(06-15-2013 02:19 PM)LostInSpace Wrote:  

(06-15-2013 01:03 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  Temple was given a clear set of attainable conditions and multiple years to get it done, most prominent was getting control of a facility for their home dates. Miami was one of the schools on the forefront of punting them, with everyone on board with the conditions imposed on them to retain membership, particularly with UConn moving up. Temple's academic administration at the time did almost nothing to address those conditions. They didn't even put up a real fight and they had internal battles about whether to just drop football completely which a faction in Temple academia likely was trying to do. Pitt abstained from voting. Everyone else in Big East football voted to expel them. Don't get me wrong, Temple's leadership today is very different than it was during the 90s when this was going down.

The Big East Football Conference was actually formed in 1990 as a separate legal entity from the Big East proper until it eventually merged. Temple was never previously a full member of the primary Big East Conference, only had affiliate football status, and Villanova had no say in their football affiliate status. Temple was never a candidate for full membership because of the pathetic way they were running their football program. Obviously, all of the football schools were unhappy with them and didn't need Villanova to keep them out. A ridiculous assertion.

Bolded part above is simply wrong. Temple did inflict many of its own wounds, but in 1994 they were a candidate along with WVU, RU and VT for full membership with the endorsement of the football playing members. Villanova definitely fought Temple's admission as a full member in 1994 and continued to do so for years afterward.

Allegedly Pitt abstained in the vote to expel Temple and VT voted against expulsion because of Temple's role in getting VT's olympic sports into the A10 when the Metro dissolved.

Don't forget the Temple basketball coach was against the move to the Big East.

(06-14-2013 08:11 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 08:06 AM)orangefan Wrote:  The ACC appeared on its face to be the peer of the Big East and Big 12 in the conference pecking order. However, it was far more cohesive as a group. Ultimately, this is what allowed it to add schools rather than lose them.

Maryland?

Like Rutgers they were losing money in the AD. No surprise their president (who is from the Big Ten) made the decision without informing their fan base.

(06-14-2013 10:15 AM)ULdave Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 10:08 AM)MKPitt Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 09:34 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 09:31 AM)ULdave Wrote:  

(06-13-2013 11:21 AM)4x4hokies Wrote:  How did Pitt destroy their programs?

Not sure if you are serious?
The death of the Big East removes those programs from "BCS" status. These programs will not get the same support and interest as they had with "Big Time" status. That is especially deadly to these programs because they are still in a developing stage. None has a large entrenched fanbase with generations of support.

His point is that if Pitt didn't jump you had other programs in the BIG EAST that would have taken their spot.

Yeah, if Pitt had said no, UConn, Rutgers, Louisville or whoever would have been out the door to the ACC as their replacement. To think otherwise is ridiculous.

If if if....

Pitt did it, others didn't. They are responsible.

Asinine!

(06-15-2013 09:17 PM)texasorange Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 10:15 AM)ULdave Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 10:08 AM)MKPitt Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 09:34 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 09:31 AM)ULdave Wrote:  Not sure if you are serious?
The death of the Big East removes those programs from "BCS" status. These programs will not get the same support and interest as they had with "Big Time" status. That is especially deadly to these programs because they are still in a developing stage. None has a large entrenched fanbase with generations of support.

His point is that if Pitt didn't jump you had other programs in the BIG EAST that would have taken their spot.

Yeah, if Pitt had said no, UConn, Rutgers, Louisville or whoever would have been out the door to the ACC as their replacement. To think otherwise is ridiculous.

If if if....

Pitt did it, others didn't. They are responsible.

Asinine!

Right. It's Syracuse who is responsible.

(06-15-2013 08:03 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 09:37 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 04:19 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I do hope that things work out for UConn, Cincy and USF but let's be real and acknowledge that not everyone is going to emerge from this era unscathed. Some schools - and perhaps several - are going to end up on the wrong side of the tracks. I hate this greed and its consequences as much as anyone. Also, I hate to see any fan base get hosed. However, I also understand that it is an unavoidable consequence of the game of musical conferences and the forces behind it go far beyond Pitt's administrative offices.

I'm sorry if this isn't the reaction you are looking for but the emotion I have when recounting things isn't glee but nor is it guilt. Instead it's one of extreme relief.

Name cache of the opponent means a lot to the pro-mindset fans in Western PA. They don't understand it on the basketball side either when Pitt brings in good mid-majors. They're more likely to show up for a bad name team from a power conference. It drives me nuts.

The reality is, and this is hard for Cincy and USF and UConn to swallow, but they weren't part of college football's power structure a decade ago (heck UConn and USF didn't even have FBS program until the 2000s). Only Louisville, TCU, and Utah got to move up into the power structure from their decade ago status and all three of those teams have had both multiple BCS appearances and at least one BCS bowl win. The only BCS winner that didn't move up in to a Power 5 was Boise State. No one got cut out of the power structure that wasn't already there in 2003, unless you count Temple, but that had special circumstances that was happening outside of conference realignment and was almost entirely self-inflicted. It sucks, but no one has ever accused college football of egalitarianism or not being too focused on traditions.

If by "self-inflicted" you mean "Villanova did everything possible to make sure full inclusion never happened," then sure. Where did Pitt stand on Temple's removal? Did they vote to keep them, remove them, or abstain?

I'm of the belief that if Temple was an all-sports member of the conference back then during their first football tour, things would have been different...big time.

If you believe that, then you weren't paying attention. Temple football was an embarrassment to the Big East.

The Temple president was openly and publicly opposed to any improvements to Temple football. He practically dared the Big East to cut ties with them. At that time, this was a pathetic football program with no commitment to the sport. None. Zero. It had no business in a BCS conference.

The current president has taken things in a different direction and deserves tremendous credit for turning the program around. It's a completely different situation now. But to suggest that Temple was a viable program in the 1990's or in 2003 is just revisionist history.

(06-16-2013 09:01 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Temple football was an embarrassment to the Big East.....It had no business in a BCS conference.....But to suggest that Temple was a viable program in the 1990's or in 2003 is just revisionist history.

I'm curious if anyone knows--was Temple a member of the 1980's TV College Football Alliance (Association maybe?) I know they were terrible, but I don't know if they were considered a "major independent", and CFA membership is a good gauge.

(06-16-2013 09:01 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(06-15-2013 08:03 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 09:37 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 04:19 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I do hope that things work out for UConn, Cincy and USF but let's be real and acknowledge that not everyone is going to emerge from this era unscathed. Some schools - and perhaps several - are going to end up on the wrong side of the tracks. I hate this greed and its consequences as much as anyone. Also, I hate to see any fan base get hosed. However, I also understand that it is an unavoidable consequence of the game of musical conferences and the forces behind it go far beyond Pitt's administrative offices.

I'm sorry if this isn't the reaction you are looking for but the emotion I have when recounting things isn't glee but nor is it guilt. Instead it's one of extreme relief.

Name cache of the opponent means a lot to the pro-mindset fans in Western PA. They don't understand it on the basketball side either when Pitt brings in good mid-majors. They're more likely to show up for a bad name team from a power conference. It drives me nuts.

The reality is, and this is hard for Cincy and USF and UConn to swallow, but they weren't part of college football's power structure a decade ago (heck UConn and USF didn't even have FBS program until the 2000s). Only Louisville, TCU, and Utah got to move up into the power structure from their decade ago status and all three of those teams have had both multiple BCS appearances and at least one BCS bowl win. The only BCS winner that didn't move up in to a Power 5 was Boise State. No one got cut out of the power structure that wasn't already there in 2003, unless you count Temple, but that had special circumstances that was happening outside of conference realignment and was almost entirely self-inflicted. It sucks, but no one has ever accused college football of egalitarianism or not being too focused on traditions.

If by "self-inflicted" you mean "Villanova did everything possible to make sure full inclusion never happened," then sure. Where did Pitt stand on Temple's removal? Did they vote to keep them, remove them, or abstain?

I'm of the belief that if Temple was an all-sports member of the conference back then during their first football tour, things would have been different...big time.

If you believe that, then you weren't paying attention. Temple football was an embarrassment to the Big East.

The Temple president was openly and publicly opposed to any improvements to Temple football. He practically dared the Big East to cut ties with them. At that time, this was a pathetic football program with no commitment to the sport. None. Zero. It had no business in a BCS conference.

The current president has taken things in a different direction and deserves tremendous credit for turning the program around. It's a completely different situation now. But to suggest that Temple was a viable program in the 1990's or in 2003 is just revisionist history.

Sad thing is, Army and Navy were so much worse off as programs in that time, but were still desired by the Big East. Attendance was the charge schools brought against Temple formally, but this went deeper and further back than that, and other posts shed light on that.

And Temple wasn't just a victim, as one should ask Virginia Tech, who Temple was hot-shot'ing in the A10. And the animosity of UMFL toward Temple, was kind of like Temple-VT with reversed roles...UMFL hoops were frightful and had no reason being in the Big East, but for the sake of the program accepting Big East membership for its football component.

And Villanova. It's STILL Villanova.

It does no justice trying to rationalize this stuff. None. Zero (see, I can do one-word sentences, too). These schools come from an area with zero cohesion in terms of common vision and likeness of fit. Even for Pitt to abstain from voting out Temple, rather than voting to keep a fellow commonwealth school, tells you what you need to know.

That's my concern going forward for the new ACC, who I am excited to see even more now than the B1G. With a "lifer" like UMD walking, putting the balance of the ACC as half original members and half add-on's, and those add-on's being of that eastern independent and mid-south brew, does that "I, not we" mentality run deep in this conference? Notre Dame's already kind of hinted they're in it for themselves...

Notre Dame has always been about "protecting their independence" so I don't view ND's membership in the ACC as "them being in it for themselves" -- my takeaway from it this: ND agreed to give up 5 dates on their coveted FB calendar to the ACC for the league to do as they please. That's a huge commitment, and I think even TerryD would agree to that.

Maryland -- they made a hasty/desperate move under suspect leadership b/c their athletic department was swimming in a big pool of red ink / the fact none of the other ACC schools moved indicates to me that the conference is together for the long haul (at least through the end of the GOR).

(06-15-2013 02:19 PM)LostInSpace Wrote:  

(06-15-2013 01:03 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  Temple was given a clear set of attainable conditions and multiple years to get it done, most prominent was getting control of a facility for their home dates. Miami was one of the schools on the forefront of punting them, with everyone on board with the conditions imposed on them to retain membership, particularly with UConn moving up. Temple's academic administration at the time did almost nothing to address those conditions. They didn't even put up a real fight and they had internal battles about whether to just drop football completely which a faction in Temple academia likely was trying to do. Pitt abstained from voting. Everyone else in Big East football voted to expel them. Don't get me wrong, Temple's leadership today is very different than it was during the 90s when this was going down.

The Big East Football Conference was actually formed in 1990 as a separate legal entity from the Big East proper until it eventually merged. Temple was never previously a full member of the primary Big East Conference, only had affiliate football status, and Villanova had no say in their football affiliate status. Temple was never a candidate for full membership because of the pathetic way they were running their football program. Obviously, all of the football schools were unhappy with them and didn't need Villanova to keep them out. A ridiculous assertion.

Bolded part above is simply wrong. Temple did inflict many of its own wounds, but in 1994 they were a candidate along with WVU, RU and VT for full membership with the endorsement of the football playing members. Villanova definitely fought Temple's admission as a full member in 1994 and continued to do so for years afterward.

Allegedly Pitt abstained in the vote to expel Temple and VT voted against expulsion because of Temple's role in getting VT's olympic sports into the A10 when the Metro dissolved.

In 1994 the issue quite a bit different. It wasn't school by school, but the four affiliates coming all in at once while threatening that all eight of the football schools (including full members BC, SU, Pitt, and Miami) would break away to form a new conference if it didn't happen. This move had as much to do with ownership of tv contracts and internal political issues. The issue for the hoops side was loss of control. Chiefly, there were 6 hoops only schools out 10 full members at the time and bringing in 4 more would have severely shifted the balance of power. It is true that the compromise is what led to the legal merger of the football conference with the parent conference and the admission of WVU and RU (allowing 6-6 power split) to save the conference with VT (until 2000) and Temple remaining as affiliate football members. The other part of the compromise was offering a window for any Big East school the opportunity for football league membership if they wanted to add football. Georgetown and Villanova studied it and declined, UConn decided to move up but Temple was placed on notice because no one wanted them in the league unless they shaped up, which they didn't. Temple was never individually considered for full membership because of the state of their athletic department and the absolutely lack of institutional support thereof. Villanova didn't want Temple in, sure, but they couldn't have ultimately prevented it (much like VT eventually got in) if Temple had had any real value or support from the football side. Villanova may have lobbied all it wanted, but it didn't have that sort of power after the football schools voting numbers increased.

As far as Virginia Tech voting no, I've not heard that. I've only heard it was unanimous except for Pitt's abstention although I don't know of a published account.

Regardless, the Big East had a long history of being a complete mess internally but the take home message is that Villanova isn't to blame for Temple's past or current predicament, not that they helped.

(06-16-2013 06:38 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  Maryland -- they made a hasty/desperate move under suspect leadership b/c their athletic department was swimming in a big pool of red ink / the fact none of the other ACC schools moved indicates to me that the conference is together for the long haul (at least through the end of the GOR).

I don't know why, but I instantly empathized with Maryland after the 'Cuse, Pitt, and ND acquisitions. Their football was going to become almost invisible in the region with all that in-conference competition nearby, and they already had a relationship with Notre Dame football (then forced to share, so a loss of autonomy). What were they supposed to do with the non-conference games? What was going to happen when the games with ACC schools who didn't travel failed to pick up coverage?

It was going to lose a mint keeping up, and at a school where some of its best programs are the women's ones, which don't make money, and in an area where the price of doing business is simply just higher, other programs were likely to be cut. I don't know...it seemed like the ACC didn't do much to help UMD specifically other than fetch a better television contract...but everyone got that.

I refused (and still refuse) to indulge the fire-and-brimstone "ACC Doomsday" crap, but I don't believe this configuration stays intact for the next two decades. Something will not go right, another school will feel alienated, and, in the fashion of the independent upbringing, someone will split. I certainly hope I'm wrong, but I'll believe it when I see it.

Change is constant in conference membership...I still think a few more teams get lifelines to the P5. I put my money on BYU, UNLV, SDSU, Boise, New Mexico, USF, UCF, Memphis, Houston, UConn and Cincy as likely suspects. ECU would be a gimme but I don't see a 5th ACC team in NC. Tulane is my real, real darkhorse...great academics, NOLA market and if the fans return to the new stadium...I could see the B12 look at them or even the ACC but not for about 4-5 years. They are dead in the water if they can't get at least upper 20's for attendance.

(06-17-2013 09:05 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  Tulane is my real, real darkhorse...great academics, NOLA market and if the fans return to the new stadium...I could see the B12 look at them or even the ACC but not for about 4-5 years. They are dead in the water if they can't get at least upper 20's for attendance.

I agree. I've been following what they've been doing down there for a few years...certainly not out of the woods where it concerns the OCS and NIMBY's, but putting football back onto campus will propel them back into a major conference. They're also fixing their arena...so they are spending like crazy down there...that's not just for playing other mid-majors.

The Big XII has no good reason for picking up Tulane. The Big XII already has a very good academic profile (they're not starving for talent in that regard), and they don't need to pick up a Louisiana team anyway since the Big XII product penetrates into Louisiana TV sets already.

Furthermore, the Big XII does nothing for Tulane outside of additional TV revenue. We're no longer a southern school so there is no need to join a "southern conference". Tulane only identifies with one team in that conference anyways...

I think the PAC-12 would be the ideal situation for Tulane. It would help them continue to recruit quality students from California - our admissions department is receiving more and more quality applicants from out west and we would LOVE to expand that pipeline going forward. The problem right now is that Tulane needs to become a winning football program in the AAC before anything takes flight.

Now if Tulane were to improve to a consistent 8-4/9-3 level, then they would be able to draw national interest (read: TV interest) which would expand the PAC-12's reach and give them something they don't already have (eyeballs for the PAC-12 network in the South).

The ACC is an idea that sounds good, but actually is quite bad.

There is no ACC network - so therefore finding a new market isn't really important to the ACC. They as a conference need a 2-sport powerhouse (which Tulane is not).

Tulane is not ACC-serious when it comes to hoops, and I think that's a HUGE issue if I'm Syracuse, Duke, UNC, or Pitt...

It doesn't matter if there are a number of ACC schools that consider Tulane to be a peer - it just doesn't add up like people think it does (although it's a better idea than joining the Big XII).

(06-16-2013 09:54 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(06-16-2013 09:01 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(06-15-2013 08:03 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 09:37 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 04:19 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I do hope that things work out for UConn, Cincy and USF but let's be real and acknowledge that not everyone is going to emerge from this era unscathed. Some schools - and perhaps several - are going to end up on the wrong side of the tracks. I hate this greed and its consequences as much as anyone. Also, I hate to see any fan base get hosed. However, I also understand that it is an unavoidable consequence of the game of musical conferences and the forces behind it go far beyond Pitt's administrative offices.

I'm sorry if this isn't the reaction you are looking for but the emotion I have when recounting things isn't glee but nor is it guilt. Instead it's one of extreme relief.

Name cache of the opponent means a lot to the pro-mindset fans in Western PA. They don't understand it on the basketball side either when Pitt brings in good mid-majors. They're more likely to show up for a bad name team from a power conference. It drives me nuts.

The reality is, and this is hard for Cincy and USF and UConn to swallow, but they weren't part of college football's power structure a decade ago (heck UConn and USF didn't even have FBS program until the 2000s). Only Louisville, TCU, and Utah got to move up into the power structure from their decade ago status and all three of those teams have had both multiple BCS appearances and at least one BCS bowl win. The only BCS winner that didn't move up in to a Power 5 was Boise State. No one got cut out of the power structure that wasn't already there in 2003, unless you count Temple, but that had special circumstances that was happening outside of conference realignment and was almost entirely self-inflicted. It sucks, but no one has ever accused college football of egalitarianism or not being too focused on traditions.

If by "self-inflicted" you mean "Villanova did everything possible to make sure full inclusion never happened," then sure. Where did Pitt stand on Temple's removal? Did they vote to keep them, remove them, or abstain?

I'm of the belief that if Temple was an all-sports member of the conference back then during their first football tour, things would have been different...big time.

If you believe that, then you weren't paying attention. Temple football was an embarrassment to the Big East.

The Temple president was openly and publicly opposed to any improvements to Temple football. He practically dared the Big East to cut ties with them. At that time, this was a pathetic football program with no commitment to the sport. None. Zero. It had no business in a BCS conference.

The current president has taken things in a different direction and deserves tremendous credit for turning the program around. It's a completely different situation now. But to suggest that Temple was a viable program in the 1990's or in 2003 is just revisionist history.

Sad thing is, Army and Navy were so much worse off as programs in that time, but were still desired by the Big East. Attendance was the charge schools brought against Temple formally, but this went deeper and further back than that, and other posts shed light on that.

And Temple wasn't just a victim, as one should ask Virginia Tech, who Temple was hot-shot'ing in the A10. And the animosity of UMFL toward Temple, was kind of like Temple-VT with reversed roles...UMFL hoops were frightful and had no reason being in the Big East, but for the sake of the program accepting Big East membership for its football component.

And Villanova. It's STILL Villanova.

It does no justice trying to rationalize this stuff. None. Zero (see, I can do one-word sentences, too). These schools come from an area with zero cohesion in terms of common vision and likeness of fit. Even for Pitt to abstain from voting out Temple, rather than voting to keep a fellow commonwealth school, tells you what you need to know.

That's my concern going forward for the new ACC, who I am excited to see even more now than the B1G. With a "lifer" like UMD walking, putting the balance of the ACC as half original members and half add-on's, and those add-on's being of that eastern independent and mid-south brew, does that "I, not we" mentality run deep in this conference? Notre Dame's already kind of hinted they're in it for themselves...

It is Villanova and it isn't.

Villanova still had only one vote. There's no such thing as a black ball or a veto. There's no way that Villanova by themselves could have stopped Temple.

What there was, however, was a mutually agreed upon plan for each member to have its own market to itself. So, it was to everyone's benefit to respect that agreement and honor Villanova's objection.

This agreement was not sacred, however. The league let Rutgers into Seton Hall's market. They did this for 2 reasons:

1. Rutgers was the school they wanted in that market from the beginning. Rutgers represented tremendous potential value.

2. Seton Hall was a school they settled on as the substitute for Rutgers in the beginning. They did nothing during their time in the Big East to take control of that market.

The Temple - Villanova situation had nothing in common with the Rutgers - Seton Hall situation. Temple as a basketball-first school brought no value that the league didn't already have in Philly with Villanova. Unlike Seton Hall, Villanova was a strong program coming into the Big East and they only grew stronger after they joined the league. They were able to sell out the Spectrum while Seton Hall couldn't draw flies to the Meadowlands.