(06-16-2018 08:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-16-2018 08:30 AM)Chappy Wrote:  Yeah, I don't think anyone truly expects $25 million.

Maybe not on this forum, but based on what he said, Aresco does. Have to take a man at his word, unless you are going to write him off as having no credibility.

Well, when someone asks me what my salary requirements are, I aim high. I mean, not 2.5 times what I expect, but you get the picture.

(06-16-2018 08:53 AM)Chappy Wrote:  

(06-16-2018 08:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-16-2018 08:30 AM)Chappy Wrote:  Yeah, I don't think anyone truly expects $25 million.

Maybe not on this forum, but based on what he said, Aresco does. Have to take a man at his word, unless you are going to write him off as having no credibility.

Well, when someone asks me what my salary requirements are, I aim high. I mean, not 2.5 times what I expect, but you get the picture.

I've been a consistent critic of Aresco for 6 years. I've been clear though, I wish him the best in the negotiations.

(06-16-2018 08:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-16-2018 08:30 AM)Chappy Wrote:  Yeah, I don't think anyone truly expects $25 million.

Maybe not on this forum, but based on what he said, Aresco does.

Strawman. He never said P5 TV money level. He never put a dollar figure out there. He said "P6 level."

Assuming we get more than the Big East, we will be the 6th highest paid conference by TV.

(06-16-2018 12:25 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(06-16-2018 08:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-16-2018 08:30 AM)Chappy Wrote:  Yeah, I don't think anyone truly expects $25 million.

Maybe not on this forum, but based on what he said, Aresco does.

Strawman. He never said P5 TV money level. He never put a dollar figure out there. He said "P6 level."

He said "P5 conversation and range", and the only qualifier was that it wouldn't be SEC or B1G money. Listen at 39:20 ...

http://bballjones.com/2018/05/08/the-1pm...day-may-8/

Also, at 36:10 he says the AAC will get a contract NY6 bowl before 2025.

I'm sorry, but in plain English "P5 range" means within the boundaries of what the P5 are getting. That's what he said.

(06-11-2018 04:41 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Remember the time when the Big East was offered 13M per school, and turned it down. Then Pitt, which led the BE in turning down the ESPN deal, secretly negotiated with the ACC for an exit, stabbing everyone in the back. The deal would have saved the BE football league for years to come.

Pitt chancellor Mark Nordenberg made the recommendation to turn down the deal...all the while negotiating with ESPN and potentially sharing sensitive Big East data. In any other business this would have been grounds for dismissal. He stayed on until his retirement in 2014 and is now chancellor emeritus.

(06-16-2018 04:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-16-2018 12:25 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(06-16-2018 08:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-16-2018 08:30 AM)Chappy Wrote:  Yeah, I don't think anyone truly expects $25 million.

Maybe not on this forum, but based on what he said, Aresco does.

Strawman. He never said P5 TV money level. He never put a dollar figure out there. He said "P6 level."

He said "P5 conversation and range", and the only qualifier was that it wouldn't be SEC or B1G money. Listen at 39:20 ...

http://bballjones.com/2018/05/08/the-1pm...day-may-8/

Also, at 36:10 he says the AAC will get a contract NY6 bowl before 2025.

I'm sorry, but in plain English "P5 range" means within the boundaries of what the P5 are getting. That's what he said.

idk. He has to be saying that he thinks the money will be close enough that the AAC would be considered more P5 than G5. That said, I think we get enough to be a clear tweener. Maybe 10 million a team is enough to say we are financially similar to the old Big East in terms of the financial standing they had with the other power conferences back in 2011 or so---but thats about the only way to parse those comments into something I might say is feasible.

(06-16-2018 07:05 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-16-2018 04:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-16-2018 12:25 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(06-16-2018 08:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-16-2018 08:30 AM)Chappy Wrote:  Yeah, I don't think anyone truly expects $25 million.

Maybe not on this forum, but based on what he said, Aresco does.

Strawman. He never said P5 TV money level. He never put a dollar figure out there. He said "P6 level."

He said "P5 conversation and range", and the only qualifier was that it wouldn't be SEC or B1G money. Listen at 39:20 ...

http://bballjones.com/2018/05/08/the-1pm...day-may-8/

Also, at 36:10 he says the AAC will get a contract NY6 bowl before 2025.

I'm sorry, but in plain English "P5 range" means within the boundaries of what the P5 are getting. That's what he said.

idk. He has to be saying that he thinks the money will be close enough that the AAC would be considered more P5 than G5. That said, I think we get enough to be a clear tweener. Maybe 10 million a team is enough to say we are financially similar to the old Big East in terms of the financial standing they had with the other power conferences back in 2011 or so---but thats about the only way to parse those comments into something I might say is feasible.

We'd need to get at least $20m to be in "P5 range".

$10m? I agree that eight-figures makes us a clear cut tweener, clearly separate from the other G5.

I don't think we will get quite that tweener amount. If we do, I will toast Aresco.

(06-16-2018 07:01 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Pitt chancellor Mark Nordenberg made the recommendation to turn down the deal...all the while negotiating with ESPN and potentially sharing sensitive Big East data. In any other business this would have been grounds for dismissal. He stayed on until his retirement in 2014 and is now chancellor emeritus.

Let's face it: Nordenberg did his job, he looked out for Pitt. Our chancellors got out-maneuvered and we are suffering for it. USF a whole lot, Georgetown not nearly as much, but some. It sucks that the Big East doesn't include our old rivals now in the ACC.

(06-16-2018 07:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-16-2018 07:01 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Pitt chancellor Mark Nordenberg made the recommendation to turn down the deal...all the while negotiating with ESPN and potentially sharing sensitive Big East data. In any other business this would have been grounds for dismissal. He stayed on until his retirement in 2014 and is now chancellor emeritus.

Let's face it: Nordenberg did his job, he looked out for Pitt. Our chancellors got out-maneuvered and we are suffering for it. USF a whole lot, Georgetown not nearly as much, but some. It sucks that the Big East doesn't include our old rivals now in the ACC.

I still maintain that the old Big East, if around today, would make more money than the current ACC. There were too many synergies in dominating the NYC market for the BE not to get paid big-time.

I think Nordenberg got played by the ACC & Big 12. They both threatened to take his most valuable conference rivals and leave Pitt in a dilapidated conference (effectively the current American). Those were idle threats - the ACC never would have taken UConn without Pitt, and WVU only developed wandering eyes after Pitt left. But Nordenberg caved to those idle threats.

(06-17-2018 04:55 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(06-16-2018 07:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-16-2018 07:01 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Pitt chancellor Mark Nordenberg made the recommendation to turn down the deal...all the while negotiating with ESPN and potentially sharing sensitive Big East data. In any other business this would have been grounds for dismissal. He stayed on until his retirement in 2014 and is now chancellor emeritus.

Let's face it: Nordenberg did his job, he looked out for Pitt. Our chancellors got out-maneuvered and we are suffering for it. USF a whole lot, Georgetown not nearly as much, but some. It sucks that the Big East doesn't include our old rivals now in the ACC.

I still maintain that the old Big East, if around today, would make more money than the current ACC. There were too many synergies in dominating the NYC market for the BE not to get paid big-time.

I think Nordenberg got played by the ACC & Big 12. They both threatened to take his most valuable conference rivals and leave Pitt in a dilapidated conference (effectively the current American). Those were idle threats - the ACC never would have taken UConn without Pitt, and WVU only developed wandering eyes after Pitt left. But Nordenberg caved to those idle threats.

What had always hurt the Big East in my opinion was they brought in a lot of projects....Temple, Rutgers, BC, Virginia Tech upon formation.

Cincinnati when added to the Big East was thought of as a project school on the football side of things.

A good friend of mine who was a VT fan was mad about the 2005 realignment where they ended up going to the ACC. He thought they could have everything the ACC has if they would just expand to 10 with Louisville and Cincinnati. He felt as if the traditions of Pittsburgh, West Virginia and Syracuse exceeded what the ACC had to offer. ACC had FSU but the BE had Miami. ACC has Clemson but the BE had Virginia Tech.

A different perspective to say the least.

(06-17-2018 04:55 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(06-16-2018 07:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-16-2018 07:01 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Pitt chancellor Mark Nordenberg made the recommendation to turn down the deal...all the while negotiating with ESPN and potentially sharing sensitive Big East data. In any other business this would have been grounds for dismissal. He stayed on until his retirement in 2014 and is now chancellor emeritus.

Let's face it: Nordenberg did his job, he looked out for Pitt. Our chancellors got out-maneuvered and we are suffering for it. USF a whole lot, Georgetown not nearly as much, but some. It sucks that the Big East doesn't include our old rivals now in the ACC.

I still maintain that the old Big East, if around today, would make more money than the current ACC. There were too many synergies in dominating the NYC market for the BE not to get paid big-time.

I think Nordenberg got played by the ACC & Big 12. They both threatened to take his most valuable conference rivals and leave Pitt in a dilapidated conference (effectively the current American). Those were idle threats - the ACC never would have taken UConn without Pitt, and WVU only developed wandering eyes after Pitt left. But Nordenberg caved to those idle threats.

This comment totally ignores Syracuse, which was the heart and soul of the BE. SU was heading to the ACC no matter what Pitt did. It was more or less unfinished business from 2003. When SU left the BE was when everyone else started seeking a lifeline elsewhere. Pitt just happened to be the other school that was invited to the ACC. Pitt is the school that Uconn fans once claimed stole their ACC bid.

The way the CFP was shaping up, a league had to have a major bowl to anchor in order to have a chance to get to the playoffs. None of the major bowls wanted to partner with the BE so there was no way that the BE would have been making more money than the ACC. SU and Pitt knew this, as well the other BE schools. Thats why there was such a mad dash to get into a P5 league by the BE members after SU and Pitt left, and the reason that SU and Pitt left in the first place.

We thought that the BE could have taken that deal from ESPN that paid very similar to the ACC, or held out for another broadcaster that paid even more and then raid the ACC, which was foolish. No ACC school would have come to the BE because they would not have left a league (ACC) that likely would continue to anchor a major bowl for a league (BIG EAST) that likely would not anchor a major bowl. Having the gift of hindsight helps us to see that the BE was not going to be raiding the ACC. And there was no way that the BE was getting a higher tv deal than the ACC. Its sad because I loved SU competing in the BE. Even though I like SU being in the ACC, there is still something lacking for me in the ACC that made the BE special to me.

(06-17-2018 08:47 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  This comment totally ignores Syracuse, which was the heart and soul of the BE. SU was heading to the ACC no matter what Pitt did.

....... Its sad because I loved SU competing in the BE. Even though I like SU being in the ACC, there is still something lacking for me in the ACC that made the BE special to me.

First, you put the first statement too strongly. Yes, Syracuse was integral to the Big East. Even though the current Big East has worked out better than I ever imagined it could, it's not the same without you. But you were part of the Heart and Soul, not its entirety. You weren't any moreso than Georgetown, for example.

Second, about being in the ACC, let me guess: Even though it is exciting as hell when Duke or North Carolina visit the Carrier Dome, it's the excitement one feels for a great OOC game, like it would if Kentucky or Kansas visits. It doesn't feel like a conference game, right? That's because your natural rivals are in the Big East and UConn.

Third, yes, the Big East could not have raided the ACC in 2011. The Big East needed to do that in 2003, before the ACC struck that first blow. After the ACC got Miami, not possible. Football drives realignment, and no school would leave a conference with two blue chip brands in FSU and Miami for one with none, like the Big East.

(06-17-2018 09:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-17-2018 08:47 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  This comment totally ignores Syracuse, which was the heart and soul of the BE. SU was heading to the ACC no matter what Pitt did.

....... Its sad because I loved SU competing in the BE. Even though I like SU being in the ACC, there is still something lacking for me in the ACC that made the BE special to me.

First, you put the first statement too strongly. Yes, Syracuse was integral to the Big East. Even though the current Big East has worked out better than I ever imagined it could, it's not the same without you. But you were part of the Heart and Soul, not its entirety. You weren't any moreso than Georgetown, for example.

Second, about being in the ACC, let me guess: Even though it is exciting as hell when Duke or North Carolina visit the Carrier Dome, it's the excitement one feels for a great OOC game, like it would if Kentucky or Kansas visits. It doesn't feel like a conference game, right? That's because your natural rivals are in the Big East and UConn.

Third, yes, the Big East could not have raided the ACC in 2011. The Big East needed to do that in 2003, before the ACC struck that first blow. After the ACC got Miami, not possible. Football drives realignment, and no school would leave a conference with two blue chip brands in FSU and Miami for one with none, like the Big East.

Syracuse was the biggest road draw in the BE and played to the largest crowds on the road. I know you are a Georgetown fan but here is a point that you cannot deny; Nobody would be clamoring to leave the BE if Georgetown had left the league.

(06-16-2018 04:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I'm sorry, but in plain English "P5 range" means within the boundaries of what the P5 are getting. That's what he said.

In plain English, "P5 range" doesn't specify within the boundaries of what the P5 is getting.

There is a connotation of "in range" that would mean that (that's the math meaning), but it's not the only one. It can also mean that you can get a shot off a at something from where you are.

(06-18-2018 02:06 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-16-2018 04:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I'm sorry, but in plain English "P5 range" means within the boundaries of what the P5 are getting. That's what he said.

In plain English, "P5 range" doesn't specify within the boundaries of what the P5 is getting.

There is a connotation of "in range" that would mean that (that's the math meaning), but it's not the only one. It can also mean that you can get a shot off a at something from where you are.

Too much of a stretch, as the latter isn't an alternative meaning. If we are hunting and you say that a deer is in range, it means we are within the scope of the distance paramaters where it is possible to hit the deer with our weapon. To me, that seems like the same idea - "range" is an area or space bookended by boundaries/parameters. For a rifle shooting a deer, it might be from the deer to 1,000 feet out. For the P5 and TV money, it is from ACC money to SEC/B1G money.

(06-17-2018 05:24 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(06-17-2018 04:55 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(06-16-2018 07:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-16-2018 07:01 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Pitt chancellor Mark Nordenberg made the recommendation to turn down the deal...all the while negotiating with ESPN and potentially sharing sensitive Big East data. In any other business this would have been grounds for dismissal. He stayed on until his retirement in 2014 and is now chancellor emeritus.

Let's face it: Nordenberg did his job, he looked out for Pitt. Our chancellors got out-maneuvered and we are suffering for it. USF a whole lot, Georgetown not nearly as much, but some. It sucks that the Big East doesn't include our old rivals now in the ACC.

I still maintain that the old Big East, if around today, would make more money than the current ACC. There were too many synergies in dominating the NYC market for the BE not to get paid big-time.

I think Nordenberg got played by the ACC & Big 12. They both threatened to take his most valuable conference rivals and leave Pitt in a dilapidated conference (effectively the current American). Those were idle threats - the ACC never would have taken UConn without Pitt, and WVU only developed wandering eyes after Pitt left. But Nordenberg caved to those idle threats.

What had always hurt the Big East in my opinion was they brought in a lot of projects....Temple, Rutgers, BC, Virginia Tech upon formation.

Cincinnati when added to the Big East was thought of as a project school on the football side of things.

A good friend of mine who was a VT fan was mad about the 2005 realignment where they ended up going to the ACC. He thought they could have everything the ACC has if they would just expand to 10 with Louisville and Cincinnati. He felt as if the traditions of Pittsburgh, West Virginia and Syracuse exceeded what the ACC had to offer. ACC had FSU but the BE had Miami. ACC has Clemson but the BE had Virginia Tech.

A different perspective to say the least.

So the conference he proposed would have been BC, Rutgers, Syracuse, Temple, Pitt, UC, Louisville, WVU VT, Miami+ old Catholic School (including Notre Dame).

If Miami and VT would have been agreeable to it, it would have worked out-- especially when you consider that ESPN was going to give the Big East 2.0 a contract similar to the ACC's in 2011. With Miami, VT and BC in the fold your friend's incarnation of the BE likely would have gotten a superior media contract than the ACC.

(06-17-2018 08:47 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-17-2018 04:55 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(06-16-2018 07:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-16-2018 07:01 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Pitt chancellor Mark Nordenberg made the recommendation to turn down the deal...all the while negotiating with ESPN and potentially sharing sensitive Big East data. In any other business this would have been grounds for dismissal. He stayed on until his retirement in 2014 and is now chancellor emeritus.

Let's face it: Nordenberg did his job, he looked out for Pitt. Our chancellors got out-maneuvered and we are suffering for it. USF a whole lot, Georgetown not nearly as much, but some. It sucks that the Big East doesn't include our old rivals now in the ACC.

I still maintain that the old Big East, if around today, would make more money than the current ACC. There were too many synergies in dominating the NYC market for the BE not to get paid big-time.

I think Nordenberg got played by the ACC & Big 12. They both threatened to take his most valuable conference rivals and leave Pitt in a dilapidated conference (effectively the current American). Those were idle threats - the ACC never would have taken UConn without Pitt, and WVU only developed wandering eyes after Pitt left. But Nordenberg caved to those idle threats.

This comment totally ignores Syracuse, which was the heart and soul of the BE. SU was heading to the ACC no matter what Pitt did. It was more or less unfinished business from 2003. When SU left the BE was when everyone else started seeking a lifeline elsewhere. Pitt just happened to be the other school that was invited to the ACC. Pitt is the school that Uconn fans once claimed stole their ACC bid.

The way the CFP was shaping up, a league had to have a major bowl to anchor in order to have a chance to get to the playoffs. None of the major bowls wanted to partner with the BE so there was no way that the BE would have been making more money than the ACC. SU and Pitt knew this, as well the other BE schools. Thats why there was such a mad dash to get into a P5 league by the BE members after SU and Pitt left, and the reason that SU and Pitt left in the first place.

We thought that the BE could have taken that deal from ESPN that paid very similar to the ACC, or held out for another broadcaster that paid even more and then raid the ACC, which was foolish. No ACC school would have come to the BE because they would not have left a league (ACC) that likely would continue to anchor a major bowl for a league (BIG EAST) that likely would not anchor a major bowl. Having the gift of hindsight helps us to see that the BE was not going to be raiding the ACC. And there was no way that the BE was getting a higher tv deal than the ACC. Its sad because I loved SU competing in the BE. Even though I like SU being in the ACC, there is still something lacking for me in the ACC that made the BE special to me.

Yes, I was ignoring Syracuse because the discussion was about Pitt.

I've maintained since the beginning that both Syracuse and Pitt were "played" by the ACC. While no one seriously thought the BE could raid the ACC, the unity of the core ACC schools against the SEC/Big 10/Big 12 allowed them to scare Syracuse and Pitt into leaving for a conference that was less valuable and was a worse fit.

The bowl situation is a new angle, but this all happened three years before the BCS system was replaced. After the Big East got a big media contract, it would have been impossible for the big bowls to dismiss them from the system.

(06-17-2018 09:46 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-17-2018 09:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-17-2018 08:47 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  This comment totally ignores Syracuse, which was the heart and soul of the BE. SU was heading to the ACC no matter what Pitt did.

....... Its sad because I loved SU competing in the BE. Even though I like SU being in the ACC, there is still something lacking for me in the ACC that made the BE special to me.

First, you put the first statement too strongly. Yes, Syracuse was integral to the Big East. Even though the current Big East has worked out better than I ever imagined it could, it's not the same without you. But you were part of the Heart and Soul, not its entirety. You weren't any moreso than Georgetown, for example.

Second, about being in the ACC, let me guess: Even though it is exciting as hell when Duke or North Carolina visit the Carrier Dome, it's the excitement one feels for a great OOC game, like it would if Kentucky or Kansas visits. It doesn't feel like a conference game, right? That's because your natural rivals are in the Big East and UConn.

Third, yes, the Big East could not have raided the ACC in 2011. The Big East needed to do that in 2003, before the ACC struck that first blow. After the ACC got Miami, not possible. Football drives realignment, and no school would leave a conference with two blue chip brands in FSU and Miami for one with none, like the Big East.

Syracuse was the biggest road draw in the BE and played to the largest crowds on the road. I know you are a Georgetown fan but here is a point that you cannot deny; Nobody would be clamoring to leave the BE if Georgetown had left the league.

As i said, conference realignment is driven by football first, and since Georgetown didn't play D1 football, nobody would be leaving if we left. I absolutely can deny any claim that Syracuse was the "heart and soul" of the Big East. You were a part of it, but so was Georgetown and a couple other founders. Big East identity was never tied much to football. The Big East made its name as a basketball conference and it was always known nationally as a basketball conference much moreso than football.

I also think you are dismissing Pitt too easily. I think the 2011 situation was such that if either Pitt or Syracuse left for the ACC - including Pitt alone - that would have started the same chain reaction that both leaving did. I disagree that Syracuse alone staying or leaving was the key. I don't think it was, but we will never know.

Remember, football drives realignment, and Pitt's national football brand name was arguably the strongest in the 2011 Big East. Notre Dame has said it values its football rivalry with Pitt.

I have never heard anyone from the ACC say that Syracuse was the big prize they wanted and Pitt just a tag along.

(06-18-2018 09:48 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(06-17-2018 08:47 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-17-2018 04:55 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(06-16-2018 07:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-16-2018 07:01 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Pitt chancellor Mark Nordenberg made the recommendation to turn down the deal...all the while negotiating with ESPN and potentially sharing sensitive Big East data. In any other business this would have been grounds for dismissal. He stayed on until his retirement in 2014 and is now chancellor emeritus.

Let's face it: Nordenberg did his job, he looked out for Pitt. Our chancellors got out-maneuvered and we are suffering for it. USF a whole lot, Georgetown not nearly as much, but some. It sucks that the Big East doesn't include our old rivals now in the ACC.

I still maintain that the old Big East, if around today, would make more money than the current ACC. There were too many synergies in dominating the NYC market for the BE not to get paid big-time.

I think Nordenberg got played by the ACC & Big 12. They both threatened to take his most valuable conference rivals and leave Pitt in a dilapidated conference (effectively the current American). Those were idle threats - the ACC never would have taken UConn without Pitt, and WVU only developed wandering eyes after Pitt left. But Nordenberg caved to those idle threats.

This comment totally ignores Syracuse, which was the heart and soul of the BE. SU was heading to the ACC no matter what Pitt did. It was more or less unfinished business from 2003. When SU left the BE was when everyone else started seeking a lifeline elsewhere. Pitt just happened to be the other school that was invited to the ACC. Pitt is the school that Uconn fans once claimed stole their ACC bid.

The way the CFP was shaping up, a league had to have a major bowl to anchor in order to have a chance to get to the playoffs. None of the major bowls wanted to partner with the BE so there was no way that the BE would have been making more money than the ACC. SU and Pitt knew this, as well the other BE schools. Thats why there was such a mad dash to get into a P5 league by the BE members after SU and Pitt left, and the reason that SU and Pitt left in the first place.

We thought that the BE could have taken that deal from ESPN that paid very similar to the ACC, or held out for another broadcaster that paid even more and then raid the ACC, which was foolish. No ACC school would have come to the BE because they would not have left a league (ACC) that likely would continue to anchor a major bowl for a league (BIG EAST) that likely would not anchor a major bowl. Having the gift of hindsight helps us to see that the BE was not going to be raiding the ACC. And there was no way that the BE was getting a higher tv deal than the ACC. Its sad because I loved SU competing in the BE. Even though I like SU being in the ACC, there is still something lacking for me in the ACC that made the BE special to me.

Yes, I was ignoring Syracuse because the discussion was about Pitt.

I've maintained since the beginning that both Syracuse and Pitt were "played" by the ACC. While no one seriously thought the BE could raid the ACC, the unity of the core ACC schools against the SEC/Big 10/Big 12 allowed them to scare Syracuse and Pitt into leaving for a conference that was less valuable and was a worse fit.

The bowl situation is a new angle, but this all happened three years before the BCS system was replaced. After the Big East got a big media contract, it would have been impossible for the big bowls to dismiss them from the system.

This all happened 3 years before the BCS was replaced by the CFP. But the concept for the CFP wasnt thought up one year and replaced the BCS the next. It was a concept that was gradual and discussed for several years and with many critiques. Then a year to put the CFP into effect was chosen. Its obvious that all the schools involved saw the direction that the new CFP was heading. In fact, this was what former SU AD Darryl Gross said at the time, that the direction that the CFP was headed was that a league must be aligned with a major bowl. The term P5 was in effect even before the CFP actually started. I dont recall ever reading about a possible P6.

I disagree with your premise that SU and Pitt were played. These discussions about the CFP took place at a much higher level with much more intimate details than us internet posters know about. Im sure the athletic depts at Pitt and SU were much more informed as to what was going on than you or I. They were dealing with details and facts to make informed decisions rather than premises. And although I still hate that decision, it was the right decision. And just because a league is paid well doesnt obligate a bowl to align with that league. They want their bowls to be filled with teams that travel well.

Quote:As i said, conference realignment is driven by football first, and since Georgetown didn't play D1 football, nobody would be leaving if we left.

Then how can you claim that Georgetown was also the heart and soul of the BE

Quote:I also think you are dismissing Pitt too easily. I think the 2011 situation was such that if either Pitt or Syracuse left for the ACC - including Pitt alone - that would have started the same chain reaction that both leaving did. I disagree that Syracuse alone staying or leaving was the key. I don't think it was, but we will never know.

Im not so sure that the C7 would have been as eager to leave the BE if Syracuse was still in the BE and only Pitt left. They may not have even left if that were the case

Quote:Remember, football drives realignment, and Pitt's national football brand name was arguably the strongest in the 2011 Big East. Notre Dame has said it values its football rivalry with Pitt.

I would argue that it was WV who had the strongest brand name in the BE of 2011

Quote:I have never heard anyone from the ACC say that Syracuse was the big prize they wanted and Pitt just a tag along.

I never heard anyone from the ACC say that Miami or VT were the Big prize that they wanted, only the media.

Syracuse was the heart and soul of the BE. Never said Pitt was a tag along. But I said on multiple occasions when we were all back in the BE together that if the BE went away that SU was not going to be left out of whatever came about. The reason that I knew this is because the ACC had tried on several occasions to get Syracuse, since the early 90's. But it never worked out. The 2011 realignment was about fb, but to a league like the ACC, you better believe that basketball mattered too. When you combine bb and fb, Syracuse had the most influence of any program in the BE. SU was a founding member of BE bb and fb, which Pitt was not. If you read the media back then, the biggest shock was Syracuse leaving the BE, not Pitt. Many magazine reporters trashed Syracuse for leaving a league that they founded. I remember being torn because I was ticked that SU was leaving the BE and at the same time being ticked off that so many reporters were trashing Syracuse for leaving.

I will admit this though: If you wanted to mortally wound the BE, taking SU and Pitt was the way to do it. I understand you being a Georgetown fan and not wanting to give SU ANY credit but thats just the way it is.