(07-15-2020 12:55 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-15-2020 09:18 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(07-15-2020 09:03 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-15-2020 07:39 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(07-14-2020 09:10 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Excellent points, MinR, about how the three schools don't necessarily "fit" their respective cities.

Well done with this, too. I agree with you:

They're three city schools, on three enormous, connected rivers, right in the heart of America.

Here is another parallel between UL, UC and UM. Each shares a state with a more powerful flagship university. And many of the fans of Kentucky, Tennessee and Ohio State, respectively, do not like the cities of Louisville, Memphis and Cincinnati. There is a cultural dynamic at play that is a bit hard to explain. I've heard a decent number of folks from those states (Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee) and who are fans of UK, UT and tOSU say ... "I just don't like (fill in the blank with the city of Cincinnati, Louisville or Memphis)."

That dynamic has always given UC, UL and UM fans (and players and coaches) a healthy chip on the shoulder.

I'm trying to think of the three SEC men's hoops teams for which each fan base hates the other two. And I simply can't come up with three.

In the Big Ten, IU and Purdue are fierce rivals. And IU fans and Michigan fans can get after it. Michigan and Michigan State are a big deal. And Michigan and Ohio State. But is there a true "trio" like we are defining for this example? Not sure.

Big 12 and Pac-12 ... no. At least not that I can think.

Now the Big East back in the day probably had four schools with fans that collectively despised each other and got after it. But those schools were a combo of a secular private, a public and three Catholics (Syracuse, UConn, Georgetown, Villanova and St. John's).

That's because culturally those cities are very different than the rest of their states. Speaking for Cincinnati, the city has more in common with St. Louis than we do with Columbus, Cleveland and all parts in between. There is a confluence of the Midwest and the south. We have parts of our city that architecturally looks like Brooklyn and other parts that look like San Francisco. We have people in parts of the metro that sound like they are from the Midwest, others that talk as if they live in the deep south. People in Cincinnati go to Gatlinburg, some lakes in KY, TN and to the Carolinas for vacation, the rest of the state goes to Put-In-Bay or Michigan (in fairness we go to those spots too, just a little less). We just roll a little different down here in SW Ohio.

You are 100 percent correct. I am very familiar with the city of Louisville and fairly familiar with "the rest of Kentucky." Two very different animals.

And "Memphis" vs. "the rest of Tennessee." Not even remotely comparable.

Cincinnati clearly ranks as one of the nation's more unusual cities for the reasons you accurately outline. I've posted on this board and will note again that Cincinnati is more like Pittsburgh than any other U.S. city.

My parents live in Louisville and my sister is a UofL grad. The city definitely is a lot different than the rest of the commonwealth which is primarily rural. Speaking of which, the suburbs in what we call Northern Kentucky, just across the state line and what is essentially suburban Cincinnati, also is very different.

It’s funny but people in other parts of Ohio will joke that Cincinnati really a city in Kentucky. People in Kentucky say that Northern Kentucky is really in Ohio.

Agree. It's also worth noting that the downtowns of Covington and Newport are very urban in their form and function. I like both.

I've always like the old-school river cities of Pittsburgh, Cincy, Louisville, Evansville, Paducah and St. Louis. They offer a certain grit and authenticity.

Cincinnati is probably my favorite of that group for many reasons (including, obviously, that I've spent the most time there due to my brother).

So the big question regarding chili: Skyline, Empress, Gold Star or Camp Washington?

Authentic, yes.

But grit? I always find that description of Cincinnati curious.

Cincinnati and Louisville are white-collar towns. Always have been. They had some factories in the old days, but nowhere near as many as cities in New England, upstate NY, Pennsylvania, or the Great Lakes region. Cincinnati's most important employers were in marketing (P&G), radios (Crosley), airplanes (GE), media (Crosley, Scripps, P&G's soap operas), and higher education (which back then was mostly in rural locations). That's why Cincinnati wasn't hurt as much as Cleveland, Buffalo, Milwaukee, Providence, etc when the factories left the Rust Belt.

Nowadays, Cincinnati's biggest industries are finance, logistics, corporate HQs, and big-data consumer research. Louisville's are health care management/ health insurance and logistics.

Today Cincy & Louisville are every bit as white collar as Indianapolis & Columbus (or for that matter, Seattle & Boston). But they're older cities, whereas Indy & Columbus remind me of San Diego and Phoenix as being mostly huge suburbs rather than urban and cultured.

Since when did we get invited into the Big East ever? It was under the AAC banner when we got our invites. The C7 split in the BE caused formation of the C7 taking the BE name and the others that had D1 football became the AAC.

(07-15-2020 01:06 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(07-15-2020 12:55 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-15-2020 09:18 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(07-15-2020 09:03 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-15-2020 07:39 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  That's because culturally those cities are very different than the rest of their states. Speaking for Cincinnati, the city has more in common with St. Louis than we do with Columbus, Cleveland and all parts in between. There is a confluence of the Midwest and the south. We have parts of our city that architecturally looks like Brooklyn and other parts that look like San Francisco. We have people in parts of the metro that sound like they are from the Midwest, others that talk as if they live in the deep south. People in Cincinnati go to Gatlinburg, some lakes in KY, TN and to the Carolinas for vacation, the rest of the state goes to Put-In-Bay or Michigan (in fairness we go to those spots too, just a little less). We just roll a little different down here in SW Ohio.

You are 100 percent correct. I am very familiar with the city of Louisville and fairly familiar with "the rest of Kentucky." Two very different animals.

And "Memphis" vs. "the rest of Tennessee." Not even remotely comparable.

Cincinnati clearly ranks as one of the nation's more unusual cities for the reasons you accurately outline. I've posted on this board and will note again that Cincinnati is more like Pittsburgh than any other U.S. city.

My parents live in Louisville and my sister is a UofL grad. The city definitely is a lot different than the rest of the commonwealth which is primarily rural. Speaking of which, the suburbs in what we call Northern Kentucky, just across the state line and what is essentially suburban Cincinnati, also is very different.

It’s funny but people in other parts of Ohio will joke that Cincinnati really a city in Kentucky. People in Kentucky say that Northern Kentucky is really in Ohio.

Agree. It's also worth noting that the downtowns of Covington and Newport are very urban in their form and function. I like both.

I've always like the old-school river cities of Pittsburgh, Cincy, Louisville, Evansville, Paducah and St. Louis. They offer a certain grit and authenticity.

Cincinnati is probably my favorite of that group for many reasons (including, obviously, that I've spent the most time there due to my brother).

So the big question regarding chili: Skyline, Empress, Gold Star or Camp Washington?

That is a question that has divided the metro area for decades. I am a Camp Washington guy myself, everyone has their own preferences. I think a lot of it has to do with what part of town you are in and what you were brought up on. My kids prefer Skyline.

I like chili with spaghetti and cheddar cheese period, but Skyline is my favorite of the Cincinnati offerings. The vegetarian Skyline option (with the black beans and rice) ... stellar.

(07-15-2020 03:14 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(07-15-2020 12:55 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-15-2020 09:18 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(07-15-2020 09:03 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-15-2020 07:39 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  That's because culturally those cities are very different than the rest of their states. Speaking for Cincinnati, the city has more in common with St. Louis than we do with Columbus, Cleveland and all parts in between. There is a confluence of the Midwest and the south. We have parts of our city that architecturally looks like Brooklyn and other parts that look like San Francisco. We have people in parts of the metro that sound like they are from the Midwest, others that talk as if they live in the deep south. People in Cincinnati go to Gatlinburg, some lakes in KY, TN and to the Carolinas for vacation, the rest of the state goes to Put-In-Bay or Michigan (in fairness we go to those spots too, just a little less). We just roll a little different down here in SW Ohio.

You are 100 percent correct. I am very familiar with the city of Louisville and fairly familiar with "the rest of Kentucky." Two very different animals.

And "Memphis" vs. "the rest of Tennessee." Not even remotely comparable.

Cincinnati clearly ranks as one of the nation's more unusual cities for the reasons you accurately outline. I've posted on this board and will note again that Cincinnati is more like Pittsburgh than any other U.S. city.

My parents live in Louisville and my sister is a UofL grad. The city definitely is a lot different than the rest of the commonwealth which is primarily rural. Speaking of which, the suburbs in what we call Northern Kentucky, just across the state line and what is essentially suburban Cincinnati, also is very different.

It’s funny but people in other parts of Ohio will joke that Cincinnati really a city in Kentucky. People in Kentucky say that Northern Kentucky is really in Ohio.

Agree. It's also worth noting that the downtowns of Covington and Newport are very urban in their form and function. I like both.

I've always like the old-school river cities of Pittsburgh, Cincy, Louisville, Evansville, Paducah and St. Louis. They offer a certain grit and authenticity.

Cincinnati is probably my favorite of that group for many reasons (including, obviously, that I've spent the most time there due to my brother).

So the big question regarding chili: Skyline, Empress, Gold Star or Camp Washington?

Authentic, yes.

But grit? I always find that description of Cincinnati curious.

Cincinnati and Louisville are white-collar towns. Always have been. They had some factories in the old days, but nowhere near as many as cities in New England, upstate NY, Pennsylvania, or the Great Lakes region. Cincinnati's most important employers were in marketing (P&G), radios (Crosley), airplanes (GE), media (Crosley, Scripps, P&G's soap operas), and higher education (which back then was mostly in rural locations). That's why Cincinnati wasn't hurt as much as Cleveland, Buffalo, Milwaukee, Providence, etc when the factories left the Rust Belt.

Nowadays, Cincinnati's biggest industries are finance, logistics, corporate HQs, and big-data consumer research. Louisville's are health care management/ health insurance and logistics.

Today Cincy & Louisville are every bit as white collar as Indianapolis & Columbus (or for that matter, Seattle & Boston). But they're older cities, whereas Indy & Columbus remind me of San Diego and Phoenix as being mostly huge suburbs rather than urban and cultured.

Compared to Nashville, Cincinnati and Louisville offer so many more old commercial/industrial buildings. Nashville is rather sterile in that respect.

Your points are well made.

(07-15-2020 03:37 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  Since when did we get invited into the Big East ever? It was under the AAC banner when we got our invites. The C7 split in the BE caused formation of the C7 taking the BE name and the others that had D1 football became the AAC.

https://youtu.be/4aB7KX7ANbI

https://youtu.be/ksGkdvdAoqo

Only Tulsa was invited after the C7 announced they were leaving, and even then it was before the AAC name was official.

Well, of course Wichita State was invited a few years later, too.

(07-15-2020 04:01 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(07-15-2020 03:37 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  Since when did we get invited into the Big East ever? It was under the AAC banner when we got our invites. The C7 split in the BE caused formation of the C7 taking the BE name and the others that had D1 football became the AAC.

https://youtu.be/4aB7KX7ANbI

https://youtu.be/ksGkdvdAoqo

Only Tulsa was invited after the C7 announced they were leaving, and even then it was before the AAC name was official.

Well, of course Wichita State was invited a few years later, too.

Correct. ECU received a football only invite to the Big East on 11/27/12. The Catholic 7 announced their intent to withdraw from the Big East on 12/15/12. The Catholic 7 withdrew from the Big East and purchased the Big East name on 3/8/13.

(07-15-2020 05:23 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(07-15-2020 04:01 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(07-15-2020 03:37 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  Since when did we get invited into the Big East ever? It was under the AAC banner when we got our invites. The C7 split in the BE caused formation of the C7 taking the BE name and the others that had D1 football became the AAC.

https://youtu.be/4aB7KX7ANbI

https://youtu.be/ksGkdvdAoqo

Only Tulsa was invited after the C7 announced they were leaving, and even then it was before the AAC name was official.

Well, of course Wichita State was invited a few years later, too.

Correct. ECU received a football only invite to the Big East on 11/27/12. The Catholic 7 announced their intent to withdraw from the Big East on 12/15/12. The Catholic 7 withdrew from the Big East and purchased the Big East name on 3/8/13.

Also, the name "American Athletic Conference was not announced until 4/3/13.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/ct...story.html

Why aren’t Tulane and East Carolina better at basketball is my question? They are both in areas that seem to be very strong hoops hotbeds.

(07-15-2020 09:38 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Why aren’t Tulane and East Carolina better at basketball is my question? They are both in areas that seem to be very strong hoops hotbeds.

As to East Carolina ... the school is located in a state with UNC, Duke and NCState, three of the all-time top 20 programs in men's hoops. Charlotte has a very fine history (including a Final Four) and Davidson has a nice recent history. Wake Forest had offered some strong teams over the years. In short, the numbers don't work well for ECU.

Plus, ECU traditionally has emphasized football and baseball, and done well overall with both.

One thing worth noting: of all the "directional schools," only one — Western Kentucky University — has enjoyed a "top 50 to 75 all-time program" level of national success over the years.

So hoops and directional schools "typically don't mix," one could say.

Now, to Tulane ... this one is a bit of a headscratcher. Louisiana has a lot of hoops talent. And, for in-state competition, there is truly only one "player" in DI men's hoops in the state: LSU. One would think the Green Wave would have been better historically.

Tulane has had some very good individual teams a handful of relatively well-known coaches. But the program, like that of ECU, clearly is not a top 100 all-time program in men's hoops

(07-15-2020 09:38 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Why aren’t Tulane and East Carolina better at basketball is my question? They are both in areas that seem to be very strong hoops hotbeds.

I don't know about Tulane, but there is an overwhelming amount of competition for good recruits in North Carolina. ECU stands behind Duke, UNC, NC State, Wake Forest, Davidson, UNCW and UNCG in North Carolina. Also, other ACC schools like Virginia aren't afraid to recruit in NC, too. Despite the good conference they're in, that gets them lost in the shuffle with the many other NC D1 schools.

App State has struggled in hoops for many years for the same reasons, although the culture is starting to change under the current coach.

(07-15-2020 01:16 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(07-14-2020 12:39 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-14-2020 11:55 AM)MU88 Wrote:  Louisville didn't vote, they were already leaving. Doesn't sound like the bball members had any input.

https://www.espn.com/blog/collegebasketb...e-addition

It's still unknown close to 10 years later-- did Marquette have no input, or did the ADs have no input?

Timeline on the article is a little off. How could UL not vote for Tulane when Tulane announced on 11/27/12 if UL wasn’t offered/invited to the ACC until 11/28/12?

With so many moving parts, I don’t know how things got done. But, I suspect it reflects more on the C7 that whether together or apart, the basketball schools were not going to be with any of the football schools. And even that idea of the C7 not all going off together, like there was even a slight chance of any of them going to the A10? I don’t buy it.

There is a simple answer to your question:
Louisville announced their intent to leave the conference BEFORE (well before, actually) they had their invitation to the ACC. And when they announced their intent to leave, they lost decision-making ability for the conference.

WVU, on the other hand, did not formally declare their intent to leave until the B12 had actually extended an invitation.

That's the reason for the disparity you are noticing. Jurich had a big set of brass balls; UL was NEVER going to be a part of the conference and jumped out-of-the-plane with no guarantee of how they were going to land.

We never answered the real question here.

Step 1: Keep winning (this one is complete imo)
Step 2: Secure an invite to move up to CUSA
Step 3: Get up to speed and start winning CUSA too
Step 4: Be good in the 2-3 years leading up to conference realignment decisions

Bob's your uncle

The answer to the OP question is that the C7 voted for Tulane, but that was when they believed a big TV deal was still coming and Tulane was needed for that.

You have to remember the context: Despite the turmoil, the TV deal loomed large over everything. Aresco had been hired because of his alleged genius knowledge of TV and negotiating skills. He then adopted a strategy of running out the clock on ESPN's exclusive negotiating window and taking the package to the "open market", which of course turned out to be NBC offering $20m a year. But in late November, when Tulane was added, that bubble hadn't burst yet at least not in C7 minds.

In early December reality set in that Aresco's strategy had failed and TV dollars would be peanuts -news stories to that effect broke -that prompted the Marquette AD to make his exasperated comments about Tulane.

It was the failure of Aresco and looming peanuts that prompted the C7, Boise, and SDSU to then bolt. That's the missing link that resolves the mystery of how Tulane was voted in with C7 votes (they were, otherwise they would not have been invited) but then C7 criticism of Tulane just a couple weeks later, which raises the issue of why they voted for Tulane in late November.

In late November, they still thought Genius TV Executive Aresco was going to deliver a $10m a year TV deal. That bubble hadn't burst yet.

(07-16-2020 08:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The answer to the OP question is that the C7 voted for Tulane, but that was when they believed a big TV deal was still coming and Tulane was needed for that.

You have to remember the context: Despite the turmoil, the TV deal loomed large over everything. Aresco had been hired because of his alleged genius knowledge of TV and negotiating skills. He then adopted a strategy of running out the clock on ESPN's exclusive negotiating window and taking the package to the "open market", which of course turned out to be NBC offering $20m a year. But in late November, when Tulane was added, that bubble hadn't burst yet at least not in C7 minds.

In early December reality set in that Aresco's strategy had failed and TV dollars would be peanuts -news stories to that effect broke -that prompted the Marquette AD to make his exasperated comments about Tulane.

It was the failure of Aresco and looming peanuts that prompted the C7, Boise, and SDSU to then bolt. That's the missing link that resolves the mystery of how Tulane was voted in with C7 votes (they were, otherwise they would not have been invited) but then C7 criticism of Tulane just a couple weeks later, which raises the issue of why they voted for Tulane in late November.

In late November, they still thought Genius TV Executive Aresco was going to deliver a $10m a year TV deal. That bubble hadn't burst yet.

100%

Fox likely, around this time, saw and/or heard about the low TV deal offers this new Big East was going to get, and saw an opportunity to secure Winter content long-term for a smaller price in comparison to the P5 Winter content. These two things coming together assured the C7 departure.

Again, the sold vision of a new Big East, one where schools in major media markets would replace the lost value from Syracuse, Pittsburgh and West Virginia (and later others), was a colossal failure that led to the permanent separation of the football and non-football schools. The thinking at this time was, in observing that the B1G (Rutgers/Maryland), SEC (A&M/Missouri), PAC (Utah/Colorado) and ACC (Syracuse/Pittsburgh/Notre Dame) all increased their value strictly by adding new markets for conference networks, the Big East could too. What was ignored was the fact that power conferences were adding valuable and proven brands and programs to complement their already proven content value, while the Big East was left in back-filling from non-BCS conferences. The Big East leadership, at the time, foolishly believed that replacing these programs in major media markets would recoup a majority of the lost value (which it clearly did not).

I would be curious what kind of distributions per school Big East schools have gotten under the current charter compared to what the C7 got under the 16-team Big East. I imagine it is pretty similar considering non football schools made a lot less than football schools with the old TV contract. Plus, the percent of schools in the current Big East making the NCAA tournament has been fairly similar to what the 16-team Bug East had, with the exception of 2011 when 11 out of 16 teams made it.

In other words, I think the current Big East made the right move. Because of pretty rock solid stability they now have, they may even be happier than they have been in any alignment they've had since the 1980's.

(07-16-2020 11:53 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  I would be curious what kind of distributions per school Big East schools have gotten under the current charter compared to what the C7 got under the 16-team Big East. I imagine it is pretty similar considering non football schools made a lot less than football schools with the old TV contract. Plus, the percent of schools in the current Big East making the NCAA tournament has been fairly similar to what the 16-team Bug East had, with the exception of 2011 when 11 out of 16 teams made it.

In other words, I think the current Big East made the right move. Because of pretty rock solid stability they now have, they may even be happier than they have been in any alignment they've had since the 1980's.

Off-topic, but App State and ECU both have an open date on 9/19 now.

(07-16-2020 12:19 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 11:53 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  I would be curious what kind of distributions per school Big East schools have gotten under the current charter compared to what the C7 got under the 16-team Big East. I imagine it is pretty similar considering non football schools made a lot less than football schools with the old TV contract. Plus, the percent of schools in the current Big East making the NCAA tournament has been fairly similar to what the 16-team Bug East had, with the exception of 2011 when 11 out of 16 teams made it.

In other words, I think the current Big East made the right move. Because of pretty rock solid stability they now have, they may even be happier than they have been in any alignment they've had since the 1980's.

Off-topic, but App State and ECU both have an open date on 9/19 now.

Yeah, that would be a lot of fun.

(07-16-2020 11:53 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  I would be curious what kind of distributions per school Big East schools have gotten under the current charter compared to what the C7 got under the 16-team Big East. I imagine it is pretty similar considering non football schools made a lot less than football schools with the old TV contract.

Actually, for the specific case of the Big East, basketball schools made $1.5M-$2M a year, football schools made that plus about $1.7M a year for football. (Sources available back then disagreed on whether the Big-East-on-CBS games were a direct BE-to-CBS sale, or an ESPN-to-CBS sublicense. So we're not sure whether to add the $8M a year from CBS to the ESPN basketball contract or not)

We know this because the basketball TV rights and football TV rights were sold separately.

Quote:In other words, I think the current Big East made the right move. Because of pretty rock solid stability they now have, they may even be happier than they have been in any alignment they've had since the 1980's.

Well, I think we were "happier" when we were with Syracuse and Louisville. But that was an unstable arrangement which couldn't last.

Not to mention the only big markets added were Dallas, Houston, and Orlando.

Memphis and New Orleans are not big markets and Philadelphia (Temple) was a double up on a market they already had a flag in.

When the Catholic 7 did rebuild it struck me as off that they passed on the St Louis market but pursued Omaha.

(07-16-2020 12:52 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 12:19 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  

(07-16-2020 11:53 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  I would be curious what kind of distributions per school Big East schools have gotten under the current charter compared to what the C7 got under the 16-team Big East. I imagine it is pretty similar considering non football schools made a lot less than football schools with the old TV contract. Plus, the percent of schools in the current Big East making the NCAA tournament has been fairly similar to what the 16-team Bug East had, with the exception of 2011 when 11 out of 16 teams made it.

In other words, I think the current Big East made the right move. Because of pretty rock solid stability they now have, they may even be happier than they have been in any alignment they've had since the 1980's.

Off-topic, but App State and ECU both have an open date on 9/19 now.

Yeah, that would be a lot of fun.

Maybe try to get it in BoA like next year. 20% of 80k better than 20% of 50k.