(06-01-2013 09:32 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I know this is going to shock everyone but the lying Paternos publicly swore up and down for years that they were fighting like hell for Pitt to get into the Big Ten if it were to ever expand. Then, after Nebraska, they said, "What could we do, we were outvoted?" Then, after Rutgers and Maryland went to the B1G, Jay Paterno wrote an editorial for the Centre Daily Times (yes those people even wrote for the local newspapers to help control the message up there) in which he said, "Alas, Pitt/Penn State will never happen even though we fought like hell for Pitt to get into the Big Ten for years."

Tell me why on earth Gee would lie about them "abhorring" Pitt?

It doesn't matter because we are thrilled to have landed where we did but it's just example 2,567 of the Paterno's having always been BLATANT and SHAMELESS liars. Anyone who believes anything that comes out of any of their mouths is a gullible rube who gets what he/she deserves.

Why does this surprise you? Almost every school among the old eastern indies cared only about themselves. Why else was there never any give among any of the schools? Nobody was willing to compromise on any point, which is why the old eastern indies are now scattered among the various conferences and many long time eastern rivalries are a thing of the past. Had anyone among the old eastern indies had any consideration for anyone but themselves, we'd have had a strong all sports conference for a long time now and the Big East would never have been anything more than a bunch of mid majors...

Keep talking President Gee, maybe he should post on this forum too. Considering he is pushing 70, his time running tOSU is probably not for long. As for comments, i think its a good grasp of the big 10 thinking. I thought they made a huge mistake not picking off Kansas and Missouri. My guess is the big 10 was surprised missouri went to the sec but it sounds like the big 10 still wants the combo. Who knows if that happens, KU could still be in play since the big 12 is inherently weak but the politics could be a problem. Team 16 might become OU if missouri sticks with the sec a few years down the road. That assumes texas is a no go but the politics of OSU could also be an issue. Yet, i can't believe OU would turn down an big 10 invite. IF the big 12 lost OU and KU, Texas would have to do something...pac 16, big 10, sec, ACC with or without football or stay in the big 12 but go football indy.

His comments about the sec are just dumb. Louisville clearly doesn't fit with the profile of the big 10 either but no need to make such comments . Every school serves a purpose + its not like these school's are grand valley state or coastal carolina.

The comments about the acc do shed some light...duke gets more interest but no mention of ga tech/fsu. I don't think duke or unc have any interest in joining the big 10 ever unless forced. UVA was the key to open the acc door in my view, get them than it forces unc to move to either the big 10 or sec. Taking Maryland does open up the acc some but they could always add Gtown, nova and st john's to fill the middle gap gee talks about. IF conferences are going to 20, why can't the acc go hybrid with a 16/20 setup?

(06-01-2013 10:08 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 09:32 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I know this is going to shock everyone but the lying Paternos publicly swore up and down for years that they were fighting like hell for Pitt to get into the Big Ten if it were to ever expand. Then, after Nebraska, they said, "What could we do, we were outvoted?" Then, after Rutgers and Maryland went to the B1G, Jay Paterno wrote an editorial for the Centre Daily Times (yes those people even wrote for the local newspapers to help control the message up there) in which he said, "Alas, Pitt/Penn State will never happen even though we fought like hell for Pitt to get into the Big Ten for years."

Tell me why on earth Gee would lie about them "abhorring" Pitt?

It doesn't matter because we are thrilled to have landed where we did but it's just example 2,567 of the Paterno's having always been BLATANT and SHAMELESS liars. Anyone who believes anything that comes out of any of their mouths is a gullible rube who gets what he/she deserves.

Why does this surprise you? Almost every school among the old eastern indies cared only about themselves. Why else was there never any give among any of the schools? Nobody was willing to compromise on any point, which is why the old eastern indies are now scattered among the various conferences and many long time eastern rivalries are a thing of the past. Had anyone among the old eastern indies had any consideration for anyone but themselves, we'd have had a strong all sports conference for a long time now and the Big East would never have been anything more than a bunch of mid majors...

While it's true that each school (old eastern indy or not) needs to look out for itself first and foremost, I don't get the none of the eastern indies were willing to "give" statement.

SU, BC, and Pitt showed a willingness to compromise with Miami, acknowledging that the Hurricanes had major travel considerations that the rest of them did not and for the first 5 years they were in the Big East for football, gave them a higher share of the football monies simply on this basis alone.

And then to accommodate them further as the 5 year period was coming up they were willing to compromise again giving a higher percentage to the team that won the conference more money. It wasn't SU's, BC's, or Pitt's fault that Miami went on probation at that point allowing SU and then VT to wind up with the extra money.

What SU, Pitt, and BC weren't willing to do was JoePa's "compromise" which was share the basketball money evenly but give the Nits a larger share of the football revenue just for being Penn State.

I don't consider that not willing to compromise but rather not willing to bend over and (well, you get the gist).

Cheers,
Neil

(05-31-2013 04:32 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 04:18 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  “My view, very candidly — and I’ve said this to you before and I’m not certain if [athletic director] Gene [Smith] shares this, we haven’t really talked about this — but I think we’re moving precipitously toward about three or four superconferences of about 16 to 20 teams. And the possibility of them bolting from the NCAA is not unlikely.”

“The smaller schools in the Divisions II and III, which have substantial power but no power in terms of television draw or anything else, they have increasingly become rigid about the way that we change some of the rules in support of the revenue-generating institutions. And eventually that’s gonna drive us all into a new kind of a configuration. And that’s where I think we’re going.”

I've seen this play run before.

They ran it to get Division I split into I-A and I-AA in football.
Ran it again to push more of I-A into I-AA.
Used that play to create the federated governance structure.

I suspect there are two possible plays being considering.

Play #1. Strengthening the power of the "equity" conferences. Tweaking the system so you don't see another situation like the stipend where the power leagues approve it and the have nots get it knocked out.

Play #2 Back out of the deal cut when the federated governance structure was adopted that preserved for eternity the revenue formula for the NCAA.

It's worth noting that the quote from Gee bolded above was an answer to a question asking if these changes would mean the death of conferences like the MAC. Gee responds by lumping an FBS conference in with DII and DIII. That is NOT GOOD. ( i hate that arrogant little man so much)

It is no shock that OSU doesn't want UC in the B10. I understand it.
I think that IU and Purdue would also be against UC's inclusion. Since UC joined the BE, they were able to compete and take recruits
from both those schools and compete (but usually end up losing )with MSU. No way any of those school gives up advantage to additional Ohio school.

(06-01-2013 11:42 AM)bearcat29 Wrote:  It is no shock that OSU doesn't want UC in the B10. I understand it.
I think that IU and Purdue would also be against UC's inclusion. Since UC joined the BE, they were able to compete and take recruits
from both those schools and compete (but usually end up losing )with MSU. No way any of those school gives up advantage to additional Ohio school.

Well, at least this should make Cincy an even more attractive candidate to the ACC should they decide to move 16.

Cheers,
Neil

(05-31-2013 04:47 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 04:18 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  “I think that when we added Nebraska, it caused a whole domino effect that I don't think that we quite predicted. I think if we had predicted that, we would have added Missouri and Kansas at the same time, right Gene?"
Gene (OSU's AD) - "That was on the table."

That was a huge decision point, then. The Big 12 was saved by only losing two schools one year and then two more the next. If they had lost four at once (Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Colorado), then maybe TAMU goes to the SEC then instead of a year later, and UT and OU don't think the Big 12 is worth saving, and they just make the best deal they can with the Pac (or the SEC).

Also at that point, A&M decided to build support for a move to the SEC instead of leaving right away. Would the B1G have gone for Missouri and Kansas if A&M moved to the SEC in 2010?

(06-01-2013 11:38 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 10:08 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 09:32 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I know this is going to shock everyone but the lying Paternos publicly swore up and down for years that they were fighting like hell for Pitt to get into the Big Ten if it were to ever expand. Then, after Nebraska, they said, "What could we do, we were outvoted?" Then, after Rutgers and Maryland went to the B1G, Jay Paterno wrote an editorial for the Centre Daily Times (yes those people even wrote for the local newspapers to help control the message up there) in which he said, "Alas, Pitt/Penn State will never happen even though we fought like hell for Pitt to get into the Big Ten for years."

Tell me why on earth Gee would lie about them "abhorring" Pitt?

It doesn't matter because we are thrilled to have landed where we did but it's just example 2,567 of the Paterno's having always been BLATANT and SHAMELESS liars. Anyone who believes anything that comes out of any of their mouths is a gullible rube who gets what he/she deserves.

Why does this surprise you? Almost every school among the old eastern indies cared only about themselves. Why else was there never any give among any of the schools? Nobody was willing to compromise on any point, which is why the old eastern indies are now scattered among the various conferences and many long time eastern rivalries are a thing of the past. Had anyone among the old eastern indies had any consideration for anyone but themselves, we'd have had a strong all sports conference for a long time now and the Big East would never have been anything more than a bunch of mid majors...

While it's true that each school (old eastern indy or not) needs to look out for itself first and foremost, I don't get the none of the eastern indies were willing to "give" statement.

SU, BC, and Pitt showed a willingness to compromise with Miami, acknowledging that the Hurricanes had major travel considerations that the rest of them did not and for the first 5 years they were in the Big East for football, gave them a higher share of the football monies simply on this basis alone.

And then to accommodate them further as the 5 year period was coming up they were willing to compromise again giving a higher percentage to the team that won the conference more money. It wasn't SU's, BC's, or Pitt's fault that Miami went on probation at that point allowing SU and then VT to wind up with the extra money.

What SU, Pitt, and BC weren't willing to do was JoePa's "compromise" which was share the basketball money evenly but give the Nits a larger share of the football revenue just for being Penn State.

I don't consider that not willing to compromise but rather not willing to bend over and (well, you get the gist).

Neil, we disagree on this. Syracuse and BC were never willing to compromise on anything that didn't benefit them in some way, and Pitt never made any decisions until the outcome had already been decided...

Every Mizzou person I have talked to or read is thrilled about how things are going in the SEC so far (except Gary Pinkel). USAFMEDIC filled me in that they love being in the SEC East because they can recruit Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina. They have a built-in recruiting advantage that they would lose if they went to the B1G now (I don't see any B1G coach beating Urban Meyer in Florida for the foreseeable future).

(06-01-2013 11:38 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 10:08 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 09:32 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I know this is going to shock everyone but the lying Paternos publicly swore up and down for years that they were fighting like hell for Pitt to get into the Big Ten if it were to ever expand. Then, after Nebraska, they said, "What could we do, we were outvoted?" Then, after Rutgers and Maryland went to the B1G, Jay Paterno wrote an editorial for the Centre Daily Times (yes those people even wrote for the local newspapers to help control the message up there) in which he said, "Alas, Pitt/Penn State will never happen even though we fought like hell for Pitt to get into the Big Ten for years."

Tell me why on earth Gee would lie about them "abhorring" Pitt?

It doesn't matter because we are thrilled to have landed where we did but it's just example 2,567 of the Paterno's having always been BLATANT and SHAMELESS liars. Anyone who believes anything that comes out of any of their mouths is a gullible rube who gets what he/she deserves.

Why does this surprise you? Almost every school among the old eastern indies cared only about themselves. Why else was there never any give among any of the schools? Nobody was willing to compromise on any point, which is why the old eastern indies are now scattered among the various conferences and many long time eastern rivalries are a thing of the past. Had anyone among the old eastern indies had any consideration for anyone but themselves, we'd have had a strong all sports conference for a long time now and the Big East would never have been anything more than a bunch of mid majors...

While it's true that each school (old eastern indy or not) needs to look out for itself first and foremost, I don't get the none of the eastern indies were willing to "give" statement.

SU, BC, and Pitt showed a willingness to compromise with Miami, acknowledging that the Hurricanes had major travel considerations that the rest of them did not and for the first 5 years they were in the Big East for football, gave them a higher share of the football monies simply on this basis alone.

And then to accommodate them further as the 5 year period was coming up they were willing to compromise again giving a higher percentage to the team that won the conference more money. It wasn't SU's, BC's, or Pitt's fault that Miami went on probation at that point allowing SU and then VT to wind up with the extra money.

What SU, Pitt, and BC weren't willing to do was JoePa's "compromise" which was share the basketball money evenly but give the Nits a larger share of the football revenue just for being Penn State.

I don't consider that not willing to compromise but rather not willing to bend over and (well, you get the gist).

Cheers,
Neil

Maybe. Don't forget that Miami hired Washington State's AD with the purpose of joining the ACC, even following the ACC to its meetings so they could gain favor for conference inclusion.

Yeah, that bloc played ball with UMFL, but was it because they wanted to or because they had to? The Big East wanted Rutgers as a founding member, and then when Rutgers did finally want to join, wasn't their olympic sports turned away (partly at the hands of the school who gained from the rebuff, Seton Hall, no less). And VT had to buy into the conference to park its other sports.

Miami might be the lone exception, might be. But even that SU-BC-Pitt thing...not as strong and cohesive as it looks. The "legacy" of the eastern independents and mid-south institutions is very much a real thing. It still exists even at the lower levels: Villanova and Temple, Hofstra and Stony Brook, Youngstown State and the MAC...it's legit.

As for PSU-Pitt...as a PSU alum, I do really think Paterno wanted Pitt. I suspect Jordan and Spanier didn't. Guess who gets to vote?

I keep hoping for a last-second miracle that before Pitt is officially aligned with the ACC and bound by the GoR, the B1G swoops in and nabs them. Maybe with better leadership at Penn State, those goons can be talked down

(06-01-2013 12:37 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 11:38 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 10:08 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 09:32 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I know this is going to shock everyone but the lying Paternos publicly swore up and down for years that they were fighting like hell for Pitt to get into the Big Ten if it were to ever expand. Then, after Nebraska, they said, "What could we do, we were outvoted?" Then, after Rutgers and Maryland went to the B1G, Jay Paterno wrote an editorial for the Centre Daily Times (yes those people even wrote for the local newspapers to help control the message up there) in which he said, "Alas, Pitt/Penn State will never happen even though we fought like hell for Pitt to get into the Big Ten for years."

Tell me why on earth Gee would lie about them "abhorring" Pitt?

It doesn't matter because we are thrilled to have landed where we did but it's just example 2,567 of the Paterno's having always been BLATANT and SHAMELESS liars. Anyone who believes anything that comes out of any of their mouths is a gullible rube who gets what he/she deserves.

Why does this surprise you? Almost every school among the old eastern indies cared only about themselves. Why else was there never any give among any of the schools? Nobody was willing to compromise on any point, which is why the old eastern indies are now scattered among the various conferences and many long time eastern rivalries are a thing of the past. Had anyone among the old eastern indies had any consideration for anyone but themselves, we'd have had a strong all sports conference for a long time now and the Big East would never have been anything more than a bunch of mid majors...

While it's true that each school (old eastern indy or not) needs to look out for itself first and foremost, I don't get the none of the eastern indies were willing to "give" statement.

SU, BC, and Pitt showed a willingness to compromise with Miami, acknowledging that the Hurricanes had major travel considerations that the rest of them did not and for the first 5 years they were in the Big East for football, gave them a higher share of the football monies simply on this basis alone.

And then to accommodate them further as the 5 year period was coming up they were willing to compromise again giving a higher percentage to the team that won the conference more money. It wasn't SU's, BC's, or Pitt's fault that Miami went on probation at that point allowing SU and then VT to wind up with the extra money.

What SU, Pitt, and BC weren't willing to do was JoePa's "compromise" which was share the basketball money evenly but give the Nits a larger share of the football revenue just for being Penn State.

I don't consider that not willing to compromise but rather not willing to bend over and (well, you get the gist).

Neil, we disagree on this. Syracuse and BC were never willing to compromise on anything that didn't benefit them in some way, and Pitt never made any decisions until the outcome had already been decided...

Hail bit,

We've had this discussion many times in the past and you have yet to put forth anything that even remotely supports your position on this other than WVU and Rutgers were willing and SU, BC, and Pitt were not.

My stance continues to be that WVU and Rutgers had nothing to lose so bending over to JoePa's demands was a natural thing for them to do.

SU, BC, and Pitt had things to lose - the latter two (although BC was bad in basketball at that time) the lucrative money they were already making in BE basketball that would have not only gone down in JoePa's northeastern conference but then would have had to have that smaller amount of money evenly distributed with bad basketball programs such as Penn State, WVU (last in the NCAAs in two decades prior), and mediocre ones like Rutgers, Temple (although they were on the rise in the early 80s), BC, and Pitt.

And of course, Pitt, which was on near equal footing with Penn State in football. For the decade of the 70s, PSU is considered the 9th best program and Pittsburgh the 13th best.

See, SU, BC, and Pitt had tangible things to lose. JoePa was the one unwilling to compromise, equal revenue sharing in basketball but uneven revenue sharing in football. That may seem reasonable in today's light, but it wasn't that cut and dried back in the late 70s and early 80s.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-01-2013 12:40 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 11:38 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 10:08 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Why does this surprise you? Almost every school among the old eastern indies cared only about themselves. Why else was there never any give among any of the schools? Nobody was willing to compromise on any point, which is why the old eastern indies are now scattered among the various conferences and many long time eastern rivalries are a thing of the past. Had anyone among the old eastern indies had any consideration for anyone but themselves, we'd have had a strong all sports conference for a long time now and the Big East would never have been anything more than a bunch of mid majors...

While it's true that each school (old eastern indy or not) needs to look out for itself first and foremost, I don't get the none of the eastern indies were willing to "give" statement.

SU, BC, and Pitt showed a willingness to compromise with Miami, acknowledging that the Hurricanes had major travel considerations that the rest of them did not and for the first 5 years they were in the Big East for football, gave them a higher share of the football monies simply on this basis alone.

And then to accommodate them further as the 5 year period was coming up they were willing to compromise again giving a higher percentage to the team that won the conference more money. It wasn't SU's, BC's, or Pitt's fault that Miami went on probation at that point allowing SU and then VT to wind up with the extra money.

What SU, Pitt, and BC weren't willing to do was JoePa's "compromise" which was share the basketball money evenly but give the Nits a larger share of the football revenue just for being Penn State.

I don't consider that not willing to compromise but rather not willing to bend over and (well, you get the gist).

Cheers,
Neil

Maybe. Don't forget that Miami hired Washington State's AD with the purpose of joining the ACC, even following the ACC to its meetings so they could gain favor for conference inclusion.

Yeah, that bloc played ball with UMFL, but was it because they wanted to or because they had to? The Big East wanted Rutgers as a founding member, and then when Rutgers did finally want to join, wasn't their olympic sports turned away (partly at the hands of the school who gained from the rebuff, Seton Hall, no less). And VT had to buy into the conference to park its other sports.

Miami might be the lone exception, might be. But even that SU-BC-Pitt thing...not as strong and cohesive as it looks. The "legacy" of the eastern independents and mid-south institutions is very much a real thing. It still exists even at the lower levels: Villanova and Temple, Hofstra and Stony Brook, Youngstown State and the MAC...it's legit.

As for PSU-Pitt...as a PSU alum, I do really think Paterno wanted Pitt. I suspect Jordan and Spanier didn't. Guess who gets to vote?

I keep hoping for a last-second miracle that before Pitt is officially aligned with the ACC and bound by the GoR, the B1G swoops in and nabs them. Maybe with better leadership at Penn State, those goons can be talked down

I believe Jankovich was hired in 1982 and lasted to 1990 and the ACC at that time had made it perfectly clear they considered Miami equivalent to a plague. I'm not sure where you are going with bringing him up.

Another hire in that same time frame is far more relevant to this conversation, imho, and that is Bryce Jordan, hired in 1983 who came in with the goal of getting PSU into the Big Ten.

In either case, as I mentioned in my earlier post, I don't begrudge any university looking out for #1 first. We might disagree what constitutes looking out for #1 such as was it really in Miami's best interests to go to the ACC or for PSU to go to the Big Ten in terms of athletics instead of investigating a possible ACC option (I think mostly all would argue they were no-brainers in terms of academics of where they each were at the moment in time they joined the ACC and Big Ten).

My point goes to this notion by bit (and we have had several discussions over the years on this topic) that if SU, BC, and Pitt had acquiesced to JoePa's wishes (re: demands) like WVU and Rutgers were willing to do, things would have worked out differently.

The post I made was that we have a history of SU, BC, and Pitt being willing to compromise and we have a history of JoePa not being willing to.

So naturally, in that environment one will do what is in it's own best interests to do at that time. It's easy to look back from 2000 on and say SU, BC, and Pitt should have bowed down, but even then that's too simplistic since had the Big Ten offer came, Bryce Jordan still would have left.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-01-2013 12:40 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 11:38 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 10:08 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 09:32 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I know this is going to shock everyone but the lying Paternos publicly swore up and down for years that they were fighting like hell for Pitt to get into the Big Ten if it were to ever expand. Then, after Nebraska, they said, "What could we do, we were outvoted?" Then, after Rutgers and Maryland went to the B1G, Jay Paterno wrote an editorial for the Centre Daily Times (yes those people even wrote for the local newspapers to help control the message up there) in which he said, "Alas, Pitt/Penn State will never happen even though we fought like hell for Pitt to get into the Big Ten for years."

Tell me why on earth Gee would lie about them "abhorring" Pitt?

It doesn't matter because we are thrilled to have landed where we did but it's just example 2,567 of the Paterno's having always been BLATANT and SHAMELESS liars. Anyone who believes anything that comes out of any of their mouths is a gullible rube who gets what he/she deserves.

Why does this surprise you? Almost every school among the old eastern indies cared only about themselves. Why else was there never any give among any of the schools? Nobody was willing to compromise on any point, which is why the old eastern indies are now scattered among the various conferences and many long time eastern rivalries are a thing of the past. Had anyone among the old eastern indies had any consideration for anyone but themselves, we'd have had a strong all sports conference for a long time now and the Big East would never have been anything more than a bunch of mid majors...

While it's true that each school (old eastern indy or not) needs to look out for itself first and foremost, I don't get the none of the eastern indies were willing to "give" statement.

SU, BC, and Pitt showed a willingness to compromise with Miami, acknowledging that the Hurricanes had major travel considerations that the rest of them did not and for the first 5 years they were in the Big East for football, gave them a higher share of the football monies simply on this basis alone.

And then to accommodate them further as the 5 year period was coming up they were willing to compromise again giving a higher percentage to the team that won the conference more money. It wasn't SU's, BC's, or Pitt's fault that Miami went on probation at that point allowing SU and then VT to wind up with the extra money.

What SU, Pitt, and BC weren't willing to do was JoePa's "compromise" which was share the basketball money evenly but give the Nits a larger share of the football revenue just for being Penn State.

I don't consider that not willing to compromise but rather not willing to bend over and (well, you get the gist).

Cheers,
Neil

Maybe. Don't forget that Miami hired Washington State's AD with the purpose of joining the ACC, even following the ACC to its meetings so they could gain favor for conference inclusion.

Yeah, that bloc played ball with UMFL, but was it because they wanted to or because they had to? The Big East wanted Rutgers as a founding member, and then when Rutgers did finally want to join, wasn't their olympic sports turned away (partly at the hands of the school who gained from the rebuff, Seton Hall, no less). And VT had to buy into the conference to park its other sports.

Miami might be the lone exception, might be. But even that SU-BC-Pitt thing...not as strong and cohesive as it looks. The "legacy" of the eastern independents and mid-south institutions is very much a real thing. It still exists even at the lower levels: Villanova and Temple, Hofstra and Stony Brook, Youngstown State and the MAC...it's legit.

As for PSU-Pitt...as a PSU alum, I do really think Paterno wanted Pitt. I suspect Jordan and Spanier didn't. Guess who gets to vote?

I keep hoping for a last-second miracle that before Pitt is officially aligned with the ACC and bound by the GoR, the B1G swoops in and nabs them. Maybe with better leadership at Penn State, those goons can be talked down

Youngstown's biggest problem with getting into the MAC is that there are already so many Ohio schools in the MAC and two already in NE Ohio. Youngstown State is essentially a smaller less powerful Akron and some could debate on whether Akron should have been allowed in what with KSU right next door. If Akron and Kent were not in the MAC in the 90s then Youngstown may have had a chance. That is a bit of a far cry from what most of these schools are trying to prevent.

The big 10 really did treat missouri like dogcrap:

http://tigerboard.com/boards/missouri-ti...ge=7631170

Yet, if missouri doesn't put up some football W's after 5 years or so in the sec, they might welcome a big 10 move. Or they could view the big 10 they way the acc looks at uconn, toxic. ITs not like missouri was winning big in football anywhere, so they take it on the chin in the sec but should do very well in hoops all the while collect nice $.

(06-01-2013 01:48 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 12:37 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 11:38 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 10:08 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 09:32 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I know this is going to shock everyone but the lying Paternos publicly swore up and down for years that they were fighting like hell for Pitt to get into the Big Ten if it were to ever expand. Then, after Nebraska, they said, "What could we do, we were outvoted?" Then, after Rutgers and Maryland went to the B1G, Jay Paterno wrote an editorial for the Centre Daily Times (yes those people even wrote for the local newspapers to help control the message up there) in which he said, "Alas, Pitt/Penn State will never happen even though we fought like hell for Pitt to get into the Big Ten for years."

Tell me why on earth Gee would lie about them "abhorring" Pitt?

It doesn't matter because we are thrilled to have landed where we did but it's just example 2,567 of the Paterno's having always been BLATANT and SHAMELESS liars. Anyone who believes anything that comes out of any of their mouths is a gullible rube who gets what he/she deserves.

Why does this surprise you? Almost every school among the old eastern indies cared only about themselves. Why else was there never any give among any of the schools? Nobody was willing to compromise on any point, which is why the old eastern indies are now scattered among the various conferences and many long time eastern rivalries are a thing of the past. Had anyone among the old eastern indies had any consideration for anyone but themselves, we'd have had a strong all sports conference for a long time now and the Big East would never have been anything more than a bunch of mid majors...

While it's true that each school (old eastern indy or not) needs to look out for itself first and foremost, I don't get the none of the eastern indies were willing to "give" statement.

SU, BC, and Pitt showed a willingness to compromise with Miami, acknowledging that the Hurricanes had major travel considerations that the rest of them did not and for the first 5 years they were in the Big East for football, gave them a higher share of the football monies simply on this basis alone.

And then to accommodate them further as the 5 year period was coming up they were willing to compromise again giving a higher percentage to the team that won the conference more money. It wasn't SU's, BC's, or Pitt's fault that Miami went on probation at that point allowing SU and then VT to wind up with the extra money.

What SU, Pitt, and BC weren't willing to do was JoePa's "compromise" which was share the basketball money evenly but give the Nits a larger share of the football revenue just for being Penn State.

I don't consider that not willing to compromise but rather not willing to bend over and (well, you get the gist).

Neil, we disagree on this. Syracuse and BC were never willing to compromise on anything that didn't benefit them in some way, and Pitt never made any decisions until the outcome had already been decided...

Hail bit,

We've had this discussion many times in the past and you have yet to put forth anything that even remotely supports your position on this other than WVU and Rutgers were willing and SU, BC, and Pitt were not.

My stance continues to be that WVU and Rutgers had nothing to lose so bending over to JoePa's demands was a natural thing for them to do.

SU, BC, and Pitt had things to lose - the latter two (although BC was bad in basketball at that time) the lucrative money they were already making in BE basketball that would have not only gone down in JoePa's northeastern conference but then would have had to have that smaller amount of money evenly distributed with bad basketball programs such as Penn State, WVU (last in the NCAAs in two decades prior), and mediocre ones like Rutgers, Temple (although they were on the rise in the early 80s), BC, and Pitt.

And of course, Pitt, which was on near equal footing with Penn State in football. For the decade of the 70s, PSU is considered the 9th best program and Pittsburgh the 13th best.

See, SU, BC, and Pitt had tangible things to lose. JoePa was the one unwilling to compromise, equal revenue sharing in basketball but uneven revenue sharing in football. That may seem reasonable in today's light, but it wasn't that cut and dried back in the late 70s and early 80s.

Neil, WVU wasn't bending over for anything. WVU AD Red Brown refused all of the demands put forth by Penn State, and Leland Byrd, who replaced Brown, tried to work on a compromise solution. But by the time Byrd resigned as WVU's AD, BC and Syracuse had already made their decision to bail on their old rivals for the Big East...

Before I can go into further detail about the events that surrounded the possible formation of JoePa's dream conference, I'd have to go into the WV Archives and dig into the old man's notes. He had all the details of all the meetings, including the minutes of all those meetings, as well as notes on the conversations that occurred before and after the meetings...

The local sports radio guys played exerts from Gee. I was shocked to hear him speaking. He didn't sound at all like a college president. What was he thinking?

(06-01-2013 04:55 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Neil, WVU wasn't bending over for anything. WVU AD Red Brown refused all of the demands put forth by Penn State, and Leland Byrd, who replaced Brown, tried to work on a compromise solution. But by the time Byrd resigned as WVU's AD, BC and Syracuse had already made their decision to bail on their old rivals for the Big East...

Before I can go into further detail about the events that surrounded the possible formation of JoePa's dream conference, I'd have to go into the WV Archives and dig into the old man's notes. He had all the details of all the meetings, including the minutes of all those meetings, as well as notes on the conversations that occurred before and after the meetings...

Joe Paterno didn't begin his eastern conference in earnest until two years after the Big East was formed.

Here is the excerpt from Jake Crouthamel's History of the Big East:

http://www.suathletics.com/sports/2001/8/8/history.aspx

In the Spring of 1978, only a few months after my arrival in Syracuse, Dave Gavitt, Jack Kaiser and Frank Rienzo, Athletics Directors at Providence, St. Johns and Georgetown respectively, gathered to discuss newly imposed NCAA men's basketball in-season scheduling requirements. These requirements forced independent institutions like the four of us to align and schedule schools with whom we had no interest or tradition. Self determination was far better than being told who your partners would be, and so the four of us met for countless hours in countless sessions to determine the make-up of our new conference to be. We considered the quality of men's basketball programs in the northeast, regional representation, significant media markets, etc. Boston College was invited over Holy Cross, UMass and Boston University. Connecticut was then added. Rutgers was extended an invitation but declined because it was aligned in the Atlantic 8 (now the Atlantic 10) along with Penn State. Rutgers didn't feel comfortable disassociating itself with Penn State. Seton Hall took Rutgers spot. Villanova was also in the Atlantic 8, but it joined up a year later over Temple and St. Josephs. Thus, in the first year of operation, 1979-80, we had seven active members which increased to eight in 1980-81.

After only two years of existence as a conference formed specifically for men's basketball, football became an issue. Joe Paterno, head football coach and then Director of Athletics at Penn State, had been trying to put together an all-sports conference of the eastern Division IA independent schools. They included Syracuse, Boston College, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, West Virginia and Temple. While our football fortunes would be well served through such an alignment, it would have been a step backward for men's basketball. To enter into such an alignment Syracuse and Boston College would have had to leave the BIG EAST.

The above information about when JoePa was trying to start up the eastern league is backed up by Leland Byrd himself in an article from July 8, 1981:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=25...08,1055123

Cheers,
Neil

(06-01-2013 08:02 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  The local sports radio guys played exerts from Gee. I was shocked to hear him speaking. He didn't sound at all like a college president. What was he thinking?

It's rather apparent that he doesn't think. He just shoots his mouth off.

I never understood the logic that Jordan's tenure made PSU's Big Ten membership a fait accompli even before 1990. If there was any common sense between the likes of Pitt, Syracuse, BC, PSU, WVU, Army, and Navy...if that core was bound, it wouldn't matter what other conferences did...the students, alumni, and boosters at those schools would have made it difficult to leave without some back-room shenanigans making it impossible to stop (which is kind of what Jordan had to do at PSU without Paterno, which should say something). It's easy to say now that academics would have made a mover of some of these schools...but that's as neither here nor there, just as my suspicion is. We don't know. It didn't happen that way.

That's the legacy of the eastern independents and the mid-south. Even the short detentes are just that: short. There has never been any sort of allegiance to anyone. Not even between intrastate peer institutions. And all are just as guilty as they are a victim.

This is going to be a monumental year in these parts. Not only is it probably the last time anyone will see Louisville, Cincinnati, and Memphis in a conference together for football and basketball again in their lifetime, but it's also the first time not a single PA Commonwealth school (Pitt, PSU, and Temple) will be playing each other in football since the Depression. Add West Virginia to that stat, and you have to go back to 1899.

(06-01-2013 08:05 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 04:55 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Neil, WVU wasn't bending over for anything. WVU AD Red Brown refused all of the demands put forth by Penn State, and Leland Byrd, who replaced Brown, tried to work on a compromise solution. But by the time Byrd resigned as WVU's AD, BC and Syracuse had already made their decision to bail on their old rivals for the Big East...

Before I can go into further detail about the events that surrounded the possible formation of JoePa's dream conference, I'd have to go into the WV Archives and dig into the old man's notes. He had all the details of all the meetings, including the minutes of all those meetings, as well as notes on the conversations that occurred before and after the meetings...

Joe Paterno didn't begin his eastern conference in earnest until two years after the Big East was formed.

Here is the excerpt from Jake Crouthamel's History of the Big East:

http://www.suathletics.com/sports/2001/8/8/history.aspx

In the Spring of 1978, only a few months after my arrival in Syracuse, Dave Gavitt, Jack Kaiser and Frank Rienzo, Athletics Directors at Providence, St. Johns and Georgetown respectively, gathered to discuss newly imposed NCAA men's basketball in-season scheduling requirements. These requirements forced independent institutions like the four of us to align and schedule schools with whom we had no interest or tradition. Self determination was far better than being told who your partners would be, and so the four of us met for countless hours in countless sessions to determine the make-up of our new conference to be. We considered the quality of men's basketball programs in the northeast, regional representation, significant media markets, etc. Boston College was invited over Holy Cross, UMass and Boston University. Connecticut was then added. Rutgers was extended an invitation but declined because it was aligned in the Atlantic 8 (now the Atlantic 10) along with Penn State. Rutgers didn't feel comfortable disassociating itself with Penn State. Seton Hall took Rutgers spot. Villanova was also in the Atlantic 8, but it joined up a year later over Temple and St. Josephs. Thus, in the first year of operation, 1979-80, we had seven active members which increased to eight in 1980-81.

After only two years of existence as a conference formed specifically for men's basketball, football became an issue. Joe Paterno, head football coach and then Director of Athletics at Penn State, had been trying to put together an all-sports conference of the eastern Division IA independent schools. They included Syracuse, Boston College, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, West Virginia and Temple. While our football fortunes would be well served through such an alignment, it would have been a step backward for men's basketball. To enter into such an alignment Syracuse and Boston College would have had to leave the BIG EAST.

The above information about when JoePa was trying to start up the eastern league is backed up by Leland Byrd himself in an article from July 8, 1981:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=25...08,1055123

Neil, the drive to form an eastern all sports conference had been an ongoing effort since the late 1960s. Paterno wasn't the only one pushing. He was merely the most high profile name. Red Brown and Leland Byrd both took part in meetings to that effect. I remember my father covering one such effort in the summer of 1968...