(12-10-2012 10:56 PM)SergiofromFresno Wrote:  This is a blessing in disguise- if they bail and the fb only schools become full members- BYU/AFA could reconsider- Fresno, UNLV, & New Mexico would definitely join. This is the best thing for the new Big East Schools.

It won't be the Big East. The Big East will be SJU, SHU, PC, Nova, Marq, DePaul, & GTown + some combo of Xavier, St Louis, Richmond, Dayton... anybody in a large market that's preferably Private Catholic that doesn't play football.

the rest of us (especially the Eastern CUSA defectors) better hope our leaders have a good contingency plan. CUSA was idiotic expanding just for the sake of expanding. At least Boise & SDSU have a decent all sports league to go back to. CUSAv9.45 is an abomination.

(12-11-2012 10:35 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I think the bottom line right now, with Temple able to vote, if membership remains the same, there is nothing the hoops schools can do to just arbitrarily dissolve the league. Nothing.

Even if this is the case, you're acting like the Catholic schools are somehow powerless to do anything with their majority. As I've stated earlier, the power to dissolve the league is more of a negotiating tactic, anyway. What if it's more about specifically not sponsoring football any longer, which wouldn't require a dissolution? What if it's forcing through additional expansion with Catholic schools so that they have the requisite majority to make decisions in the future? Even then, it's not just the vote here. If the Catholic schools carry disproportionate value in a prospective new TV contract, then that's financial leverage on top of voting power. The football schools can't just stick their heads in the sand and think that this problem is going to go away just because Temple may have a vote to block a nuclear option.

(12-11-2012 02:16 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  And I love how they sell that pigslop by emphasizing markets, yet turn around and bash the current Big East.

"Markets: NYC, Chicago, Philadelphia, Washington, where the league has not just a presence but visibility"

Oh, plus small market Milwaukee, add Cincinatti (Xavier) and St Louis or Richmond.

Is a little different than the football situation.
Major markets with presence but no visibility: Philadelphia, DFW, Houston?
Major markets with visibility: Tampa, Orlando, Houston? San Diego?, Cincinatti
Small markets with presence, no visibility: New Orleans, Memphis (football).

"Markets" means a whole different thing if you're talking about
A) New York (or LA) where you have established some visibility than if
B) you're talking about a dozen metros that combined add up to New York, and in most of those you have no "visibility" for football.

I really do suspect that losing Rutgers was a bigger factor than most of us suspect here. Rutgers has a "presence" in the NYC metro area, but they've really only established "visibility" in Jersey. (Which is fine, in a way--being the home CFB program for a state with 9M is a pretty good position, even if Rutgers never catches on east of the Hudso). But having Rutgers football meant that networks could bid on the lottery ticket of maybe hopefully if all the stars line up doing monster ratings in the 20M New York/New Jersey metro area.

Delaney jacked our lottery ticket. Or jacked your lotto ticket, if you prefer.

(12-11-2012 10:00 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  

"I'll leave in a moment, I'm in the phone with Fresno St."

- corner office, first floor

(12-11-2012 08:49 AM)darkdragon99 Wrote:  I fail to see why Fresno, UNLV, NM would ditch regional and traditonal rivals so they can play former Conference USA schools.

College FB will never be big in the Northeast (with the noted exceptions of PA schools and Rutgers). Maybe Syracuse, but I see them as more of a BB school. NFL rules in the northeast. Always has, always will.

Big East was doomed to fail simply because of location and having BB-only schools.

Let's get back to basics and form a league with folks that actually care about football. Southeast, southwest, and west coast. All-sports.

(12-11-2012 10:40 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(12-10-2012 10:56 PM)SergiofromFresno Wrote:  This is a blessing in disguise- if they bail and the fb only schools become full members- BYU/AFA could reconsider- Fresno, UNLV, & New Mexico would definitely join. This is the best thing for the new Big East Schools.

It won't be the Big East. The Big East will be SJU, SHU, PC, Nova, Marq, DePaul, & GTown + some combo of Xavier, St Louis, Richmond, Dayton... anybody in a large market that's preferably Private Catholic that doesn't play football.

the rest of us (especially the Eastern CUSA defectors) better hope our leaders have a good contingency plan. CUSA was idiotic expanding just for the sake of expanding. At least Boise & SDSU have a decent all sports league to go back to. CUSAv9.45 is an abomination.

It's certainly not something that any of us would want to go back to. I don't really think that the BE will disappear as an all sports conference, but if it does; there are enough all sports programs available to reform a conference that's stronger than the what CUSA has developed into. Absolute worst case is that it looks a lot like what we left, perhaps smaller but stronger.

Someone needs to tell St. John's, DePaul, Seton Hall, and Providence that for most part their basketball programs have been more down than up in recent history. Nothing screams mid-major more than a league that doesn't play football. If those schools want to take a chance and play in a CYO league then go for it.

You think Cincinnati and UConn want out now. Wait until Georgetown or Villanova starts looking around to the ACC too.

(12-11-2012 10:42 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-11-2012 10:35 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I think the bottom line right now, with Temple able to vote, if membership remains the same, there is nothing the hoops schools can do to just arbitrarily dissolve the league. Nothing.

Even if this is the case, you're acting like the Catholic schools are somehow powerless to do anything with their majority. As I've stated earlier, the power to dissolve the league is more of a negotiating tactic, anyway. What if it's more about specifically not sponsoring football any longer, which wouldn't require a dissolution? What if it's forcing through additional expansion with Catholic schools so that they have the requisite majority to make decisions in the future? Even then, it's not just the vote here. If the Catholic schools carry disproportionate value in a prospective new TV contract, then that's financial leverage on top of voting power. The football schools can't just stick their heads in the sand and think that this problem is going to go away just because Temple may have a vote to block a nuclear option.

You're right, but Temple having a vote does increase the leverage quite a bit.

As far as the not sponsoring football, not sure who would vote on that. I'd assume as well that it'd take a 2/3 vote, which the bball schools wouldn't have.

TV contract- I'd assume you'd see the current fb schools drag their feet on that to July, so the others could vote with them.

expansion- the 4 fb schools could block any expansion. And, it would take a mass expansion to ensure they have the voting majority in the future...

It's not as rosy as you're making it out for the non fb schools.

Tulane is the most puzzling add IMHO. Don't get me wrong, it is an excellent school and I know many great alums. Tulane fans, please don't take this as a slight - I am just curious.

Everyone seems to be complaining about the add. I thought it was the BB schools that wanted them, but everything I read now states that the BB schools are not happy with the addition. The FB-onlys are also complaining about Tulane. So who's idea was it?

Somebody had to vote them in, right?

(12-11-2012 08:00 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Why the hell should the schools not even in the league get a red cent of any money? Talk about leaches, geez.

I'd say there's a case to be made that the C-USA and MWC defectors paid a substantial amount in exit fees on the promise that they'd be playing in the Big East. So I think that using the huge pile of exit fee cash ($20M from WVU, $7.5M each from Syracuse and Pitt, $5M from Notre Dame, figure $7.5M each from Louisville, Rutgers, that's $55M. Oh, and $5M from TCU, $60M.) to compensate the 6 C-USA schools (paid $7M each to leave C-USA, $42M) and SDSU and Boise (paid a couple mil to the MWC).

They'd probably win that money in a lawsuit anyway, so why not cut them a check provided they GTFO?

(12-11-2012 10:53 AM)Carolina Stang Wrote:  Tulane is the most puzzling add IMHO. Don't get me wrong, it is an excellent school and I know many great alums. Tulane fans, please don't take this as a slight - I am just curious.

Everyone seems to be complaining about the add. I thought it was the BB schools that wanted them, but everything I read now states that the BB schools are not happy with the addition. The FB-onlys are also complaining about Tulane. So who's idea was it?

Somebody had to vote them in, right?

I just dont get them.

Football: 113
BBall: 203
Market: 54?

I mean, really, WTF?

(12-11-2012 10:53 AM)Carolina Stang Wrote:  Tulane is the most puzzling add IMHO. Don't get me wrong, it is an excellent school and I know many great alums. Tulane fans, please don't take this as a slight - I am just curious.

Everyone seems to be complaining about the add. I thought it was the BB schools that wanted them, but everything I read now states that the BB schools are not happy with the addition. The FB-onlys are also complaining about Tulane. So who's idea was it?

Somebody had to vote them in, right?

See my half-joking post ITT. Tulane was added through the most bizarre circumstances ever. Nobody admits to voting for them, yet somehow they were voted in unanimously for all-sports.

(12-11-2012 10:49 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-11-2012 10:42 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-11-2012 10:35 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I think the bottom line right now, with Temple able to vote, if membership remains the same, there is nothing the hoops schools can do to just arbitrarily dissolve the league. Nothing.

Even if this is the case, you're acting like the Catholic schools are somehow powerless to do anything with their majority. As I've stated earlier, the power to dissolve the league is more of a negotiating tactic, anyway. What if it's more about specifically not sponsoring football any longer, which wouldn't require a dissolution? What if it's forcing through additional expansion with Catholic schools so that they have the requisite majority to make decisions in the future? Even then, it's not just the vote here. If the Catholic schools carry disproportionate value in a prospective new TV contract, then that's financial leverage on top of voting power. The football schools can't just stick their heads in the sand and think that this problem is going to go away just because Temple may have a vote to block a nuclear option.

You're right, but Temple having a vote does increase the leverage quite a bit.

As far as the not sponsoring football, not sure who would vote on that. I'd assume as well that it'd take a 2/3 vote, which the bball schools wouldn't have.

TV contract- I'd assume you'd see the current fb schools drag their feet on that to July, so the others could vote with them.

expansion- the 4 fb schools could block any expansion. And, it would take a mass expansion to ensure they have the voting majority in the future...

It's not as rosy as you're making it out for the non fb schools.

Very true, but it's not rosy for ANYONE. Nothing about this is better than what the Big East looked like even just a month ago. It's really about "meh" with more control or "meh" with less control for the Catholic schools at this point, so they may be ready to have the "meh" with more control option. There's not some wide gulf in money (the network effects of having Louisville, ND, Syracuse, Pitt, etc.) and power (being in an AQ league without having to play AQ football) with the new hybrid as there was with the old hybrid, so if everything is about equal or the gains of giving up control are marginal, most normal people choose the option where they have more control.

More 'proof' to relax.

Quote:The Temple beat writer at the Philly Inq confirmed with the Temple AD this morning that Temple has been a full voting member since 7/1/12. So the basketball schools do not have the 2/3rds majority to dissolve. A little homework by some of these national writers would have gone a long way with this story.

(12-11-2012 10:53 AM)Carolina Stang Wrote:  Tulane is the most puzzling add IMHO. Don't get me wrong, it is an excellent school and I know many great alums. Tulane fans, please don't take this as a slight - I am just curious.

Everyone seems to be complaining about the add. I thought it was the BB schools that wanted them, but everything I read now states that the BB schools are not happy with the addition. The FB-onlys are also complaining about Tulane. So who's idea was it?

Somebody had to vote them in, right?

Yep.

As the first potential BCS buster, it's not like they've never had success as some are indicating and they do have a legitimate upgrade program in process. So, while it's a curious addition, it was an approved addition.

Maybe the BE should enlist some op-ed writers to cast a little light on what has proved to be a massive PR campaign against the BE to devalue their product by ESPN

(12-11-2012 10:55 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(12-11-2012 10:53 AM)Carolina Stang Wrote:  Tulane is the most puzzling add IMHO. Don't get me wrong, it is an excellent school and I know many great alums. Tulane fans, please don't take this as a slight - I am just curious.

Everyone seems to be complaining about the add. I thought it was the BB schools that wanted them, but everything I read now states that the BB schools are not happy with the addition. The FB-onlys are also complaining about Tulane. So who's idea was it?

Somebody had to vote them in, right?

I just dont get them.

Football: 113
BBall: 203
Market: 54?

I mean, really, WTF?

The last thing this thread needs is an ECU fan disrespecting Tulane.
There was a reason they were on the Big 12's radar; and (hint) its the same reason the bball schools preferred to play them over ECU.
Tulane is an AAU school with a solid brand name and very good athletic tradition (undefeated in '98). They've made supreme investments in their infrastructure (brand new on-campus stadium on the horizon), and reside in a very attractive city/market (which hosts two bowls).

If ECU had those things, you'd be in the SEC (where Tulane once was)... instead of Big east bball only.

(12-11-2012 11:03 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(12-11-2012 10:55 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(12-11-2012 10:53 AM)Carolina Stang Wrote:  Tulane is the most puzzling add IMHO. Don't get me wrong, it is an excellent school and I know many great alums. Tulane fans, please don't take this as a slight - I am just curious.

Everyone seems to be complaining about the add. I thought it was the BB schools that wanted them, but everything I read now states that the BB schools are not happy with the addition. The FB-onlys are also complaining about Tulane. So who's idea was it?

Somebody had to vote them in, right?

I just dont get them.

Football: 113
BBall: 203
Market: 54?

I mean, really, WTF?

The last thing this thread needs is an ECU fan disrespecting Tulane.
There was a reason they were on the Big 12's radar; and (hint) its the same reason the bball schools preferred to play them over ECU.
Tulane is an AAU school with a solid brand name and very good athletic tradition (undefeated in '98). They've made supreme investments in their infrastructure (brand new on-campus stadium on the horizon).

If ECU had those things, you'd be in the SEC (where Tulane once was)... instead of Big east bball only.

I'm not as down on Tulane as others, but this is just a goofy argument. Sewanee was also in the SEC when Tulane was there. The Univ. of Chicago was a founding member of the B1G. Doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot, especially in today's environment where tradition is out the door.

(12-11-2012 11:07 AM)MickMack Wrote:  

(12-11-2012 11:03 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(12-11-2012 10:55 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(12-11-2012 10:53 AM)Carolina Stang Wrote:  Tulane is the most puzzling add IMHO. Don't get me wrong, it is an excellent school and I know many great alums. Tulane fans, please don't take this as a slight - I am just curious.

Everyone seems to be complaining about the add. I thought it was the BB schools that wanted them, but everything I read now states that the BB schools are not happy with the addition. The FB-onlys are also complaining about Tulane. So who's idea was it?

Somebody had to vote them in, right?

I just dont get them.

Football: 113
BBall: 203
Market: 54?

I mean, really, WTF?

The last thing this thread needs is an ECU fan disrespecting Tulane.
There was a reason they were on the Big 12's radar; and (hint) its the same reason the bball schools preferred to play them over ECU.
Tulane is an AAU school with a solid brand name and very good athletic tradition (undefeated in '98). They've made supreme investments in their infrastructure (brand new on-campus stadium on the horizon).

If ECU had those things, you'd be in the SEC (where Tulane once was)... instead of Big east bball only.

I'm not as down on Tulane as others, but this is just a goofy argument. Sewanee was also in the SEC when Tulane was there. The Univ. of Chicago was a founding member of the B1G. Doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot, especially in today's environment where tradition is out the door.

It wasn't part of the argument. It was just a random piece to trivia for your consumption. If they were still in the SEC, they'd be no worse than Vandy (who serves their purpose).