https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ontheba...c-football

(09-18-2019 10:14 AM)BraveKnight Wrote:  https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ontheba...c-football

Some things I know, before and after skimming this article:

The ACC tried to kill the Big East for 10 years, and finally succeeded. The Big East stupidly didn't realize that from 2000 onwards, this was ACC strategy. Not even after the 2003 raid.

The ACC was never going to add Rutgers, because of the lawsuits.

Rutgers is the luckiest school in the entire realignment process.

As I mentioned in another thread a few days ago, the Big East was the best platform for Miami, Rutgers, Syracuse, Pitt, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, Boston College and Louisville. They are where they are today because of the Big East. The biggest loser IMO was Temple more so than UConn, Cincinnati and South Florida. The former had a relationship with most of them that goes back to their independent days and the latter even though they lost their power status, they only played football in the Big East for less than a decade.

(09-18-2019 10:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The ACC tried to kill the Big East for 10 years, and finally succeeded. The Big East stupidly didn't realize that from 2000 onwards, this was ACC strategy. Not even after the 2003 raid.

Considering one of the driving factors behind UConn deciding to upgrade football in the 90s was a desire to stay attached to Cause and BC in an eventual split, I've gotta say you're wrong here.

Also, the Big East is about to have half of the last half-dozen National Championships under their roof. Far from dead.

(09-18-2019 10:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 10:14 AM)BraveKnight Wrote:  https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ontheba...c-football

Some things I know, before and after skimming this article:

The ACC tried to kill the Big East for 10 years, and finally succeeded. The Big East stupidly didn't realize that from 2000 onwards, this was ACC strategy. Not even after the 2003 raid.

The ACC was never going to add Rutgers, because of the lawsuits.

Rutgers is the luckiest school in the entire realignment process.

I think the Big East did realize that, especially with Syracuse's flirtation with the ACC in 2003. However, the problem was - and even today remains with the AAC - there are no more sensible backfill candidates that add value to the league's existing structure after membership departs.

After 2005, when Big East Football was constant at eight members, the league's structure never was able to agree on any candidates that made universal sense to extend an invitation. Memphis Football was down (even though the basketball schools would have agreed to add them), ECU Basketball prevented them from ever being considered a serious all-sports member, Temple was never going to be a full-member with Villanova present (and their football had just been booted), UCF was being blocked by USF (and they still did not have enough momentum in football to be considered), Navy was never going to come along without the Houston/SMU combo and Houston/SMU were never going to be added unless there was a Western wing that would be added (and everyone knows how big a failure the Boise St/SDSU experiment failed). Other than Army, who still clings to FBS Independence, there were really no other legitimate candidates (and it was likely Army would have rebuffed any overtures). To maximize value, the football and basketball schools remained together for as long as they could; when that partnership was no longer valuable to either party, the true split occurred.

The beginning of the end for Big East Football was when Miami, Virginia Tech and Boston College left for the ACC. The football schools that were left behind from 2005 onwards were living on borrowed time; many were able to get life rafts off (Syracuse, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Rutgers, Louisville), while some were left behind altogether (UConn, Cincinnati, USF).

(09-18-2019 10:45 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 10:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 10:14 AM)BraveKnight Wrote:  https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ontheba...c-football

Some things I know, before and after skimming this article:

The ACC tried to kill the Big East for 10 years, and finally succeeded. The Big East stupidly didn't realize that from 2000 onwards, this was ACC strategy. Not even after the 2003 raid.

The ACC was never going to add Rutgers, because of the lawsuits.

Rutgers is the luckiest school in the entire realignment process.

I think the Big East did realize that, especially with Syracuse's flirtation with the ACC in 2003. However, the problem was - and even today remains with the AAC - there are no more sensible backfill candidates that add value to the league's existing structure after membership departs.

After 2005, when Big East Football was constant at eight members, the league's structure never was able to agree on any candidates that made universal sense to extend an invitation. Memphis Football was down (even though the basketball schools would have agreed to add them), ECU Basketball prevented them from ever being considered a serious all-sports member, Temple was never going to be a full-member with Villanova present (and their football had just been booted), UCF was being blocked by USF (and they still did not have enough momentum in football to be considered), Navy was never going to come along without the Houston/SMU combo and Houston/SMU were never going to be added unless there was a Western wing that would be added (and everyone knows how big a failure the Boise St/SDSU experiment failed). Other than Army, who still clings to FBS Independence, there were really no other legitimate candidates (and it was likely Army would have rebuffed any overtures). To maximize value, the football and basketball schools remained together for as long as they could; when that partnership was no longer valuable to either party, the true split occurred.

The beginning of the end for Big East Football was when Miami, Virginia Tech and Boston College left for the ACC. The football schools that were left behind from 2005 onwards were living on borrowed time; many were able to get life rafts off (Syracuse, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Rutgers, Louisville), while some were left behind altogether (UConn, Cincinnati, USF).

I'll play a bit of a devil's advocate against the notion that the Big East football and non-football schools couldn't come to an agreement on adding a school.

Remember TCU? They accepted an invitation to the Big East for all sports in late 2010, months before Syracuse, Pitt, or WVU announced they were bolting.

(09-18-2019 10:54 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 10:45 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 10:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 10:14 AM)BraveKnight Wrote:  https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ontheba...c-football

Some things I know, before and after skimming this article:

The ACC tried to kill the Big East for 10 years, and finally succeeded. The Big East stupidly didn't realize that from 2000 onwards, this was ACC strategy. Not even after the 2003 raid.

The ACC was never going to add Rutgers, because of the lawsuits.

Rutgers is the luckiest school in the entire realignment process.

I think the Big East did realize that, especially with Syracuse's flirtation with the ACC in 2003. However, the problem was - and even today remains with the AAC - there are no more sensible backfill candidates that add value to the league's existing structure after membership departs.

After 2005, when Big East Football was constant at eight members, the league's structure never was able to agree on any candidates that made universal sense to extend an invitation. Memphis Football was down (even though the basketball schools would have agreed to add them), ECU Basketball prevented them from ever being considered a serious all-sports member, Temple was never going to be a full-member with Villanova present (and their football had just been booted), UCF was being blocked by USF (and they still did not have enough momentum in football to be considered), Navy was never going to come along without the Houston/SMU combo and Houston/SMU were never going to be added unless there was a Western wing that would be added (and everyone knows how big a failure the Boise St/SDSU experiment failed). Other than Army, who still clings to FBS Independence, there were really no other legitimate candidates (and it was likely Army would have rebuffed any overtures). To maximize value, the football and basketball schools remained together for as long as they could; when that partnership was no longer valuable to either party, the true split occurred.

The beginning of the end for Big East Football was when Miami, Virginia Tech and Boston College left for the ACC. The football schools that were left behind from 2005 onwards were living on borrowed time; many were able to get life rafts off (Syracuse, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Rutgers, Louisville), while some were left behind altogether (UConn, Cincinnati, USF).

I'll play a bit of a devil's advocate against the notion that the Big East football and non-football schools couldn't come to an agreement on adding a school.

Remember TCU? They accepted an invitation to the Big East for all sports in late 2010, months before Syracuse, Pitt, or WVU announced they were bolting.

If I remember correctly, the basketball schools didn’t want TCU and they were initially offered football only. TCU said “all sports or nothing” and the Big East caved.

As Golden Warrior11 stated, there was not a single school that satisfied the football and basketball faction. Either “x” school was good in football and horrible in basketball and viceversa. TCU’s football success overcame their lack of success in basketball and if you look at the other football alternatives at the time like Memphis, Temple, Houston, UCF, SMU, Marshall, Southern Miss and East Carolina, they were not even close to TCU’s record.

(09-18-2019 10:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 10:14 AM)BraveKnight Wrote:  https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ontheba...c-football

Some things I know, before and after skimming this article:

The ACC tried to kill the Big East for 10 years, and finally succeeded. The Big East stupidly didn't realize that from 2000 onwards, this was ACC strategy. Not even after the 2003 raid.

The ACC was never going to add Rutgers, because of the lawsuits.

Rutgers is the luckiest school in the entire realignment process.

From a fan perspective, is Rutgers really lucky? Sure, they get to see marquee B1G programs come and play in their stadium....... but for true fans of the program, they will NEVER see them play in any meaningful bowl. In fact, they have been subjugated to losing seasons without even qualifying for a bowl. This is going to be a never ending futile cycle for them. They will never able to build a program.

Honestly, they would have had a much better shot of building up the football program through the AAC. However, from a college administrator position, you get fired if you turn down $40-50 million a year.

(09-18-2019 11:14 AM)otown Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 10:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 10:14 AM)BraveKnight Wrote:  https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ontheba...c-football

Some things I know, before and after skimming this article:

The ACC tried to kill the Big East for 10 years, and finally succeeded. The Big East stupidly didn't realize that from 2000 onwards, this was ACC strategy. Not even after the 2003 raid.

The ACC was never going to add Rutgers, because of the lawsuits.

Rutgers is the luckiest school in the entire realignment process.

From a fan perspective, is Rutgers really lucky? Sure, they get to see marquee B1G programs come and play in their stadium....... but for true fans of the program, they will NEVER see them play in any meaningful bowl. In fact, they have been subjugated to losing seasons without even qualifying for a bowl. This is going to be a never ending futile cycle for them. They will never able to build a program.

Honestly, they would have had a much better shot of building up the futball program through the AAC. However, from a college administrator position, you get fired if you turn down $40-50 million a year.

There's truth to this, especially if the B1G maintains their current divisional setup. Rutgers best chance at making the most of the B1G may actually be attempting to become a basketball school that cashes big football checks.

(09-18-2019 10:54 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 10:45 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 10:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 10:14 AM)BraveKnight Wrote:  https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ontheba...c-football

Some things I know, before and after skimming this article:

The ACC tried to kill the Big East for 10 years, and finally succeeded. The Big East stupidly didn't realize that from 2000 onwards, this was ACC strategy. Not even after the 2003 raid.

The ACC was never going to add Rutgers, because of the lawsuits.

Rutgers is the luckiest school in the entire realignment process.

I think the Big East did realize that, especially with Syracuse's flirtation with the ACC in 2003. However, the problem was - and even today remains with the AAC - there are no more sensible backfill candidates that add value to the league's existing structure after membership departs.

After 2005, when Big East Football was constant at eight members, the league's structure never was able to agree on any candidates that made universal sense to extend an invitation. Memphis Football was down (even though the basketball schools would have agreed to add them), ECU Basketball prevented them from ever being considered a serious all-sports member, Temple was never going to be a full-member with Villanova present (and their football had just been booted), UCF was being blocked by USF (and they still did not have enough momentum in football to be considered), Navy was never going to come along without the Houston/SMU combo and Houston/SMU were never going to be added unless there was a Western wing that would be added (and everyone knows how big a failure the Boise St/SDSU experiment failed). Other than Army, who still clings to FBS Independence, there were really no other legitimate candidates (and it was likely Army would have rebuffed any overtures). To maximize value, the football and basketball schools remained together for as long as they could; when that partnership was no longer valuable to either party, the true split occurred.

The beginning of the end for Big East Football was when Miami, Virginia Tech and Boston College left for the ACC. The football schools that were left behind from 2005 onwards were living on borrowed time; many were able to get life rafts off (Syracuse, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Rutgers, Louisville), while some were left behind altogether (UConn, Cincinnati, USF).

I'll play a bit of a devil's advocate against the notion that the Big East football and non-football schools couldn't come to an agreement on adding a school.

Remember TCU? They accepted an invitation to the Big East for all sports in late 2010, months before Syracuse, Pitt, or WVU announced they were bolting.

https://www.espn.com/dallas/ncf/news/story?id=5862368

TCU was added as a full member because the league saw the impending storm approaching (i.e. members leaving). The (then) plan was a "compromise" for Villanova to be the league's tenth team, and (in basketball) three repeat games would be moved down to two repeat games.

I would not be surprised if some horse trading was going on at this point - i.e. Football Schools wanted TCU, so Basketball Schools wanted first offer for Villanova. If/when Villanova declined, as widely assumed, then perhaps they got their second pick of Memphis (which Football schools would have been against, but would have approved since they got first pick of TCU). If the ultimate goal was indeed 12 members, in order to stage a CCG, then it's anyone's guess who the next two would have been. Perhaps Houston (full) and Navy (football-only)?

In any event, this theory only furthers home the point that the membership could not agree on a plan of expansion moving forward, which was no doubt a cause/effect of current BEF membership seeking membership in other P5 leagues.

(09-18-2019 11:14 AM)otown Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 10:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 10:14 AM)BraveKnight Wrote:  https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ontheba...c-football

Some things I know, before and after skimming this article:

The ACC tried to kill the Big East for 10 years, and finally succeeded. The Big East stupidly didn't realize that from 2000 onwards, this was ACC strategy. Not even after the 2003 raid.

The ACC was never going to add Rutgers, because of the lawsuits.

Rutgers is the luckiest school in the entire realignment process.

From a fan perspective, is Rutgers really lucky? Sure, they get to see marquee B1G programs come and play in their stadium....... but for true fans of the program, they will NEVER see them play in any meaningful bowl. In fact, they have been subjugated to losing seasons without even qualifying for a bowl. This is going to be a never ending futile cycle for them. They will never able to build a program.

Honestly, they would have had a much better shot of building up the futball program through the AAC. However, from a college administrator position, you get fired if you turn down $40-50 million a year.

Well if you’re Rutgers, would you rather be a loser in the Big Ten getting a $50 million + a year welfare check or in the American getting $7 million? Any AAC school heck any G5 would take Rutgers spot in a heart beat. I’m sure the Big Ten expected more from Maryland than Rutgers. At the end of the day, this is more than football. School presidents, the ones who make decisions like to be associated with like minded academic schools. Rutgers football sucks but it fits the Big Ten’s academic and research criteria.

(09-18-2019 10:40 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  As I mentioned in another thread a few days ago, the Big East was the best platform for Miami, Rutgers, Syracuse, Pitt, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, Boston College and Louisville. They are where they are today because of the Big East. The biggest loser IMO was Temple more so than UConn, Cincinnati and South Florida. The former had a relationship with most of them that goes back to their independent days and the latter even though they lost their power status, they only played football in the Big East for less than a decade.

Temple has no one to blame but themselves.

Playing in front of 4-6K fans at the old Vet sealed their fate. If the right team came in with a fan base that travelled they might hit 10K on special occasions.

(09-18-2019 10:42 AM)Bogg Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 10:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The ACC tried to kill the Big East for 10 years, and finally succeeded. The Big East stupidly didn't realize that from 2000 onwards, this was ACC strategy. Not even after the 2003 raid.

Considering one of the driving factors behind UConn deciding to upgrade football in the 90s was a desire to stay attached to Cause and BC in an eventual split, I've gotta say you're wrong here.

Also, the Big East is about to have half of the last half-dozen National Championships under their roof. Far from dead.

To be clear, I was referring to the Big East as a football conference.

Also, the Big East as a hoops conference has the same number of titles as it has always had. The UConn and Syracuse titles won while in the Big East never left for the AAC or ACC, as they can't leave. Nor can UConn bring back to the Big East the 2014 title it won while in the AAC. That still belongs to the AAC.

Teams can leave conferences, but the titles they won while there remain. They take those titles with them as a school, but not a conference. The two recent football titles that Clemson just won are Clemson's forever, but also the ACC's forever, even if they join the SEC next year, etc.

(09-18-2019 11:14 AM)otown Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 10:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 10:14 AM)BraveKnight Wrote:  https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ontheba...c-football

Some things I know, before and after skimming this article:

The ACC tried to kill the Big East for 10 years, and finally succeeded. The Big East stupidly didn't realize that from 2000 onwards, this was ACC strategy. Not even after the 2003 raid.

The ACC was never going to add Rutgers, because of the lawsuits.

Rutgers is the luckiest school in the entire realignment process.

From a fan perspective, is Rutgers really lucky? Sure, they get to see marquee B1G programs come and play in their stadium....... but for true fans of the program, they will NEVER see them play in any meaningful bowl.

I see what you are getting at, but IMO the answer is clearly Yes, as the "fan perspective", meaning winning games and other results on the field, means almost nothing. College athletics is about money and prestige, they are far and away the most important things, are why the sports exist at the schools.

FAR better to be Rutgers, winning zero games while pocketing $50m a year as part of the B1G, then to be Boise, winning 11 games a year and NY6 Bowl games while pocketing $3m in the MWC. A million miles better.

(09-18-2019 11:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 10:42 AM)Bogg Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 10:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The ACC tried to kill the Big East for 10 years, and finally succeeded. The Big East stupidly didn't realize that from 2000 onwards, this was ACC strategy. Not even after the 2003 raid.

Considering one of the driving factors behind UConn deciding to upgrade football in the 90s was a desire to stay attached to Cause and BC in an eventual split, I've gotta say you're wrong here.

Also, the Big East is about to have half of the last half-dozen National Championships under their roof. Far from dead.

To be clear, I was referring to the Big East as a football conference.

Also, the Big East as a hoops conference has the same number of titles as it has always had. The UConn and Syracuse titles won while in the Big East never left for the AAC or ACC, as they can't leave. Nor can UConn bring back to the Big East the 2014 title it won while in the AAC. That still belongs to the AAC.

Teams can leave conferences, but the titles they won while there remain. They take those titles with them as a school, but not a conference. The two recent football titles that Clemson just won are Clemson's forever, but also the ACC's forever, even if they join the SEC next year, etc.

And that's why I used the phrasing "under their roof" rather than "won". UConn won the title in 2014, UConn will be in the Big East, and so the the 2014 title will be will be under a Big East program. Not the same as saying the Big East won the 2014 title.

(09-18-2019 10:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 10:14 AM)BraveKnight Wrote:  https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ontheba...c-football

Rutgers is the luckiest school in the entire realignment process.

Rutgers was on the Big Ten's radar for years.

https://www.nytimes.com/1994/03/10/sport...-east.html

Quote:By adding Rutgers, which had reportedly discussed the possibility of joining the Big Ten, the Big East prevents that league from establishing a presence in the New York market.

https://oklahoman.com/article/2451811/lo...rd-to-1994

Quote:Big 14 & Hoops Next February, don't be surprised if officials from Missouri, Kansas and Rutgers announce they intend to join the Big Ten Conference. The Big Ten's moratorium on expansion doesn't end until next summer, but that doesn't mean secret meetings aren't already underway.

Missouri's flirtation with the Big Ten is old news. But Kansas reportedly has replaced Nebraska on the league's expansion wish list. Rutgers has surfaced because of the Big Ten's need for some geographic balance and the huge East coast television market.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-x...story.html

Quote:However, the latest conjecture has the Big 10 taking Kansas and Missouri in the West, and Rutgers as an Eastern partner for Penn State. That would swell the Big 10 to 14 schools.

Not really luck if it's something that has been discussed for years.

(09-18-2019 11:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 11:14 AM)otown Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 10:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 10:14 AM)BraveKnight Wrote:  https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ontheba...c-football

Some things I know, before and after skimming this article:

The ACC tried to kill the Big East for 10 years, and finally succeeded. The Big East stupidly didn't realize that from 2000 onwards, this was ACC strategy. Not even after the 2003 raid.

The ACC was never going to add Rutgers, because of the lawsuits.

Rutgers is the luckiest school in the entire realignment process.

From a fan perspective, is Rutgers really lucky? Sure, they get to see marquee B1G programs come and play in their stadium....... but for true fans of the program, they will NEVER see them play in any meaningful bowl.

I see what you are getting at, but IMO the answer is clearly Yes, as the "fan perspective", meaning winning games and other results on the field, means almost nothing. College athletics is about money and prestige, they are far and away the most important things, are why the sports exist at the schools.

FAR better to be Rutgers, winning zero games while pocketing $50m a year as part of the B1G, then to be Boise, winning 11 games a year and NY6 Bowl games while pocketing $3m in the MWC. A million miles better.

Well, like I said, from a school administration perspective, they won the lottery and are lucky. From a fan perspective, their football program might as well be shut down. What they now have is a colosseum to watch bigtime programs come in and slaughter their sacrificial lamb weekly. They have no football program anymore from a true Rutgers' fan perspective.

As far as if they stayed in the AAC.......... once again, from a fan perspective on seeing your teem win, they would certainly have a better chance going bowling, not saying they would win the conference, but they would as least be bowling some years and at least be able to attract "some" recruits to build a better program.

(09-18-2019 12:24 PM)otown Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 11:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 11:14 AM)otown Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 10:21 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 10:14 AM)BraveKnight Wrote:  https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ontheba...c-football

Some things I know, before and after skimming this article:

The ACC tried to kill the Big East for 10 years, and finally succeeded. The Big East stupidly didn't realize that from 2000 onwards, this was ACC strategy. Not even after the 2003 raid.

The ACC was never going to add Rutgers, because of the lawsuits.

Rutgers is the luckiest school in the entire realignment process.

From a fan perspective, is Rutgers really lucky? Sure, they get to see marquee B1G programs come and play in their stadium....... but for true fans of the program, they will NEVER see them play in any meaningful bowl.

I see what you are getting at, but IMO the answer is clearly Yes, as the "fan perspective", meaning winning games and other results on the field, means almost nothing. College athletics is about money and prestige, they are far and away the most important things, are why the sports exist at the schools.

FAR better to be Rutgers, winning zero games while pocketing $50m a year as part of the B1G, then to be Boise, winning 11 games a year and NY6 Bowl games while pocketing $3m in the MWC. A million miles better.

Well, like I said, from a school administration perspective, they wond the loterry and are lucky. From a fan perspective, their football program might as well be shut down. What they now have is a colosseum to watch bigtime programs come in and slaughter their sacrificial lamb weekly. They have no football program anymore from a true Rutgers' fan perspective.

As far as if they stayed in the AAC.......... once again, from a fan perspective on seeing your teem win, they would certainly have a better chance going bowling, not saying they would win the conference, but they would as least be bowling some years and at least be able to attract "some" recruits to build a better program.

They can still do exactly the same in the Big Ten. All they have to do is go 6-6 or 7-5 and they’ll still go to a better bowl than if the were in the AAC with a similar record.

Once Rutgers gets a full share of B1G money, they can pay a good salary to a HC and what’s making the difference now at these middle and bottom B1G and SEC programs is that they have disposable money to pay assistant coaches more.......something that would be impossible in the AAC.

(09-18-2019 11:42 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 10:40 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  As I mentioned in another thread a few days ago, the Big East was the best platform for Miami, Rutgers, Syracuse, Pitt, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, Boston College and Louisville. They are where they are today because of the Big East. The biggest loser IMO was Temple more so than UConn, Cincinnati and South Florida. The former had a relationship with most of them that goes back to their independent days and the latter even though they lost their power status, they only played football in the Big East for less than a decade.

Temple has no one to blame but themselves.

Playing in front of 4-6K fans at the old Vet sealed their fate. If the right team came in with a fan base that travelled they might hit 10K on special occasions.

I absolutely agree with you. It was Temple’s fault and being kicked out of the Big East, being independent for two seasons right after and joining the MAC as a football only was a wake up call for them and they look completely different now. But my point is they still lost those former Eastern independent rivalry games regardless.

Penn St was the glue the Big East, or any eastern conference, needed to hold together. Put Penn St in that league and I believe the league would have held together.

The Big East and SEC would have been the ones dismantling the ACC for parts.