(07-13-2013 11:45 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 03:15 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 02:08 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 01:23 AM)billyjack Wrote:  To follow up on what gosports is saying, Providence the school voted in favor of admitting Penn State in the 80s, while Gavitt was still commissioner. Also, on Paterno's being "all in" on the Big East, Paterno wanted ridiculously unequal unfair benefits for Penn State football.

as far as i know the only school confirmed to have voted in psu's favor was syracuse.

the vote was 5-3 (5 yes 3 no, which made it one vote shy)

providence was "the basketball guard" of the big east, they were always the school that wanted to set a minimum basketball standard when adding big name football members. was it provy who cast the deciding vote? who knows. but if any school could have raised enough fuss to kill what should have been a no brainer deal, it was that school.

im not sure if psu ever asked for special treatment, but there is a lot of ego & demanding special treatment associated with that school. maybe that factored into the decisions of the football members, and contrary to popular belief a lot of the original football members were hesitant to form a football league out of the BE. you have reasoning to believe that psu got rejected for fb reasons but you also have reasoning to believe that bb was the reason for psu not being allowed in. but one things for certain, provy was the shotcaller of the conference, and they had the most to lose (political power, smallest school, basketball only) if psu joined

You are wrong as well on this one. Cuse and BC turned down PSU and then voted in Pitt shortly after. You have no knowledge of the history of the Big East, you have been wrong in every single post on this thread. I don't know if you are honestly mistaken or trolling, because if you are genuinely mistaken you are REAAAAALLLY far off.

In 1982, Penn State applied for membership, but was rejected, with only five schools in favor (Penn State needed six out of eight). It was long rumored that Syracuse cast the deciding vote against Penn State, but Mike Tranghese confirmed that this was not the case and that Syracuse had, in fact, voted for Penn State's inclusion.[7]

-straight from wikipedia

if thats not enough for you here lemme take a direct quote from mike tranghese

Despite all the negativity that comes out about Jake, he fought like crazy for Penn State to be in the league. Syracuse and Boston College really fought to have Penn State because Jake understood the importance of Penn State. What happened in the previous fall, Penn State had tried to form a football league. Coach Paterno has laid a lot of this at Jake’s feet, which I think is wrong. What never got written was that the basketball league was being pretty successful and they couldn’t agree on revenue sharing in football. There wasn’t going to be any revenue sharing. Jake just wasn’t going to do that. The next year Dave brought it up for discussion and Jake was absolutely supportive. We voted five different times and all five times Jake voted for Penn State. And Bill Flynn at Boston College, God rest his soul, voted for Penn State all five times. The reason that they didn’t get in was that the league was new, a lot of the directors felt it was a basketball league. Some of the directors felt that the concept of the Big East was big markets. It was a 5-3 vote that changed the face of history

Nice work fellow Cuse fan. Nothing like letting the facts do the talking for you.

(07-13-2013 12:27 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  The disrespect of major college football in the Northeast goes back to at least the 1950s when the Ivies decided to stop playing (read: spending) major college football. As soon as that happened, the folks in the South and West began to look at CFB in the Northeast as almost like today people look at the G5 schools. That was always Paterno's primary crusade - establishing respect for major college football in the Northeast.

You have to remember that history always must be viewed in its time, not with the benefit of hindsight. That is almost always the mistake people make in these types of discussions. They fail to understand the time and place and therefore they don't understand (or remember) the landscape as a whole, which in turn leads to all kinds of false assumptions.

I want to make it very clear that Paterno was a brilliant man and that needs to be acknowledged before we can have any discussion on him or Penn State. He took a little cow college in the middle of nowhere and turned it into an absolute monster on every front. Also, as we all have seen over the pat few years, the entire university's culture has been constructed around not only the football program but also around Paterno himself. That is certainly scary on a lot of levels but it is also in some strange was, extremely impressive. I can't think of another university anywhere - not even Duke with Mike Krzyzewski or North Carolina with Dean Smith - whose entire institutional identity has been built around a single coach s happened up in State College.

In addition to being brilliant, Paterno was also extremely controlling and anything but altruistic. He didn't want to form a conference for the good of CFB as a whole or even for the good of CFB in the NE. He wanted to form a conference for his benefit and he had some very specific thoughts for how he wanted to do it. He wasn't interested in negotiating, it was his way or the highway - just as he had always operated up in State College.

Penn State went undefeated several times in the late 60s and early 70s and each time they were snubbed for the MNC by the voters primarily because of where they were located. Their schedule was considered too soft by the critics even though in reality their schedule was pretty similar to the teams they were being snubbed for. That is not at all differen than the criticism Miami faced when it was running the Big East in the 90s and early 2000s or that WVU faced when it took over after Miami, BC and VT defected to the ACC. It is also the same bias the AAC will face going forward even though most of that league is now in the South. Blind bias is always stupid and it will not be confined by petty geography.

Paterno believed that, by forming a conference, he could change that deeply ingrained mentality and that, he claimed, was always his impetus for wanting to form a conference in the first place. The problem was that he, like everyone else involved, wanted to have his cake and eat it too. He wanted to split revs equally in MBB and other sports but not at all in FB.

Also, in the late 70s and early 80s, Penn State played its basketball in a league called the Eastern Athletic Association, or as it was known at the time, "The Eastern 8." That league, which was the forerunner to the Atlantic 10, featured a number of different lineups but some of the key players were Villanova, Duquesne, Penn State, West Virginia, George Washington, Massachusetts, Pitt and Rutgers. Later, schools like St. Bonaventure, Rhode Island, St. Joe's and Temple joined but the Eastern 8 that I remember most fondly involved great rivalries between Pitt, Penn State, West Virginia and Duquesne (which at the time was seen as the best basketball program of the bunch by most outsiders).

Those were NASTY rivalries and a LOT of fun. Hell, at the time, Duquesne and West Virginia was more heated than Pitt/WVU. It seemed like every time those two schools played, controversy ensued in the form of bench clearing brawls, crooked time keepers, rowdy fans, you name it. It was a lot of fun to watch unfold.

Paterno, who was always a notorious, know-it-all pain in the arse to deal with - was Penn State's AD and football coach at the time. I think we now know that he remained in that capacity unofficially through the very end in a Vladimir Putin kind of way but that is a story for a different day. Anyway, the Eastern 8 was a great league and perfect fit for Pitt, Duquesne, West Virginia and Penn State. Unfortunately, Paterno came to believe that as long as the E8 and BE were around, his coveted all sports conference would never materialize. So, at the 1978 or '79 Eastern 8 league meetings, I can't remember which, he surprised everyone by promptly resigning from the league and announcing that he was taking PSU indie in everything - just as Notre Dame had done a few years before. However, what most upset everyone else was not that he resigned but rather how he choset to do it - via a press release that Tim Curley (who was then PSU's SID) slipped under everyone's hotel room door as they slept. There was no discussion, no debate, no nothing. Just a middle of the night press release that essentially gave everyone the finger.

So when people talk about this issue and fail to mention the ENORMOUS mistrust that existed at the time between everyone, I think that's a disingenuous discussion. It was MUCH more than the wise old sage Paterno saw the future and others did not. Everyone knew that the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of the CFA was a game-changer. Perhaps we all varied on how much of a game changer it would actually prove to be but nobody failed to recognize that it was going to change a lot of things. Where people disagreed (strongly) was with how the league would be structured and who was going to have the most say on various issues.

Paterno wanted to run the whole thing and that made everyone who had options nervous as they had seen how ruthlessly he operated and they did not wish to be under his control. So, when the Big East offered Pitt membership in the early 80s, we had no choice but to accept their offer. Turning it down would have been a very stupid decision on our part.

As an aside, Paterno's planned all sports league would have consisted of: Army, Boston College, Navy, Penn State, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse, Temple, West Virginia and maybe Maryland. There was never any talk of adding the likes of Virginia Tech, Connecticut, Miami, Florida State, South Carolina, etc. Those are all byproducts of shameless revisionism.

Pfew...and to think that is the Cliff's Notes version of that story.

The Northeast has always cared more about the NFL than college football. To Northeasterners, the NFL is like MLB and college football is like "Triple A" baseball.

I know that New Yorkers only care about those that are the best in their field. The NFL is the best football.

(07-13-2013 01:58 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 10:50 AM)gosports1 Wrote:  lets be honset here, the ACC wisely went after the BE because they posed a threat to the ACC in FB as well as BB. They hoped to destroy their closest and biggest rival and become THE dominant all sport east coast(mostly) conference

On that note, it's worth mentioning that, growing up in the 1980s in New York and reading Sports Illustrated, I didn't consider the ACC a "major football conference", because they didn't have a spot in a major bowl. The Big Ten and Pac-10 had the Rose Bowl, the SEC had the Sugar Bowl, SWC had the Cotton Bowl, Big 8 had the Orange Bowl. So to me, those were the big time football conferences.

Then the Big East Football Conference formed and the BCS formed, and the independents went away.

Your memory is correct: the ACC was not a major football conference before the 1990s. FSU was invited with the specific goal of changing that and it worked.

(07-13-2013 06:28 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 12:27 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  The disrespect of major college football in the Northeast goes back to at least the 1950s when the Ivies decided to stop playing (read: spending) major college football. As soon as that happened, the folks in the South and West began to look at CFB in the Northeast as almost like today people look at the G5 schools. That was always Paterno's primary crusade - establishing respect for major college football in the Northeast.

You have to remember that history always must be viewed in its time, not with the benefit of hindsight. That is almost always the mistake people make in these types of discussions. They fail to understand the time and place and therefore they don't understand (or remember) the landscape as a whole, which in turn leads to all kinds of false assumptions.

I want to make it very clear that Paterno was a brilliant man and that needs to be acknowledged before we can have any discussion on him or Penn State. He took a little cow college in the middle of nowhere and turned it into an absolute monster on every front. Also, as we all have seen over the pat few years, the entire university's culture has been constructed around not only the football program but also around Paterno himself. That is certainly scary on a lot of levels but it is also in some strange was, extremely impressive. I can't think of another university anywhere - not even Duke with Mike Krzyzewski or North Carolina with Dean Smith - whose entire institutional identity has been built around a single coach s happened up in State College.

In addition to being brilliant, Paterno was also extremely controlling and anything but altruistic. He didn't want to form a conference for the good of CFB as a whole or even for the good of CFB in the NE. He wanted to form a conference for his benefit and he had some very specific thoughts for how he wanted to do it. He wasn't interested in negotiating, it was his way or the highway - just as he had always operated up in State College.

Penn State went undefeated several times in the late 60s and early 70s and each time they were snubbed for the MNC by the voters primarily because of where they were located. Their schedule was considered too soft by the critics even though in reality their schedule was pretty similar to the teams they were being snubbed for. That is not at all differen than the criticism Miami faced when it was running the Big East in the 90s and early 2000s or that WVU faced when it took over after Miami, BC and VT defected to the ACC. It is also the same bias the AAC will face going forward even though most of that league is now in the South. Blind bias is always stupid and it will not be confined by petty geography.

Paterno believed that, by forming a conference, he could change that deeply ingrained mentality and that, he claimed, was always his impetus for wanting to form a conference in the first place. The problem was that he, like everyone else involved, wanted to have his cake and eat it too. He wanted to split revs equally in MBB and other sports but not at all in FB.

Also, in the late 70s and early 80s, Penn State played its basketball in a league called the Eastern Athletic Association, or as it was known at the time, "The Eastern 8." That league, which was the forerunner to the Atlantic 10, featured a number of different lineups but some of the key players were Villanova, Duquesne, Penn State, West Virginia, George Washington, Massachusetts, Pitt and Rutgers. Later, schools like St. Bonaventure, Rhode Island, St. Joe's and Temple joined but the Eastern 8 that I remember most fondly involved great rivalries between Pitt, Penn State, West Virginia and Duquesne (which at the time was seen as the best basketball program of the bunch by most outsiders).

Those were NASTY rivalries and a LOT of fun. Hell, at the time, Duquesne and West Virginia was more heated than Pitt/WVU. It seemed like every time those two schools played, controversy ensued in the form of bench clearing brawls, crooked time keepers, rowdy fans, you name it. It was a lot of fun to watch unfold.

Paterno, who was always a notorious, know-it-all pain in the arse to deal with - was Penn State's AD and football coach at the time. I think we now know that he remained in that capacity unofficially through the very end in a Vladimir Putin kind of way but that is a story for a different day. Anyway, the Eastern 8 was a great league and perfect fit for Pitt, Duquesne, West Virginia and Penn State. Unfortunately, Paterno came to believe that as long as the E8 and BE were around, his coveted all sports conference would never materialize. So, at the 1978 or '79 Eastern 8 league meetings, I can't remember which, he surprised everyone by promptly resigning from the league and announcing that he was taking PSU indie in everything - just as Notre Dame had done a few years before. However, what most upset everyone else was not that he resigned but rather how he choset to do it - via a press release that Tim Curley (who was then PSU's SID) slipped under everyone's hotel room door as they slept. There was no discussion, no debate, no nothing. Just a middle of the night press release that essentially gave everyone the finger.

So when people talk about this issue and fail to mention the ENORMOUS mistrust that existed at the time between everyone, I think that's a disingenuous discussion. It was MUCH more than the wise old sage Paterno saw the future and others did not. Everyone knew that the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of the CFA was a game-changer. Perhaps we all varied on how much of a game changer it would actually prove to be but nobody failed to recognize that it was going to change a lot of things. Where people disagreed (strongly) was with how the league would be structured and who was going to have the most say on various issues.

Paterno wanted to run the whole thing and that made everyone who had options nervous as they had seen how ruthlessly he operated and they did not wish to be under his control. So, when the Big East offered Pitt membership in the early 80s, we had no choice but to accept their offer. Turning it down would have been a very stupid decision on our part.

As an aside, Paterno's planned all sports league would have consisted of: Army, Boston College, Navy, Penn State, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse, Temple, West Virginia and maybe Maryland. There was never any talk of adding the likes of Virginia Tech, Connecticut, Miami, Florida State, South Carolina, etc. Those are all byproducts of shameless revisionism.

Pfew...and to think that is the Cliff's Notes version of that story.

The Northeast has always cared more about the NFL than college football. To Northeasterners, the NFL is like MLB and college football is like "Triple A" baseball.

I know that New Yorkers only care about those that are the best in their field. The NFL is the best football.

That is true, if by always you mean since WW2.

Agree

The Big East actually had some good teams, but suffered from lack of "name" programs and fan followings.

It was fun while it lasted

(07-13-2013 04:49 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 03:43 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 12:27 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  The disrespect of major college football in the Northeast goes back to at least the 1950s when the Ivies decided to stop playing (read: spending) major college football. As soon as that happened, the folks in the South and West began to look at CFB in the Northeast as almost like today people look at the G5 schools. That was always Paterno's primary crusade - establishing respect for major college football in the Northeast.

You have to remember that history always must be viewed in its time, not with the benefit of hindsight. That is almost always the mistake people make in these types of discussions. They fail to understand the time and place and therefore they don't understand (or remember) the landscape as a whole, which in turn leads to all kinds of false assumptions.

I want to make it very clear that Paterno was a brilliant man and that needs to be acknowledged before we can have any discussion on him or Penn State. He took a little cow college in the middle of nowhere and turned it into an absolute monster on every front. Also, as we all have seen over the pat few years, the entire university's culture has been constructed around not only the football program but also around Paterno himself. That is certainly scary on a lot of levels but it is also in some strange was, extremely impressive. I can't think of another university anywhere - not even Duke with Mike Krzyzewski or North Carolina with Dean Smith - whose entire institutional identity has been built around a single coach s happened up in State College.

In addition to being brilliant, Paterno was also extremely controlling and anything but altruistic. He didn't want to form a conference for the good of CFB as a whole or even for the good of CFB in the NE. He wanted to form a conference for his benefit and he had some very specific thoughts for how he wanted to do it. He wasn't interested in negotiating, it was his way or the highway - just as he had always operated up in State College.

Penn State went undefeated several times in the late 60s and early 70s and each time they were snubbed for the MNC by the voters primarily because of where they were located. Their schedule was considered too soft by the critics even though in reality their schedule was pretty similar to the teams they were being snubbed for. That is not at all differen than the criticism Miami faced when it was running the Big East in the 90s and early 2000s or that WVU faced when it took over after Miami, BC and VT defected to the ACC. It is also the same bias the AAC will face going forward even though most of that league is now in the South. Blind bias is always stupid and it will not be confined by petty geography.

Paterno believed that, by forming a conference, he could change that deeply ingrained mentality and that, he claimed, was always his impetus for wanting to form a conference in the first place. The problem was that he, like everyone else involved, wanted to have his cake and eat it too. He wanted to split revs equally in MBB and other sports but not at all in FB.

Also, in the late 70s and early 80s, Penn State played its basketball in a league called the Eastern Athletic Association, or as it was known at the time, "The Eastern 8." That league, which was the forerunner to the Atlantic 10, featured a number of different lineups but some of the key players were Villanova, Duquesne, Penn State, West Virginia, George Washington, Massachusetts, Pitt and Rutgers. Later, schools like St. Bonaventure, Rhode Island, St. Joe's and Temple joined but the Eastern 8 that I remember most fondly involved great rivalries between Pitt, Penn State, West Virginia and Duquesne (which at the time was seen as the best basketball program of the bunch by most outsiders).

Those were NASTY rivalries and a LOT of fun. Hell, at the time, Duquesne and West Virginia was more heated than Pitt/WVU. It seemed like every time those two schools played, controversy ensued in the form of bench clearing brawls, crooked time keepers, rowdy fans, you name it. It was a lot of fun to watch unfold.

Paterno, who was always a notorious, know-it-all pain in the arse to deal with - was Penn State's AD and football coach at the time. I think we now know that he remained in that capacity unofficially through the very end in a Vladimir Putin kind of way but that is a story for a different day. Anyway, the Eastern 8 was a great league and perfect fit for Pitt, Duquesne, West Virginia and Penn State. Unfortunately, Paterno came to believe that as long as the E8 and BE were around, his coveted all sports conference would never materialize. So, at the 1978 or '79 Eastern 8 league meetings, I can't remember which, he surprised everyone by promptly resigning from the league and announcing that he was taking PSU indie in everything - just as Notre Dame had done a few years before. However, what most upset everyone else was not that he resigned but rather how he choset to do it - via a press release that Tim Curley (who was then PSU's SID) slipped under everyone's hotel room door as they slept. There was no discussion, no debate, no nothing. Just a middle of the night press release that essentially gave everyone the finger.

So when people talk about this issue and fail to mention the ENORMOUS mistrust that existed at the time between everyone, I think that's a disingenuous discussion. It was MUCH more than the wise old sage Paterno saw the future and others did not. Everyone knew that the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of the CFA was a game-changer. Perhaps we all varied on how much of a game changer it would actually prove to be but nobody failed to recognize that it was going to change a lot of things. Where people disagreed (strongly) was with how the league would be structured and who was going to have the most say on various issues.

Paterno wanted to run the whole thing and that made everyone who had options nervous as they had seen how ruthlessly he operated and they did not wish to be under his control. So, when the Big East offered Pitt membership in the early 80s, we had no choice but to accept their offer. Turning it down would have been a very stupid decision on our part.

As an aside, Paterno's planned all sports league would have consisted of: Army, Boston College, Navy, Penn State, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse, Temple, West Virginia and maybe Maryland. There was never any talk of adding the likes of Virginia Tech, Connecticut, Miami, Florida State, South Carolina, etc. Those are all byproducts of shameless revisionism.

Pfew...and to think that is the Cliff's Notes version of that story.

I agree with almost everything that you wrote. I have just one nit regarding the highlighted portion.

ND had always been an independent in football and in basketball (until it joined the Big East in 1995).

A minor point, I know. :)

Few people outside of the Pennsylvania area (non-PSU fans) and the Northeast really knew what an angry, controlling, vindictive pain in the ass Joe Paterno really was.

He had the Central Pa. press under control and had a personal fiefdom in Happy Valley.

But, that is another story and the guy is dead and his reputation trashed.

Karma wins out, usually.

i rooted for psu pretty hard growing up due to family connections to that school, but I managed to see some of the warning signs. the arrest record was out of control, but classroom academics were top tier. those are two things that dont go hand & hand. that should have been a huge red flag for psu fans. legal issues involving players always seem to just disappear and it wouldnt surprise me if there was academic fraud involved with this team.

PSUs ego was on the same level as texas. the way they tried to dominate NE football and their 2-1 scheduling BS were some pretty telling signs. but the biggest issue surrounding this program was the basketball team. PSU had a massive athletic budget. only texas, ohio state, & michigan have comparable budgets/revenue year in year out. florida & alabama are not in the same tier as the 4 schools i just mentioned, but they are pretty close

but looking at the revenue these 5 schools put into basketball compared to psu. in terms of the higest paid coaches in cbb....

FL 3rd
osu 7th
texas 10th
um 14th
bama 19th

meanwhile psu has the lowest coaches salary in the b10. that includes (#11 in the b10) northwestern, a school with 1/3 the enrollment size, 1/4 the athletic budget, and is one of only five d1 schools (351 d1 basketball schools total) that have never played in the ncaa tourny. add in these stories of psu getting kicked off their own practice court to make way for bon jovi & the volleyball team only adds to how neglected this BB program was.

that is horrific considering pennsylvania is a major bb state and shows just how big of a "football problem" (i hate using that term) this school has. clearly this FB team ran the university in a way unprecedented compared to other football programs. im still ticked at the ncaa for the sanctions and think they were wrong. but part of me also thinks the 4 year bowl ban is good for the school. the next 3-6 years will be rough for psu, but it will give them time to reset. they will be forced to run an athletic program not centered around football. and it will finally allow the bb program to get the support it deserves.

clearly joe pa did a lot of good things for psu, but he did a lot of bad things as well

I personally know that at least some key PSU football players got their grades inflated and were kept out of trouble. I can't prove the grade inflation. That's based on conversations I had while I was a student at State, but I can prove the trouble part (see Vicky Triponey), and it really isn't much of a stretch to jump from one to another.

The staggering arrest record shows two things: 1) PSU fb players really did have a sense of entitlement and were out of control (they probably still are) and 2) SC police have nothing better to do than (apparently cover up sex scandals and) harass kids for underage drinking. In other words, although I do think that its meaningful and somewhat indicative of the situation, I also think that the arrest record gets blown out of proportion. SC police pull people over and administer breathalyzer tests out of boredom (true story), so keep that in mind when you see the statistics.

Also, I agree about PSU needing to diversify. I realize that I am in the very small minority of PSU alumni who believe this, but the school would have been better off having its program get axed for a couple of years. The school has (obvious) serious cultural problems in wake of Joe Pa, and the school has serious financial problems in the wake of consistent state budget cuts. IMO, the school needs to find a new identity and a new way of raising money. IMO, what happened wouldn't have happened if it was an assistant fencing coach.

wait so ur an orange fan/psu alum?

and i dont think the arrest issue is underrated. 46 players arrested in a 6 is pretty bad. to put that in perspective florida under urban which is perhaps the most notorious school with arrest problems, their worst arrest stat was 31 arrests in a 5 year window.

as for the 46 arrests, only 1/3 were due to alcohol. the rest were assault, robbery, trespassing etc.

(07-13-2013 08:52 PM)john01992 Wrote:  wait so ur an orange fan/psu alum?

and i dont think the arrest issue is underrated. 46 players arrested in a 6 is pretty bad. to put that in perspective florida under urban which is perhaps the most notorious school with arrest problems, their worst arrest stat was 31 arrests in a 5 year window.

as for the 46 arrests, only 1/3 were due to alcohol. the rest were assault, robbery, trespassing etc.

Yes. I went to PSU and Syracuse. I was always a SU basketball fan, but I used to like PSU and SU in football. I saw it as a gentleman's rivalry essential to the survival of the sport in the northeast. Actually, at one time in my life, I really, really respected Joe. I then went to PSU and a lot of that respect/fandom faded. None the less, I do sincerely hope that my alma mater can fix itself. I'm just not overly optimistic. It is very, very hard to change an institution as big as PSU is and as ingrained as PSU is. Such things take great leadership, and I haven't heard anyone say that PSU has an abundance of leadership in quite some time.

And don't get me wrong, I don't mean to make excuses for the arrest record. Just understand that the arrest number would have been much lower if the university was located in a more urban area. It's very bad, but it isn't as bad as it seems. Imo, if it was in Syracuse the number would be MUCH closer to UF's arrest rate of 6/yr instead of 7.5/yr.

well cool, we have two programs in common that we both root for.

i actually root for 5 different colleges in various sports, some call me crazy, but my reasoning for following those teams is legit

(07-13-2013 09:28 PM)john01992 Wrote:  well cool, we have two programs in common that we both root for.

i actually root for 5 different colleges in various sports, some call me crazy, but my reasoning for following those teams is legit

I have a substantial hierarchy as well.

I'm SU first and foremost. I also like Oklahoma State (family), Vanderbilt (family), UCLA (my entire life), UW (friend)

NW (respect for having elite academics and being private), LSU (New Orleans love), and UF (they PO Tennessee - see my Vandy fandom)

(07-13-2013 09:58 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 09:28 PM)john01992 Wrote:  well cool, we have two programs in common that we both root for.

i actually root for 5 different colleges in various sports, some call me crazy, but my reasoning for following those teams is legit

I have a substantial hierarchy as well.

I'm SU first and foremost. I also like Oklahoma State (family), Vanderbilt (family), UCLA (my entire life), UW (friend)

NW (respect for having elite academics and being private), LSU (New Orleans love), and UF (they PO Tennessee - see my Vandy fandom)

lets see....
cuse (hometown/family went there)
UM (family went there)
psu (family went there)
nw (family went there)
colorado (family went there, currently a student there)

i also have family who went to uconn, msu, osu, & purdue

plus friends at wisky, vandy, & IU

(07-13-2013 04:48 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 11:50 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 07:43 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-12-2013 11:49 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-12-2013 11:41 PM)Theodoresdaddy Wrote:  wasn't Pitt's chancellor in charge of negotiating the last TV contract; didn't he advise the BE to reject it right before Pitt, and Syracuse, announced they were leaving for the ACC?

is that the TV contract you mean?

this was before pitt/cuse left. the 8 football schools voted yes, the 7 basketball schools + notre dame turned it down.

yes thats right.....the deal failed because 8 non football schools voted against it

Source? Because, although I can't find MY source right now, everything I remember is that in the initial vote (before the PAC deal), it was 12-4 in favor, with Georgetown, Pitt, West Virginia and Rutgers voting no.

Quote:during the c7 split someone leaked a story about how when they got a 2nd offer the 8 FB schools offered to give 25% of the revenue to the BB schools if they agreed to vote yes. this was proposed during a meeting and an official from one of basketball schools said they should get 75% (of the football revenue) because this was "their basketball conference"

Well, it's STILL our basketball conference, and we're getting 66% of the combined BE-AAC TV revenue. Actually, if you assume that 25% of the AAC contract is for basketball, that's $45M/$60M, which brings you to 75% for basketball.

Because if the quote was real, I'm pretty sure it was that the valuable basketball PROGRAMS should get 75%, while the marginal FOOTBALL programs should get 25%. A response to the idea that football accounted for 75% of the revenue and basketball 25%.

Quote:you cant fix that kind of stupid......this conference had some serious issues

this was 25% - 75% of THE FOOTBALL TV CONTRACT. not the basketball money

Wrong again. The BBall schools NEVER collected FB TV money. NEVER EVER. The FB had a TV contract and the BBall had a contract and those who played both got paid from both and if you didn't play one of those sports you weren't included in those contracts. The last contract that was voted on and turned down was the first joint TV deal and the FB side said that the BBall schools should only get 25% of that contract, which is kind of insulting. So one of the BBall members said, it's the FB side who should only be getting 25%.

You keep on trying to turn the C7 into the villains of this scenario, like we were bumbling morons who destroyed this league. What destroyed the old Big East was the double dealing of the FB members and the lack of trust on their part in each other and the league as a whole. There was a reason why there was never a major NE FB conference. FB schools always have a wandering eye.

im so sick of this false mentality from c7/new big east fans that they were not responsible for the breakup for the league. im sick of these comments that they didnt ask/get special treatment when in fact they did.
I already got called a lying troll by one of you guys only to post factual evidence proving that im right, and now imma do the same with you.

myth #1 the c7 never got football money
-the BC AD in an interview stated that the acc contract had a 85%-15% football-basketball value. the big east contract gave 66% to football 33% to basketball. clearly the big east had more basketball value than the acc. but 33%?????? thats way overpriced.

-of the negotiated split between the 110 million in exit fees, even though 13% of it came from football only members sdsu, tcu, & bsu, and the loss of those schools hurt in fb much more than bb, the aac/c7 negotiated to split it 50-50. the right for msg & the name was then deducted from the C7s 50% share. the cost the c7 paid for the name & msg was so undervalued that you have to assume that part of the deal was that the c7 gave up its claim to football related money

myth #2 the C7 never asked for football revenue
-i already posted a quote from mike trangese stating that the basketball members asked for 25% of the football revenue back in the 80s

-heres an excerpt from an espn article stating just how bad the BB mentality was.....

Last year, at the spring meetings in Ponte Vedra Beach, Fla., one proposal suggested a 75/25 split -- 75 percent of the money going to football schools, and 25 percent going to basketball schools. One athletic director at a basketball school raised his hand and wondered why the numbers were not flipped, since hoops is the reason the Big East exists in the first place.

myth #3, the bb schools didnt vote on FB issues
-jim boehiem blamed notre dame for why the 1.4 bill football contract failed and yahoo reported that notre dame lead the charge against it

-espn reported that georgetown voted no and lead the charge against it

you guys gotta come down to reality and stop pretending the bb schools werent ******** to the fb schools. and lets face it, the only reason why they allowed fb to happen in the first place was because they saw $ and wanted a piece of the pie. why do you think so many of the bb schools upgraded their football including a failed attempt by c7 member villanova.

the bb schools got more special treatment than any other conference including the 4 texas schools in the b12, the 4 nc schools in the acc, byu with the wac/mwc & the 4 california schools in the pac. the BE commish was a providence for almost the entire time of the BE existence and the conference was HQ'd in providence.

these schools have huge egos, they hated the FB direction the conference was going and refused to accept it. when BC/cuse begged for psu to join they said no, when miami begged for more schools to close the outlier gap they said no, when the FB schools asked for a new contact to make their payout closer to other bcs conferences they said no.

but what i think really annoyed those schools into leaving.......was that they couldnt handle the fact that the football schools were better than them. they couldnt come to terms with louisville, syracuse, & uconn running the show. while nova, sju, shu, provy, gtown & shu were down, pitt, cincy, su, lv, uconn, & wvu were running the show while the only bb school running the show was quette. they couldnt handle the truth that the fb schools were better than them in bb which is probably why they wanted nothing to do with uconn, notre dame, cincy, temple, & Memphis as bb only members

they kicked a charter member out of the league, and to show how sleezy & scummy these schools are......look no further than their new bb contract. the 7 BE schools get 3 million a year while the 3 newcomers get 500k a year. thats the most lopsided revenue sharing plan in the history of college sports. which goes back to my earlier statement. these schools just cant handle the fact that these schools (xavier, creighton, butler are better than they are in basketball.....so they give them less money to show their dominance

(07-12-2013 09:52 PM)john01992 Wrote:  -7 consecutive years with a winning bowl record

-had a winning bowl record in 10 of the last 13 years

-had a losing bowl record......
only 3 times in the last 15 years
only 4 times in the last 18 years
and a total of 6 times in the conference 22 years of existence

-56-42 bowl record (.571)

-big east has a winning record in bowl games vs 8 out of the 9 conferences they have ever faced (b10, b12, sec, acc, c-usa, mac, mwc, & swc)

-winning record vs the b12 & sec (all-time)

-winning bcs record (all-time)

-winning bcs record since the departures of Vtech, miami, & BC

-had 4 programs on the top 20 all time wins list
#14 wvu
#15 syracuse
#16 vtech
#20 pitt

last season
went 4-1 vs the sec
winning record vs bcs teams
had a losing record against only the pac12 & b10

That shows you that the BE was destroyed from the top with the help from espn. Turning down that espn $$$ did them in. Sux that TV can do this.

(07-13-2013 10:04 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 09:58 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 09:28 PM)john01992 Wrote:  well cool, we have two programs in common that we both root for.

i actually root for 5 different colleges in various sports, some call me crazy, but my reasoning for following those teams is legit

I have a substantial hierarchy as well.

I'm SU first and foremost. I also like Oklahoma State (family), Vanderbilt (family), UCLA (my entire life), UW (friend)

NW (respect for having elite academics and being private), LSU (New Orleans love), and UF (they PO Tennessee - see my Vandy fandom)

lets see....
cuse (hometown/family went there)
UM (family went there)
psu (family went there)
nw (family went there)
colorado (family went there, currently a student there)

i also have family who went to uconn, msu, osu, & purdue

plus friends at wisky, vandy, & IU

I have family that went to BC and UCONN, so those games are always fun. Also, my best friend growing up went to CU and then got "stoned in Boulder" and failed out after his freshman year. Everything has long since been sorted out, so it's fun to laugh about now. I can't remember if he had a .9, or a 1.9, but it was pretty bad. He also had a lease on a house for the next year, his stuff in storage, and an underage drinking violation that necessitated 24 hours of community service. Naturally he didn't tell his dad.....until his dad tried to register him for summer classes and discovered that his son's transcript was on hold.

Long story short, have fun....but not too much fun

(07-13-2013 10:15 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 04:48 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 11:50 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 07:43 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-12-2013 11:49 PM)john01992 Wrote:  this was before pitt/cuse left. the 8 football schools voted yes, the 7 basketball schools + notre dame turned it down.

yes thats right.....the deal failed because 8 non football schools voted against it

Source? Because, although I can't find MY source right now, everything I remember is that in the initial vote (before the PAC deal), it was 12-4 in favor, with Georgetown, Pitt, West Virginia and Rutgers voting no.

Quote:during the c7 split someone leaked a story about how when they got a 2nd offer the 8 FB schools offered to give 25% of the revenue to the BB schools if they agreed to vote yes. this was proposed during a meeting and an official from one of basketball schools said they should get 75% (of the football revenue) because this was "their basketball conference"

Well, it's STILL our basketball conference, and we're getting 66% of the combined BE-AAC TV revenue. Actually, if you assume that 25% of the AAC contract is for basketball, that's $45M/$60M, which brings you to 75% for basketball.

Because if the quote was real, I'm pretty sure it was that the valuable basketball PROGRAMS should get 75%, while the marginal FOOTBALL programs should get 25%. A response to the idea that football accounted for 75% of the revenue and basketball 25%.

Quote:you cant fix that kind of stupid......this conference had some serious issues

this was 25% - 75% of THE FOOTBALL TV CONTRACT. not the basketball money

Wrong again. The BBall schools NEVER collected FB TV money. NEVER EVER. The FB had a TV contract and the BBall had a contract and those who played both got paid from both and if you didn't play one of those sports you weren't included in those contracts. The last contract that was voted on and turned down was the first joint TV deal and the FB side said that the BBall schools should only get 25% of that contract, which is kind of insulting. So one of the BBall members said, it's the FB side who should only be getting 25%.

You keep on trying to turn the C7 into the villains of this scenario, like we were bumbling morons who destroyed this league. What destroyed the old Big East was the double dealing of the FB members and the lack of trust on their part in each other and the league as a whole. There was a reason why there was never a major NE FB conference. FB schools always have a wandering eye.

im so sick of this false mentality from c7/new big east fans that they were not responsible for the breakup for the league. im sick of these comments that they didnt ask/get special treatment when in fact they did.
I already got called a lying troll by one of you guys only to post factual evidence proving that im right, and now imma do the same with you.

myth #1 the c7 never got football money
-the BC AD in an interview stated that the acc contract had a 85%-15% football-basketball value. the big east contract gave 66% to football 33% to basketball. clearly the big east had more basketball value than the acc. but 33%?????? thats way overpriced.

-of the negotiated split between the 110 million in exit fees, even though 13% of it came from football only members sdsu, tcu, & bsu, and the loss of those schools hurt in fb much more than bb, the aac/c7 negotiated to split it 50-50. the right for msg & the name was then deducted from the C7s 50% share. the cost the c7 paid for the name & msg was so undervalued that you have to assume that part of the deal was that the c7 gave up its claim to football related money

myth #2 the C7 never asked for football revenue
-i already posted a quote from mike trangese stating that the basketball members asked for 25% of the football revenue back in the 80s

-heres an excerpt from an espn article stating just how bad the BB mentality was.....

Last year, at the spring meetings in Ponte Vedra Beach, Fla., one proposal suggested a 75/25 split -- 75 percent of the money going to football schools, and 25 percent going to basketball schools. One athletic director at a basketball school raised his hand and wondered why the numbers were not flipped, since hoops is the reason the Big East exists in the first place.

myth #3, the bb schools didnt vote on FB issues
-jim boehiem blamed notre dame for why the 1.4 bill football contract failed and yahoo reported that notre dame lead the charge against it

-espn reported that georgetown voted no and lead the charge against it

you guys gotta come down to reality and stop pretending the bb schools werent ******** to the fb schools. and lets face it, the only reason why they allowed fb to happen in the first place was because they saw $ and wanted a piece of the pie. why do you think so many of the bb schools upgraded their football including a failed attempt by c7 member villanova.

the bb schools got more special treatment than any other conference including the 4 texas schools in the b12, the 4 nc schools in the acc, byu with the wac/mwc & the 4 california schools in the pac. the BE commish was a providence for almost the entire time of the BE existence and the conference was HQ'd in providence.

these schools have huge egos, they hated the FB direction the conference was going and refused to accept it. when BC/cuse begged for psu to join they said no, when miami begged for more schools to close the outlier gap they said no, when the FB schools asked for a new contact to make their payout closer to other bcs conferences they said no.

but what i think really annoyed those schools into leaving.......was that they couldnt handle the fact that the football schools were better than them. they couldnt come to terms with louisville, syracuse, & uconn running the show. while nova, sju, shu, provy, gtown & shu were down, pitt, cincy, su, lv, uconn, & wvu were running the show while the only bb school running the show was quette. they couldnt handle the truth that the fb schools were better than them in bb which is probably why they wanted nothing to do with uconn, notre dame, cincy, temple, & Memphis as bb only members

they kicked a charter member out of the league, and to show how sleezy & scummy these schools are......look no further than their new bb contract. the 7 BE schools get 3 million a year while the 3 newcomers get 500k a year. thats the most lopsided revenue sharing plan in the history of college sports. which goes back to my earlier statement. these schools just cant handle the fact that these schools (xavier, creighton, butler are better than they are in basketball.....so they give them less money to show their dominance

Football schools also tended to field better basketball teams, so the BIG EAST basketball schools also indirectly benefitted from football money.

Use the most recent incarnation of the BIG EAST:
UL, SU, UCONN, Pitt, WVU, UC, RU, and USF
v.
GU, MARQ, VU, ND, STJ, Prov., SH, and DePaul

Obviously both groups are good, but the football group is better IMO.

(07-13-2013 11:33 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 10:04 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 09:58 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 09:28 PM)john01992 Wrote:  well cool, we have two programs in common that we both root for.

i actually root for 5 different colleges in various sports, some call me crazy, but my reasoning for following those teams is legit

I have a substantial hierarchy as well.

I'm SU first and foremost. I also like Oklahoma State (family), Vanderbilt (family), UCLA (my entire life), UW (friend)

NW (respect for having elite academics and being private), LSU (New Orleans love), and UF (they PO Tennessee - see my Vandy fandom)

lets see....
cuse (hometown/family went there)
UM (family went there)
psu (family went there)
nw (family went there)
colorado (family went there, currently a student there)

i also have family who went to uconn, msu, osu, & purdue

plus friends at wisky, vandy, & IU

I have family that went to BC and UCONN, so those games are always fun. Also, my best friend growing up went to CU and then got "stoned in Boulder" and failed out after his freshman year. Everything has long since been sorted out, so it's fun to laugh about now. I can't remember if he had a .9, or a 1.9, but it was pretty bad. He also had a lease on a house for the next year, his stuff in storage, and an underage drinking violation that necessitated 24 hours of community service. Naturally he didn't tell his dad.....until his dad tried to register him for summer classes and discovered that his son's transcript was on hold.

Long story short, have fun....but not too much fun

sadly i know plenty of stories like that

Football schools also tended to field better basketball teams, so the BIG EAST basketball schools also indirectly benefitted from football money.

Use the most recent incarnation of the BIG EAST:
UL, SU, UCONN, Pitt, WVU, UC, RU, and USF
v.
GU, MARQ, VU, ND, STJ, Prov., SH, and DePaul

Obviously both groups are good, but the football group is better IMO

its indisputable that the FB group was better, with the exception of rutgers every fb school was better than any bb school not named quette

and honestly thats where things went south for the conference. im sure the c7 saw the influx of money going into those schools and got worried. syracuse, uconn, & LV building state of the art arena's/practice facilities was the writing on the wall for the c7 that they were in trouble. when they were offered a tv contract that would of doubled the money the bb schools made, but quadrupled the money the FB schools made......thats where they had to draw the line. it wasnt necessarily bb/fb differences that did this conference in, but the bb schools realizing they couldnt compete with all that money and had to stop the FB schools from getting stronger

(07-13-2013 10:15 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 04:48 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 11:50 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 07:43 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-12-2013 11:49 PM)john01992 Wrote:  this was before pitt/cuse left. the 8 football schools voted yes, the 7 basketball schools + notre dame turned it down.

yes thats right.....the deal failed because 8 non football schools voted against it

Source? Because, although I can't find MY source right now, everything I remember is that in the initial vote (before the PAC deal), it was 12-4 in favor, with Georgetown, Pitt, West Virginia and Rutgers voting no.

Quote:during the c7 split someone leaked a story about how when they got a 2nd offer the 8 FB schools offered to give 25% of the revenue to the BB schools if they agreed to vote yes. this was proposed during a meeting and an official from one of basketball schools said they should get 75% (of the football revenue) because this was "their basketball conference"

Well, it's STILL our basketball conference, and we're getting 66% of the combined BE-AAC TV revenue. Actually, if you assume that 25% of the AAC contract is for basketball, that's $45M/$60M, which brings you to 75% for basketball.

Because if the quote was real, I'm pretty sure it was that the valuable basketball PROGRAMS should get 75%, while the marginal FOOTBALL programs should get 25%. A response to the idea that football accounted for 75% of the revenue and basketball 25%.

Quote:you cant fix that kind of stupid......this conference had some serious issues

this was 25% - 75% of THE FOOTBALL TV CONTRACT. not the basketball money

Wrong again. The BBall schools NEVER collected FB TV money. NEVER EVER. The FB had a TV contract and the BBall had a contract and those who played both got paid from both and if you didn't play one of those sports you weren't included in those contracts. The last contract that was voted on and turned down was the first joint TV deal and the FB side said that the BBall schools should only get 25% of that contract, which is kind of insulting. So one of the BBall members said, it's the FB side who should only be getting 25%.

You keep on trying to turn the C7 into the villains of this scenario, like we were bumbling morons who destroyed this league. What destroyed the old Big East was the double dealing of the FB members and the lack of trust on their part in each other and the league as a whole. There was a reason why there was never a major NE FB conference. FB schools always have a wandering eye.

im so sick of this false mentality from c7/new big east fans that they were not responsible for the breakup for the league. im sick of these comments that they didnt ask/get special treatment when in fact they did.
I already got called a lying troll by one of you guys only to post factual evidence proving that im right, and now imma do the same with you.

myth #1 the c7 never got football money
-the BC AD in an interview stated that the acc contract had a 85%-15% football-basketball value. the big east contract gave 66% to football 33% to basketball. clearly the big east had more basketball value than the acc. but 33%?????? thats way overpriced.

-of the negotiated split between the 110 million in exit fees, even though 13% of it came from football only members sdsu, tcu, & bsu, and the loss of those schools hurt in fb much more than bb, the aac/c7 negotiated to split it 50-50. the right for msg & the name was then deducted from the C7s 50% share. the cost the c7 paid for the name & msg was so undervalued that you have to assume that part of the deal was that the c7 gave up its claim to football related money

myth #2 the C7 never asked for football revenue
-i already posted a quote from mike trangese stating that the basketball members asked for 25% of the football revenue back in the 80s

-heres an excerpt from an espn article stating just how bad the BB mentality was.....

Last year, at the spring meetings in Ponte Vedra Beach, Fla., one proposal suggested a 75/25 split -- 75 percent of the money going to football schools, and 25 percent going to basketball schools. One athletic director at a basketball school raised his hand and wondered why the numbers were not flipped, since hoops is the reason the Big East exists in the first place.

myth #3, the bb schools didnt vote on FB issues
-jim boehiem blamed notre dame for why the 1.4 bill football contract failed and yahoo reported that notre dame lead the charge against it

-espn reported that georgetown voted no and lead the charge against it

you guys gotta come down to reality and stop pretending the bb schools werent ******** to the fb schools. and lets face it, the only reason why they allowed fb to happen in the first place was because they saw $ and wanted a piece of the pie. why do you think so many of the bb schools upgraded their football including a failed attempt by c7 member villanova.

the bb schools got more special treatment than any other conference including the 4 texas schools in the b12, the 4 nc schools in the acc, byu with the wac/mwc & the 4 california schools in the pac. the BE commish was a providence for almost the entire time of the BE existence and the conference was HQ'd in providence.

these schools have huge egos, they hated the FB direction the conference was going and refused to accept it. when BC/cuse begged for psu to join they said no, when miami begged for more schools to close the outlier gap they said no, when the FB schools asked for a new contact to make their payout closer to other bcs conferences they said no.

but what i think really annoyed those schools into leaving.......was that they couldnt handle the fact that the football schools were better than them. they couldnt come to terms with louisville, syracuse, & uconn running the show. while nova, sju, shu, provy, gtown & shu were down, pitt, cincy, su, lv, uconn, & wvu were running the show while the only bb school running the show was quette. they couldnt handle the truth that the fb schools were better than them in bb which is probably why they wanted nothing to do with uconn, notre dame, cincy, temple, & Memphis as bb only members

they kicked a charter member out of the league, and to show how sleezy & scummy these schools are......look no further than their new bb contract. the 7 BE schools get 3 million a year while the 3 newcomers get 500k a year. thats the most lopsided revenue sharing plan in the history of college sports. which goes back to my earlier statement. these schools just cant handle the fact that these schools (xavier, creighton, butler are better than they are in basketball.....so they give them less money to show their dominance

1. The Big East TV money is not 3 mil and 500K. Thats just plain wrong, but what else is new here.

2. The FB and BBall contracts were separate contracts. Thats why one ended one year and the other a year later. Get your facts straight before you make stuff up. They were SEPARATE CONTRACTS! You are the only person ever claiming that the C7 were getting FB money. Thats such a flat out lie it's not even funny.

3. You are claiming the same conversation took place in the 80's and 18 months ago.

4. The FB schools were basically trying to screw over the BBall members and one of the BBall members called them out. The myth that FB is inherently more valuable than BBall has been disproven. Big East BBall was worth a hell of a lot more than what the FB schools were giving it credit for.

5. We already went over that the FB schools in the NE couldn't get their chit together to form a league and their behavior in the BE just proved that further. Oh those poor FB schools, bullied by the BBall members! Give me a break. You are putting 100% of the blame on the BBall members because they didn't bend over and take whatever the FB members wanted to give them.

6. Which charter member was kicked out? Providence? Syracuse? St. John's? Seton Hall? Georgetown? Boston College? Villanova who came in a year later? Oh you mean Temple who joined in 1991 and was voted out by the FB schools since thats the only sport they participated in. Yep, the BBall schools voted out Temple against the wishes of the FB schools! hahahahaha Seriously, this should be proof enough that you are out of your mind and full of chit.

You should get some help. Seriously.

- Football and hoops had separate contracts.
- Hoops schools never got football money.
- Hoops schools never voted on football issues.

Each of these three statements has been understood to be correct on this message board by 99% of the posters here over the 3+ years that I've been here. 52 page threads have been developed on this site discussing the finer points of each of these three correct statements.

Also:
- The 10 Big East member schools for our upcoming season get equal shares.
- The Big East tourney will be held in Madison Square Garden through 2026.

If any former Big East football people here want to explain to him how he's wrong, it would go a long way to avoiding a 10 page pissing match. Thanks in advance.