the next domino is to see what the B12 does in response, and how quickly. If the Big East is indeed going to hold departing members to a 27th month waiting period, well then the B12 will need someone to fill the gap in the schedule pretty quickly. Word is that WVU is option #1, and it appears that WVU is ready to say yes. However, BYU has also indicated that they've talked w/ the B12 and word is the combination of TCU and the secured tv revenue profits deal they're more receptive. BYU is now an independent, so other than the hassle of moving games on the schedule for next year and beyond (and I'm sure there are out clauses in those contracts) BYU could move to the B12 pretty quick. I've also read that BYU would like to honor their 3 year commitment to the WCC in all other sports, even if they do leave, so if WVU & Louisville were to become schools 11 & 12 in 2 more years, it would be pretty convienent that BYU could play football as the 10th team the next 2 seasons and all could join in all sports beyond that.

The BE has stuck by its 27 mo exit notice..and Pitt and Su have accepted it. But, it sort of depends on what happens next. If the BE lands six teams that can play next year some feel that it will waive the 27 months, or at least negotiate a practical financial penalty.

But, as Med points out, what the B12 does next is what really matters. Will they add one school to make 10..or, as some think, add three to go directly to 12. For the Big East this matters enormously, assuming one or more BE schools is snatched by the Big 12. Clearly, if the Big 12 stops at ten and the 10th is BYU the BE may live to fight yet another day since WVU, UL and UC will remain in the fold.

That level of "stability" is probably what the six schools targeted by the BE are looking for. In fact, with the current six BE schools plus the six talked about, there results a pretty good FB conference and a very good BB conference.

Can the BE dodge yet another bullet? Hard to believe...but it might.

DallasFlyer · #**659** 10-21-2011, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by UACFlyer

The clamor among schools to get to a BCS bowl baffles me. It's a money-losing deal.

It can be. 41 percent of public universities that played in bowl games over the last six years reported losing money.

http://www.mndaily.com/2011/10/04/bc...tball-programs

The real clamor is to get to a BCS conference because of TV money and prestige. Once you start playing in BCS bowls, you become a more marketable university in many respects, and it is an overall positive just about any way you slice it.

Bat'71 · #**660** 10-21-2011, 04:33 PM

We discussed this before in another thread, but I'd LOVE to see the "books" on the accounting for these "losses" incurred by all these D-1 programs. Notwithstanding the spendthrift nature of our institutions of higher learning, I think it's pretty safe to say their athletic departments aren't net cash flow negative (or if they are, it's due to football.)

I'm curious as to whether or not "exit fees" would be payable (and if so, to whom) if the BE (or any conference for that matter) implodes. If, for example, UofL, Cinci and WVa all accepted invitations to the Big XII and then UConn and Rutgers landed in the ACC or Big Ten...then what? Is everything moot, or does the Conference collect the money from the FB schools to distribute to the BB schools and USF? Somehow, that wouldn't seem right, but I've never heard that discussed anywhere. Plus, do the BE non-FB schools get any of the cash generated by the FB members...it seems to be implied that they do, but I don't know how that can be justified or why the FB schools would go along with it.

UACFlyer · #**661** 10-21-2011, 04:49 PM

Bat, I'm about 99% sure that BE BB schools have nothing to do with FB revenues.

The costs incurred by some FB progams are amazing....head coaches earning $3-5 million...and to my surprise, jobs like associate head coach, offensive and defensive coordinator being paid $0.5-1.0 million. There are some FBS top-tier schools where the salary and benefits of the FB coaching staff are on the order of $7-10 million.

And the capital investments. Michigan's stadium renovation....a renovation,...cost about $250 million....a quarter of a billion dollars. The schools seem locked in a vicious circle from which they cannot escape. Thus, they'll do anything to increase revenue, with TV revenue the most lucrative source.

Thank God UD is not involved in this financial mess, having nothing whatsoever to do with the purpose and mission of the schools. Recall many years ago when the U. of Chicago dropped out of the Big Ten, the president explaining that football has about as much to do with education as bull fighting does with agriculture.

Bat'71 · #**662** 10-21-2011, 04:53 PM

On PTI last night, Tony Kornheiser and Mike Wilbon had a brief discussion on the MTWs proposal to have a 16-team Championship playoff in D-1 football. Now most discussions on this matter to date have proposed an eight-team format, but the MTW projects that a 16-team championship (or four more games for the last two teams standing) would generate some $700 million-plus in revenues versus about $150 million from the BCS set-up...pretty intriguing numbers , it they hold up. However, unless the Conferences reduce the number of games played during the regular season back down to 10 from 12 (excluding a Conference championship game), those extra games may just be too much. If D-1 FB went to this format, however, it might just end the madness associated with conference realignment and bring some sanity back to college sports.

Bat'71 · #**663** 10-21-2011, 05:15 PM

UAC, the more you hear about the monies involved in all this, especially the capital budgets and size of the salaries paid to coaching staffs, the more it seems our colleges and universities have lost all sense of proportion as to how athletics fits into their academic mission. It also seems that one of the first victims of this mad dash for cash has been the ethical foundations these institutions were supposedly based upon.

Chris R · #**664** 10-21-2011, 05:37 PM

I'm baffled by the BEs 27-month sticking point. When you file for divorce you don't keep sleeping together an sharing the mortgage. Someone moves out and moves out right away. The separation is immediate. You don't divorce your spouse then show up to the Christmas party with him/her on your arm.
Posted via Mobile Device

UACFlyer · #**665** 10-21-2011, 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by Chris R

I'm baffled by the BEs 27-month sticking point. When you file for divorce you don't keep sleeping together an sharing the mortgage. Someone moves out and moves out right away. The separation is immediate. You don't divorce your spouse then show up to the Christmas party with him/her on your arm.
Posted via Mobile Device

I thought most/all conferences had an exit period..maybe not. If not, I can think of a reason why the BE felt the need for a waiting time.

BCS rules require an eight team league, right? Other power conferences have 10-14 teams...the Big East has only eight. So the loss of only one team puts the Big East in a jam....with, possibly, not enough time to get back to eight.

That's a reason for requiring a waiting period...but, 27 months isn't required to adjust. UP and SU will not have to wait 27 months. The BE isn't trying to be nasty..and wants those schools out as soon as practical for the BE.

Right now all eyes are on UM and the Big 12 response.

Medford · #**666** 10-21-2011, 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by Chris R

I'm baffled by the BEs 27-month sticking point. When you file for divorce you don't keep sleeping together an sharing the mortgage. Someone moves out and moves out right away. The separation is immediate. You don't divorce your spouse then show up to the Christmas party with him/her on your arm.
Posted via Mobile Device

Most exit fees/restrictions are a guideline that are often negotiated down. As you said you don't keep sleeping w/ your wife while going thru divorce (actually I know several people that have done this, but that's a topic for another day/message board). Its there to protect the Big East, to give them time to find a replacement, however if a logical replacement was found, the BE would allow syracuse & Pitt to leave sooner than 27 months.

With that said, this may be the rare exceptions where UConn, Rutgers & South Florida actually enforce the 27 month period and hold firm in negotiations. At a minimum, that would keep the BCS status thru the end of the current BCS contract. Of course, doesn't the Big East TV deal end after this season? Or is next season? Either way, they'd have a one or two year period of a TV deal that would look one way for the current conference, and another way for a conference that looks completely different. It already appears the Big East next TV deal will fall well short of the one they had on the table a few months back, what kind of position would they be in to negotiate a new deal going forward.

rasta man · #**667** 10-22-2011, 07:23 AM

according to this http://espn.go.com/college-sports/st...ty-strike-deal Mizzou is staying in the Big 12 next year and any changes wont happen until July 1 2013.

With that, I think this is all done for next year with A&M moving to the SEC and TCU taking its place. 2013 will be interesting given the BCS negoits. next spring. What may happen is the next 2 years will be lame duck years, nothing will change next season and that leaves 1 year on the BCS contract, dont think the Rose Bowl will want to give up a BCS title game or the Big East giving up a BCS berth for that year given the 27 month notice.

TBPH, I'm sick of this stuff, maybe the Univ of Chicago was right all those years ago. I'm sick of the greed in big time football and the exploitation of the students (both the players and the students at many of the schools who have to pay an additional athletic fee in addition to sky high tuition to fund the athletic dept).

Bat'71 · #**668** 10-22-2011, 08:11 AM

I may be missing something here (which wouldn't be the first time), rasta man, but this article you referenced indicates that Mizzu will make a decision on whether to stay or go in fairly short order and could begin playing in the SEC next year; I didn't see any reference to mid-2013.

I agree with you that this whole realignment process is getting tiresome, but on another level, it's hard to avert your eyes of this slow speed train wreck. I "luv" listening to these guys (the ADs, Chancellors, Trustees, et.al.) claim that the decisions they make are motivated by their search for the Holy Grail of conference "stability" (and, oh, by the way, the bucks are better too) as these schools do their best to undermine the all-elusive stability of the conference they're in.

Bat'71 · #**669** 10-22-2011, 10:37 AM

In a NY Post article today, BYU would seem to be the first choice of the Big XII if Mizzu were in fact to leave for the SEC. It seems that the BE's 27-month opt out clause could be a problem for the Big XII in extending invites to UofL and WVA, but if BYU decides to stay independent, all bets may be off. http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/colle...ppJKDLWUZ614BL

FSUFlyer · #**670** 10-22-2011, 10:39 AM

That article says:

"We're not looking at a long time frame," Deaton said, adding that any move would anticipate playing in another conference beginning next season, not in 2013 or farther out.

UDan71 · #**671** 10-22-2011, 12:56 PM

This column, by long-time Cleveland sports columnist Bill Livingston, from yesterday offers an interesting overview on where this is all headed. Coming from a paper that's a huge Buckeyes proponent, the guy is stepping out on the ledge with this viewpoint.

http://www.cleveland.com/livingston/...0/post_35.html

P.S. Lots of interesting responses from column readers follows the column. Shows the split in opinions between those who just want minor-league football and those who want something a bit more like what college athletics was originally.

UACFlyer · #**672** 10-22-2011, 01:19 PM

Quite a few of the schools in the envisioned mega-conferences are among the very best universities in the county...in the world. It's not clear to me that suchs schools are going to abandon the student-athlete concept as suggested may happen.

One role of the NCAA, as often pointed out by brew, is that it sets standards that schools must meet. The schools seem to prefer that,...rather than having conferences or individual schools making the rules.

bobber · #**673** 10-22-2011, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by UDan71

This column, by long-time Cleveland sports columnist Bill Livingston, from yesterday offers an interesting overview on where this is all headed. Coming from a paper that's a huge Buckeyes proponent, the guy is stepping out on the ledge with this viewpoint.

http://www.cleveland.com/livingston/...0/post_35.html

P.S. Lots of interesting responses from column readers follows the column. Shows the split in opinions between those who just want minor-league football and those who want something a bit more like what college athletics was originally.

Livingston sees a possible Big Ten slot for West Virginia based on "geographical convenience." After I read that I knew he didn't know what he was talking about.

ClevelandFlyer05 · #**674** 10-22-2011, 09:47 PM

I think Livingston wrote that piece half-jokingly. Clearly he doesn't expect TCU to join the SEC or schools to get rid of marching bands (among the many other outlandish claims he made). I guess the point he was making was that we're in for some serious changes if we go the superconference route and many of them are not going to be for the better.

bobber · #**675** 10-22-2011, 11:51 PM

Posted without comment.

http://www.boston.com/sports/college...st_mwc_c-.html

San Diego Flyer · #**676** 10-23-2011, 09:53 AM

I can't think of an alignment that would be more dehumanizing than that. Instead of team names on jerseys they could put their conference affiliation. Kind of like the metropolis inner-city schools--- "BCS division 12, ps 637" playing ....

That would really pack the stadiums.

UACFlyer · #**677** 10-23-2011, 10:58 AM

.....are not comprised of the best FB programs in the country. There are quite a few legacy schools in each of those conferences....that often get slaughtered in conference games.

If one were starting with a clean sheet of paper intending to form four mega-conferences, or power conferences, comprised of the nation's FB powers, who would select the likes of: Duke, Virginia, Wake, NC State, Indiana, Minnesota, Northwestern, Colorado, Washington State, Kentucky, Missisippi, Vandy, and even a few more?

Yet these schools are secure as legacy members of the four power conferences that are considered rock solid, stable, enduring,.....while many other schools,...outsiders,.....that are every bit as good or better are in turmoil.

Go figure.

Bat'71 · #**678** 10-23-2011, 11:52 AM

Conference bottom feeders generally stay the bottom feeders, especially in football where it takes a lot more quality athletes to make a team a contender than it does in Basketball. Every now and then a school with a sub-par FB legacy can surprise you (e.g. Stanford or once in a blue moon an Indiana or Vandy or Wake), but by and large they eventually revert back to being bottom feeders in FB. However, many of these schools add to a conference's academic standing or have other attributes that come from long-standing relationships within their respective conferences. The BE, however, really doesn't have much of a history in FB and true rivalries have been hard to develop; Pitt/WVa and Cincy/Loiuisville have been about it and now the former may be history.

ClevelandFlyer05 · #**679** 10-23-2011, 04:43 PM

The "legacy schools" in the Big Ten and other conferences pull their weight in other areas if not any good at football. I'd rather have Minnesota, as an institution, in the Big Ten than Boise State or any other Johnny-Come-Lately.

UACFlyer · #**680** 10-23-2011, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by ClevelandFlyer05

The "legacy schools" in the Big Ten and other conferences pull their weight in other areas if not any good at football. I'd rather have Minnesota, as an institution, in the Big Ten than Boise State or any other Johnny-Come-Lately.

.....but whenever I've mentioned that in connection with conference realignment I've been shot down with,..."Nah, the only thing that matters is football".

ClevelandFlyer05 · #**681** 10-23-2011, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by UACFlyer

.....but whenever I've mentioned that in connection with conference realignment I've been shot down with,..."Nah, the only thing that matters is football".

I certainly don't believe that to necessarily be true, but...if you're using that as a justification/defense for UConn, the problem is that beyond an above average (at best) football program, they may or may not bring enough to the table in other areas for the conferences they would fit best in to consider adding them.

Also keep in mind that different conferences have different goals. Some are secure in their BCS status and also like to consider expansion with an eye towards overall institutional fits. Others are simply adding schools willy-nilly to save their BCS status.

UACFlyer · #**682** 10-23-2011, 08:22 PM

Originally Posted by ClevelandFlyer05

I certainly don't believe that to necessarily be true, but...if you're using that as a justification/defense for UConn, the problem is that beyond an above average (at best) football program, they may or may not bring enough to the table in other areas for the conferences they would fit best in to consider adding them.

Also keep in mind that different conferences have different goals. Some are secure in their BCS status and also like to consider expansion with an eye towards overall institutional fits. Others are simply adding schools willy-nilly to save their BCS status.

Cleveland...believe it or not, didn't have anything else in mind.

But, since you mentioned UConn, I can't resist commenting on a remark you made. I agree with you, re the importance of institutional fit. That is especially important to the Big Ten, as well as the ACC and PAC 12. That is precisely where UConn shines. UC is a major academic and research university ranked higher by U.S. News than some schools in each of the three "fussy" conferences I mentioned. Combine that with men's/women's BB programs second to none over a long period of time, plus a few national championships in Olympic sports and you have a great institutional fit in any of the three conferences I mentioned. Rutgers ain't bad either.

The primary problem for both UC and RU is geography. Obviously the PAC 12 is out of the question; the Big Ten is a big stretch east and the ACC is a southern conference already at 14 members. Put UC or RU in the middle of the country or in the south and they would not have to worry about fitting in.
But essentially isolated and alone in the NE and they have a real problem.

shapanud · #**683** 10-23-2011, 09:49 PM

UT's Rivals site is now saying that Notre Dame will decide in 60 days if it will move non-fball sports out of Big East (possibly to Big 12).

bobber · #**684** 10-24-2011, 12:12 AM

Originally Posted by shapanud

UT's Rivals site is now saying that Notre Dame will decide in 60 days if it will move non-fball sports out of Big East (possibly to Big 12).

Whooaaa! If true, didn't see that coming.

ud69 · #**685** 10-24-2011, 12:33 AM

Originally Posted by bobber

Whooaaa! If true, didn't see that coming.

As of now - a pretty weak source with no confirmation. If I had a dollar for every rumor.........

DallasFlyer · #**686** 10-24-2011, 10:35 AM

Report from the Washington Examiner suggests no favorite among BYU, West Virginia, and Louisville. They are most likely to add just one school if Mizzou leaves. http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/...g-12-s-dilemma

Pure speculation on my part that I have not seen reported anywhere but if the Big 12 is content with just 10 teams, and they decide either Louisville or West Virginia is the best option, they could potentially strike a bargain with the Big East.

Big 12 receives their pick of schools eligible to join conference with no delay upon Mizzou's departure.

Big East agrees to waive waiting period requirement for one school in exchange for the Big 12 agreeing to not poach any more schools.

UACFlyer · #**687** 10-24-2011, 11:49 AM

Adding teams to a conference is a pretty big deal, in some ways like a marriage,...probably more stable. Since conferences don't boot schools out, a team added is forever.

Looking down the road 5+ years, let's say, if the Big 12 gurus feel that it's all but certain that they'll expand to 12 schools, why would they add only one now, then in a few years start the process over again,...when the pickings may not be as good? A decision to add only one school is, or should be, a decision to stay at 10 teams for as far into the future as the eye can see,...not to add one and then in 2,3,4 years think about adding two more.

These guys just have to be smarter than that,..more far-sighted than that.

That being said, it's reasonable to suppose that the Big Ten guys are just as smart...and when theys ay they're happy with 12 schools with no intent to go beyond that, I think they mean it. The PAC 12 presidents decided essentially the same thing and reigned in their ambitious commissioner, going so far as to have him withdraw invitations to Big 12 schools. One would think that was a bit embarrassing...and recieved relatively little media coverage.

So, it seems entirely possible that once Mizzou moves to the SEC (14) and is replaced by the Big 12.....the Big 12's most significant decision will be 10 or 12. If they go for 10 the Big East may live...combining in some way with teams poached from other conferences or banding together with them.

Unless we're surprised again (no chance of that, right?), the idea of four 16 team mega-conferences may not materialize after all. Conference presidents may be the ones that have slowed the train.

Bat'71 · #**688** 10-24-2011, 01:13 PM

On one hand...if the Big XII is content with ten schools for now, but would like to go to 12 schools again in two or three years time, they could simply add BYU or even SMU now to replace Mizzu (should they ultimately leave) and extend an offer to WVa and Louisville, knowing that these two schools wouldn't be available until 2014 anyway. It's unconventional, I admit, but it would fit into what they're indicating.
On the other hand...there may be something to be said for the fact that the Big XII doesn't want to be the conference that puts the final nail in the coffin of the BE FB program. However, if they come to the conclusion that the demise of BE FB is simply a matter of time, they may act anyway. Too bad Vegas isn't making "book" on this...I wonder if the Brits are...it's right up their alley. I guess we'll all have to just wait and see.

FSUFlyer · #**689** 10-24-2011, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by UACFlyer

.....but whenever I've mentioned that in connection with conference realignment I've been shot down with,..."Nah, the only thing that matters is football".

Because it's pretty true in terms of conference expansion. It's not like these conferences are being started from scratch where, today, schools like Iowa State or Washington State probably wouldn't get much love by major conferences.

But EXPANSION is based on the quality of the football program and the potential markets that school may add. Those are the most important. Things like academics or being good in basketball and/or other olympic sports are only minor details if the first two are hits.

Originally Posted by shapanud

UT's Rivals site is now saying that Notre Dame will decide in 60 days if it will move non-fball sports out of Big East (possibly to Big 12).

By Chip Brown? That guy has been he leading rumor monger in regards to expansion since last summer. And he hasn't been right about anything yet.

With that said, the ACC and Big Ten have both said "all or nothing" in regards to ND. I don't believe that's posturing, either, since both conference have had fairly serious talks with ND the last decade or two. And I think the Big 12 might be willing to make that accommodation for ND. And I don't think it's much of an assumption to say ND would rather face Big 12 schools than the schools the Big East is seeking to add.

Originally Posted by UACFlyer

That being said, it's reasonable to suppose that the Big Ten guys are just as smart...and when theys ay they're happy with 12 schools with no intent to go beyond that, I think they mean it. The PAC 12 presidents decided essentially the same thing and reigned in their ambitious commissioner, going so far as to have him withdraw invitations to Big 12 schools. One would think that was a bit embarrassing...and recieved relatively little media coverage.

Larry Scott was the one that advised his school presidents to not add the Big 12 schools. The hiccup was Texas' network, not the fact that presidents were opposed to 16 members.

UACFlyer · #**690** 10-24-2011, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by FSUFlyer

Larry Scott was the one that advised his school presidents to not add the Big 12 schools. The hiccup was Texas' network, not the fact that presidents were opposed to 16 members.

This is not consistent with what I have read.

The PAC 12's 2011 interest (Scott's), its most recent, did not involve Texas, only OU and OSU. That offer was pulled.

Whatever, the Big 12 appears to have survived and seems strong...and is in a position to further strengthen itself by adding good replacement schools. But, looking ahead, if the Big 12 settles on a ten team conference by adding a single school, they will once again be in immediate trouble down the road if they lose one or two more teams. In contrast, if they go up to 12 loss of one or two does create a crisis.

Lack of size/scale has been one of the Big East's most serious problems. With an eight school FB conference loss of UP and SU results in an immediate calamity. If the BE had taken the opportunity to expand to 12 a few years ago, which it could have easily done, loss of two schools would have been little more than an issue.

It just amazes me that the BE FB schools seem to have been sitting around waiting for bad things to happen....then trying desperately to respond. Was conference leadership that inept? Or did the BB Catholics block expansion moves? Whatever. The fix the BE FB schools find themselves in is one of their own making that could have been easily avoided.

FSUFlyer · #**691** 10-24-2011, 11:54 PM

Pac-12 Commissioner Larry Scott pulled the plug on possibly adding Texas, Oklahoma or other schools, notifying his conference presidents late Tuesday night that the league was staying put at 12 teams, temporarily giving renewed life to the Big 12 but severely limiting those two schools’ options.

Scott could have gotten the nine votes necessary to have the Pac-12 presidents vote to approve the additions of Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. But the commissioner decided the Longhorn Network and Texas’ qualms about equal revenue sharing were not worth the hassle and abruptly ended all negotiations, a source familiar with the discussions told the American-Statesman on Tuesday night.

http://www.statesman.com/sports/long...printArticle=y

UACFlyer · #**692** 10-25-2011, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by FSUFlyer

Pac-12 Commissioner Larry Scott pulled the plug on possibly adding Texas, Oklahoma or other schools, notifying his conference presidents late Tuesday night that the league was staying put at 12 teams, temporarily giving renewed life to the Big 12 but severely limiting those two schools’ options.

Scott could have gotten the nine votes necessary to have the Pac-12 presidents vote to approve the additions of Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. But the commissioner decided the Longhorn Network and Texas’ qualms about equal revenue sharing were not worth the hassle and abruptly ended all negotiations, a source familiar with the discussions told the American-Statesman on Tuesday night.

http://www.statesman.com/sports/long...printArticle=y

...as far as it goes. But, note, the issue was all about Texas and the resulting hassle.

From what I've read and what the OU president reported over the following weeks, OU and OSU had invitations from Scott to join the PAC 12 as a pair. Prehaps there was a misunderstanding. But on such an important matter?

The OU president was talking as if OU was gone...the OSU president said that OSU would stick with OU. After about two weeks of essentially giving the Big 12 his farewell, the OU president abruptly reversed course...and it was then reported that Scott had pulled his invitation to the Oklahoma pair.

At the time I thought this had to be very embarrassing for the OU president.

This is the scenario I was referring to. True or false? Who knows?

Medford · #**693** 10-25-2011, 11:01 AM

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/colle...1Oc4fAyQ6qlw4O

thoughts posted over on the A-10 board, but since I don't feel like rehasshing, I'll just say, if theres truth to this, I don't see anyway the Big East could survive in football, at least not on the BCS level.

UACFlyer · #**694** 10-25-2011, 11:31 AM

There has been some talk that the Big 12 presidents are not at all comfortable taking steps that would doom the Big East, since the two conferences formed a warm relationship when both were under siege a while back....and considering a combination.

If WVU were the only BE school to join the Big 12 the BE could survive. But if the Big 12 nabbed two or three BE schools, that would likely be the end of BE FB as a conference.

Maybe the four conference BE-USA-MW-WAC combo resulting in a 28-32 school super league is the BE's only hope.

Let's just hope this is resolved soon...it has grown tedious to say the least.

UACFlyer · #**695** 10-25-2011, 12:08 PM

....the Kansas City Star is interesting. He address the strong emotional issues associated with leaving the Big 12....and financial considerations.

But, the number one thing he keeps hammering on is the importance of stability. He feels the Big 12 is not stable in the long term. The PAC 12 has backed off its interest in additional Big 12 schools,....for now. But what about 3 years from now, or five? That is his concern.....it's not about money....it's essentially all about long term stability.

If the Big East had been thinking this way it could be a strong FB conference today. After the first ACC raid the BE could have asked, what's to stop them from doing it again....we've got to grow to a strong 12 team league with a great TV deal to guard against that. Instead the BE added no schools and have a lousy TV deal.

Again I ask.....did the BB Catholics block action...or was it stupid management? Even if the BB schools blocked action the FB schools should have had the foresight to break away from the BB schools and chart their own course.

The amazing strength of BE BB may have kept the schools together. But, in the end it appears to me as if Big East basketball, one way or the other, caused the awful problem that a few of the FB schools now are dealing with.

bobber · #**696** 10-25-2011, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by UACFlyer

....the Kansas City Star is interesting. He address the strong emotional issues associated with leaving the Big 12....and financial considerations.

But, the number one thing he keeps hammering on is the importance of stability. He feels the Big 12 is not stable in the long term. The PAC 12 has backed off its interest in additional Big 12 schools,....for now. But what about 3 years from now, or five? That is his concern.....it's not about money....it's essentially all about long term stability.

If the Big East had been thinking this way it could be a strong FB conference today. After the first ACC raid the BE could have asked, what's to stop them from doing it again....we've got to grow to a strong 12 team league with a great TV deal to guard against that. Instead the BE added no schools and have a lousy TV deal.

Again I ask.....did the BB Catholics block action...or was it stupid management? Even if the BB schools blocked action the FB schools should have had the foresight to break away from the BB schools and chart their own course.

The amazing strength of BE BB may have kept the schools together. But, in the end it appears to me as if Big East basketball, one way or the other, caused the awful problem that a few of the FB schools now are dealing with.

The hybrid conference model the BE has used is simply not going to fly in the BCS era. The basketball schools brought something to the table (eyeballs and TV sets) twenty years ago. But in the present-day scramble for money called the BCS that doesn't matter as much as maintaining a conference's AQ status.

The BE has been an accident waiting to happen for several years.

bobber · #**697** 10-25-2011, 01:39 PM

Posted without comment.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/st...t-babcock-says

ud69 · #**698** 10-25-2011, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by bobber

Posted without comment.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/st...t-babcock-says

Bobber - While this story may contain some useful info, it may also be out-of-date. Such is the BCS tango.

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...ining-big-12/1

hawkoooo · #**699** 10-25-2011, 01:57 PM

Just heard on Fox Sports Radio (Columbia, SC affiliate) that WVU to the Big12 is imminent. They WILL be the replacement for Mizzou. Is there any truth to this?

EDIT: http://espn.go.com/college-sports/st...-early-tuesday

DallasFlyer · #**700** 10-25-2011, 04:00 PM

Talks between B12 and Irish heating up: http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1283801