(05-01-2010 12:13 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  The Big 10 comissioner was quoted in one article saying that any league affected by Big 10 expansion would be able to continue to thrive. I just dont think, and I am sure that they will not take more than a couple of BE teams, and probably only one.

I'm pretty sure that Delany used the words "adapt" and "survive", not "thrive".
Big difference, there.

And besides, Delany's concept of what it means for Big East football to "survive" or "thrive" -- in the absence of 1 or more of its current members -- may be completely different from someone else's concept.

cuseroc, I do not see the Big East be a viable conference any longer. We will have to get to 12 teams in football to survie. The football conference will no longer have a northeastern foot-print. The only norteastern foorball team that will be left is Cuse or UConn., and maybe there will be none, if B10 takes Rutgers, UConn and Cuse! Other than Pitt, Cincinnati, and West Virginia, the football conference foot-print would be southern. And they will not care about the norteastern catholic basketball schools and Notre Dame!

(05-01-2010 12:13 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  Which coach made such a statement? I just cant imagine any BE coach saying that. I agree that would be a classless staement. I do remember reading that Edsall said that "if we lose 2 teams than BE fb would not survive." But thats a far cry from saying that the BE should quit playing fb. And it definitly can not be called classless, especially when his fb team will likely, probably remain in the BE along with Cuse and Pitt. I hope that Rutgers is the only BE team taken. I do beleive that to be the case. The Big 10 comissioner was quoted in one article saying that any league affected by Big 10 expansion would be able to continue to thrive. I just dont think, and I am sure that they will not take more than a couple of BE teams, and probably only one.

Any coach who's program is rumored to be leaving that makes a comment like "if we lose 2 teams than BE fb would not survive" is being classless. I don't recall any single university representative from BC, VT or Miami making this type statement the first time. I also don't recall UofL, Cincinnati or South Florida leaders making these type of comments about CUSA when their respective programs left for The Big East.

The class thing for Schiano to have said was if The Big East loses two teams they/we will find two more. Guess he just wanted to join the rest of former Big East leadership like Mike Tranghese, Jake Crouthamel and Dave Gavitt in predicting doom for a conference none of them have anything to do with now. Class is certainly in short supply among those that did squat to prevent The Big East from ending up in this kind of mess.
CJ

Spot on 1000% Jim!

(05-01-2010 12:47 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(05-01-2010 12:13 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  Which coach made such a statement? I just cant imagine any BE coach saying that. I agree that would be a classless staement. I do remember reading that Edsall said that "if we lose 2 teams than BE fb would not survive", which maybe most likely hyperbole. But thats a far cry from saying that the BE should quit playing fb. And it definitly can not be called classless, especially when his fb team will likely, probably remain in the BE along with Cuse and Pitt. I hope that Rutgers is the only BE team taken. I do beleive that to be the case. The Big 10 comissioner was quoted in one article saying that any league affected by Big 10 expansion would be able to continue to thrive. I just dont think, and I am sure that they will not take more than a couple of BE teams, and probably only one.

Any coach who's program is rumored to be leaving that makes a comment like "if we lose 2 teams than BE fb would not survive" is being classless. I don't recall any single university representative from BC, VT or Miami making this type statement the first time. I also don't recall UofL, Cincinnati or South Florida leaders making these type of comments about CUSA when their respective programs left for The Big East.

The class thing for Schiano to have said was if The Big East loses two teams they/we will find two more. Guess he just wanted to join the rest of former Big East leadership like Mike Tranghese, Jake Crouthamel and Dave Gavitt in predicting doom for a conference none of them have anything to do with now. Class is certainly in short supply among those that did squat to prevent The Big East from ending up in this kind of mess.
CJ

Thats right it was Schiano who made that statement originally, but Edsall reiterated it. But I took it as a plea for the BE leaders to do something to try and keep the conference together, and that if they dont, the BE will not survive. That was basically what the rest of that article was all about. Im sure thats what he was saying. It wasnt a "Haha, we are leaving the BE and you guys arent going to survive, nananana" type of statement. It seems that you just misunderstood the statement. As far as we know, Rutgers has not been invited yet, and he doesnt seem to think Rutgers is a shoein, so why would he take such a tone?

And regarding Jake Crouthamel, he was the guy who wanted the fb schools to split from the bb schools during the last go round 1n 2003. He even said that if the fb schools did not split, that he would retire, and he did just that. So please do not put him in the same group that has been trying to preserve this hybrid, along with Tranghese and Gavitt.

Its important to keep in mind that right now its only speculation as to who is going to be invited and who wont. The difference between now, and in 2003, is that we knew immediately who the acc's targets were as soon as it broke that they were raiding the BE. Thats not the case right now regarding Big 10 expansion. At this time, which is a total contrast to last time, is that the present BE leaders are trying to be proactive and give all fb schools some incentives to stay.

The football coach has little say in any Athletic Dept. decisions. That's up to the AD. And as far as conference affiliations, the AD has little say. That's up to the University President. The BEast football coaches have been asking for many things that haven't been delivered, or even listened to. That's why we're in the mess we're in now. We have no voice. Those of us who remain after everything goes down should cut all ties to what remains, and leave the Catholic alliance to its own designs. They don't have our best interests at heart...

I know that the common thinking is that the Big Ten would be more than willing to take ND alone. However, the main point of ND is to provide leverage in the lucrative Northeastern markets where it has large fan bases. ND might draw great ratings in a place like NYC and be considered the most popular team there, but in order to get cable carriers to take on the BTN, there needs to be a local "presence" like Rutgers and/or Syracuse.

I've been told by someone with a LOT of direct knowledge about this situation that the Big Ten isn't even discussing a 1-school expansion anymore, regardless of whether ND comes along. You will see the conference add 3 or 5 schools. In fact, adding ND would make it even more likely that the Big Ten would expand with multiple schools because it can add a school like Rutgers or Syracuse and almost assuredly monetize the NYC market (whereas adding either of those schools without ND would be a risk in terms of grabbing that area).

So, the point is that kicking ND out will have little to no bearing on the size of Big Ten expansion. Rutgers is almost a given in any expansion scenario. The only thing that ND might do is lock either Pitt or Syracuse out of the Big Ten (but not both of them).

Personally, I think that CJ's scenario is the most likely one without ND: adding Missouri, Nebraska and Rutgers. The rumored 5-school expansion with Mizzou/Nebraska/Pitt/Syracuse/Rutgers isn't that crazy, though, if it's determined that the combo of Syracuse and Rutgers (in conjunction with the fan base of Penn State) would really lock down the states of NY and NJ, in which case that 5-school expansion would be a money-maker. Overall, the Big Ten is VERY starry-eyed about monetizing the NYC market. You're not going to just see only Missouri or Nebraska added.

Being a Louisville fan, and somewhat new to the Big East, I just don't get the Notre Dame hate. I mean, if they played football in a different conference, I could see the ate. Or if they were the only non-football member, I could see it, but there are 8 non-football members? 8. And Notre Dame brings more value than any other non-football member. So I just don't see the issue.

Now as far as a split, I think it does more harm than good. The non football members represent a lot of large markets. IF the BE has any survival chance, it will need to cling to basketball as its savior. Yes I know for most of college sports football is where they money is, not in the Big East. It doesn't mean you need to sacrifice football for basketball, it just means you need to stay together. Neither league stands to benefit much from a split monetarily, or on the court (basketball).

Also it is worth noting that the basketball schools are not stupid. They know what will happen in a split; they will become the Atlantic Ten part deux. The basketball schools will do whatever the football schools need to do to survive.

Notre Dame witholds their football allegience, while stealing bowl money from us, and all this while proclaiming themselves a member of the conference. The bowl bids they steal is money that could be going into the pool we all share. Instead, Notre Dame take it all, yet still gets to share our basketball money...

I will always say if Notre Dame wants to remain independent in football, let them be truly INDEPENDENT...

(05-01-2010 08:09 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Being a Louisville fan, and somewhat new to the Big East, I just don't get the Notre Dame hate. I mean, if they played football in a different conference, I could see the ate. Or if they were the only non-football member, I could see it, but there are 8 non-football members? 8. And Notre Dame brings more value than any other non-football member. So I just don't see the issue.

Now as far as a split, I think it does more harm than good. The non football members represent a lot of large markets. IF the BE has any survival chance, it will need to cling to basketball as its savior. Yes I know for most of college sports football is where they money is, not in the Big East. It doesn't mean you need to sacrifice football for basketball, it just means you need to stay together. Neither league stands to benefit much from a split monetarily, or on the court (basketball).

Also it is worth noting that the basketball schools are not stupid. They know what will happen in a split; they will become the Atlantic Ten part deux. The basketball schools will do whatever the football schools need to do to survive.

Notre Dame "hate" stems from the fact that ND is reaping tremendous benefits --millions of $$, better recruiting and tremendous success for themselves by playing other sports in the high profile BE while providing little if nothing in return. At the same time ND considers themselves too "good" to be associated with half of the programs in the Big East for football, including Louisville I might add. For the portion of the league they will consider playing in football, ND refuses to do a "home-home" arrangement with all but two, while providing schools played from other BCS leagues with a "home-home" deal and yearly games.

There have been time periods recently when ND would not play ANY BE football schools, yet continued to play other BCS conferences teams home and home--because they didn't want to associate with BE football. ND agreed to a three team per year rotating home-home schedule with BE teams after league teams became upset and began calling for ND "all-in or all out"--the Irish have yet to fulfill this agreement years later.

The prevailing thought is that ND has stood along with the basketball schools to prevent growth on the football side. Lack of growth has in many ways led football to the slow agonizing death it is approaching.

Notre Dame football has been offered BCS bowl games twice over deserving actual Big East teams (VT) which hurt the Big East in getting two BCS bids and worsened a rift between VT and the BEC. ND has also received bids to bowls such as the Gator which kept deserving actual BE teams out of these games.

For several years now the Irish have provided little to no actual benefit in the bowl arrangement, as many good bowls have dropped the league despite the ND clause. This has caused a very poor image in the media and to the value of BE football. As we now know, football schools have attempted to end this arrangement more than once, but have not been successful to date. When it is suggested that the arrangement be ended and the parties move their separate ways, ND supporters cite that the arrangement is just good business for ND, while disparaging claims of the good business it would be for BE football to separate from the Irish so they can build themselves without the hindrance.

Perhaps the largest rift between football and ND came as the BE faced its last raid. At the time of their greatest need, ND football did nothing to assist BE football. They scheduled fewer games, broke an agreement to play all teams home-home and round robin, and were in negotiations publicly with the ACC and privately (but discovered later) with the Big Ten. Yet now as then they want to protect their independence in football by protecting other sports in the Big East--as long as they don't have to do anything to help football in the Big East of course.

Well, said.

Some people claim the non fb schools are holding the fb schools back, but I havent seen any evidence of anything being voted on in the past 5 years that suggests a fb, nonfb split. Can anyone provide an example of how a vote was brought up and voted down?

It seems marquete and depaul were approved by both sides. did the fb schools really want someone else and reluctanly bowed to the non fb's? If so, they couldnt have felt that strongly against those two(or that favorably for other canidates) or they would have held their ground and if needed split off on their own. Apparently schools like uconn and syracuse, fb aside, saw more value being associated with schools with the reputations of gtown, nd, nova, providence and marquette then they did with other available candidates.
Even when BC was still (intheory) still around the fb schools controlled their own destiny. They could have split. I find it very hard to believe they felt badly for the non fb's and stuck around out of pity

With an all-sports conference, the rivalries would be more strongly formed. Our rivals would be the same in all sports every year. As it is now, rivals vary from sport to sport, and their is no common interest among the schools. Each has their own priorities, and it's now a band of 16 loosely allied schools pulling in 16 different directions. How is that supposed to be stable?