CSNbbs
Uh oh...Villanova's vote delayed - Printable Version

+- CSNbbs (http://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: Archives (/forum-517.html)
+----- Forum: Realignment Archives (/forum-937.html)
+----- Thread: Uh oh...Villanova's vote delayed (/thread-492856.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15


RE: Uh oh...Villanova's vote delayed - KnightLight - 04-12-2011 03:13 PM

(04-12-2011 03:09 PM)WacoBearcat Wrote:  
(04-12-2011 02:42 PM)moron Wrote:  
(04-12-2011 01:21 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Stop blaming the commissioner's office. It's not like this hasn't been on the agenda for two years.

Just because it has been on the agenda doesn't mean that this hasn't been handled with the grace of a quadriplegic ballerina.

From the complete lack of communication, to not setting forth clear expectations for Villanova's stadium, this has been a disaster. The commissioner's office should be the force behind making sure these exact things don't happen. Conference expansion is a big deal for a conference, and it doesn't involve a 'hands off' approach on the part of the commissioner.

The whole charade has been a travesty.

Lack of communication? The no vote does not necessarily equate with a lack of communication. Pitt has voiced its displeaure for some time now about NOVA and football. Pitt even went public with its criticism. I suspect the Commish got an ear full from other football schools as well. IF anything, this is on the Commish and NOVA. This should not have gone to a vote. Obviously, NOVA did not present a workable proposal. If anything, this reflects poorly on NOVA and the Big East Office. And thank you Pitt, Rutgers, and the football schools that had the good sense to do some "bud-nipping."

Ding!


RE: Uh oh...Villanova's vote delayed - moron - 04-12-2011 03:18 PM

(04-12-2011 02:55 PM)saxamoophone Wrote:  From what I hear the fine folks ar Nova are very very very pissed off at the league right now.

Good for them, they should be, and I say that as someone that thinks they have no business playing DI. As a Catholic school, maybe they have time to sell some indulgences and can yet get the money they need (that's a joke, I love you Catholics).


RE: Uh oh...Villanova's vote delayed - Nola Gator - 04-12-2011 04:03 PM

(04-12-2011 01:21 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Stop blaming the commissioner's office. It's not like this hasn't been on the agenda for two years.

And which of these schools voted for Marinnatto--UConn, Louisville, Syracuse, USF, Pitt, Rutgers, WV, or Cincinnati?
Answer: ALL OF THEM. It was unanimous.

Voting for someone originally doesnt relegate you to have to support that person throughout their term. Lots of reps. voted for Bush and then criticized the administration and the same thing is happening with Obama.

And yes, the commissioner's office does deserve a sizeable chunk of blame. All of it? Of course not. But when you look at the other commissioners from BCS leagues (especially watching what those offices did in handling expansion) its pretty obvious that the Big East is poorly run.


RE: Uh oh...Villanova's vote delayed - CatsClaw - 04-12-2011 04:20 PM

You can take the Big 12 off of that list of lucrative conferences Sammy, they are not near the level of the ACC, SEC, Big Ten or PAC-10. You guys are more ripe for the picking than the Big East. You have three conference hovering over that carcass.


RE: Uh oh...Villanova's vote delayed - Kaiser Frog - 04-12-2011 06:09 PM

(04-11-2011 03:08 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  
(04-11-2011 03:03 AM)Frog People Wrote:  I can't imagine them signing off on a 2nd dead weight basketball program just to appease football.
Perhaps the basketball schools noticed something this year, that I have been saying since I joined this site. The best thing that could happen to teams ike Cincinnati, St. Johns, and even DePaul, teams that had been good int he past, but had been struggling, would be the addition of a lower tier team. And what happened this year when the Big East was void of true top level teams? Cincinnati and St. Johns made the NCAA tournament. The best thing that will happen to Big East basketball is the addition of TCU, which will help balance out the league that has too top heavy. This will allow the teams in the middle 1/3 of the conference to flourish, in much the same way that they did this year with only one top seed, to the point that all 11 would have gotten in even in a 65 team field (based on seed).

I was referring to dead weight from a financial standpoint. I'd be surprised if the Big East basketball schools allowed their revenue to be split up 18 ways instead of 16 ways.


RE: Uh oh...Villanova's vote delayed - canewton - 04-12-2011 06:27 PM

(04-11-2011 10:12 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  
(04-11-2011 10:00 PM)canewton Wrote:  
(04-11-2011 09:53 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  
(04-11-2011 09:28 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  
(04-11-2011 02:39 PM)Lonestar Lizard Wrote:  If Nova was in Texas, we'd just pull out a shotgun and say, "You ain't good enuff, now git!"

Kind of like what DeLoss Dodds did to TCU, SMU, UH, and Rice.

Deloss didn't leave TCU, SMU, Rice and UH behind. Politics and their lack of fans left those schools behind.


LOLOLOL UNT

LOLOLOL Coog.

Can you dispute anything I said? In 1993, did UH Rice, SMU and TCU have any kind of Texas legislative support demanding that those schools be included in the Big 12 instead of Baylor and Tech? No. Did UH, Rice, SMU and TCU have attendance issues and in some cases NCAA problems? Yes.

So instead of laughing at me for pursuing a 2nd degree at UNT, please explain what I have written is incorrect?

Nah, what you wrote was right. Enjoy your music degree or what the **** ever it was that was worthwhile there.


RE: Uh oh...Villanova's vote delayed - S11 - 04-12-2011 06:31 PM

(04-12-2011 04:20 PM)CatsClaw Wrote:  You can take the Big 12 off of that list of lucrative conferences Sammy, they are not near the level of the ACC, SEC, Big Ten or PAC-10. You guys are more ripe for the picking than the Big East. You have three conference hovering over that carcass.

1- I didn't say the Big 12 is more lucrative than them. I said the Big 12 is more lucractive than the BE and I have yet to see any credible reported figures that indicate anything changing that.

2- The ACC is certainly less lucrative in league money than the Big 12. Our schools will average 15 million (if reports are to be believed) and theirs will get 12.9. Add to this the fact that the Big 12 will get tier 3 deals on top of this (the ACC's are Raycom's as part of the 12.9) and also get their best rights renegotiated in 2016 and the ACC isn't going to be ahead of us at all. Even allowing for 1-2 million variation from the average (Half is appearance based) the least B12 schools will be on par with the ACC if not better in payout.

SEC will get 17 each and when our tier 1 deal in 2016 is done we probably catch them with our league average. We won't catch the B10 (they re-up at the same time) and nobody knows what the Pac will come out with yet and won't until figures are firmed up.


RE: Uh oh...Villanova's vote delayed - jml2010 - 04-12-2011 07:05 PM

(04-12-2011 06:27 PM)canewton Wrote:  
(04-11-2011 10:12 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  
(04-11-2011 10:00 PM)canewton Wrote:  
(04-11-2011 09:53 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  
(04-11-2011 09:28 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Kind of like what DeLoss Dodds did to TCU, SMU, UH, and Rice.

Deloss didn't leave TCU, SMU, Rice and UH behind. Politics and their lack of fans left those schools behind.


LOLOLOL UNT

LOLOLOL Coog.

Can you dispute anything I said? In 1993, did UH Rice, SMU and TCU have any kind of Texas legislative support demanding that those schools be included in the Big 12 instead of Baylor and Tech? No. Did UH, Rice, SMU and TCU have attendance issues and in some cases NCAA problems? Yes.

So instead of laughing at me for pursuing a 2nd degree at UNT, please explain what I have written is incorrect?

Nah, what you wrote was right. Enjoy your music degree or what the **** ever it was that was worthwhile there.

Thank You. I'm not getting music degree. By the way, UNT & UH have a lot of the same characteristics. Big commuter school with sub par facilities and very little support from the alumni, students or fans. I have no grand ideas of UNT being anything more than what they are. It's big school that is affordable in comparison to SMU & TCU. I would have never chosen UNT out of HS but since I have a family, this was the most economical way to go back to school and get a 2nd degree.

FTR, UNT leads UH in football 7-5 and over the last 6 seasons has averaged 5600 less than UH.


RE: Uh oh...Villanova's vote delayed - Bull - 04-12-2011 07:12 PM

(04-12-2011 03:13 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  
(04-12-2011 03:09 PM)WacoBearcat Wrote:  
(04-12-2011 02:42 PM)moron Wrote:  
(04-12-2011 01:21 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Stop blaming the commissioner's office. It's not like this hasn't been on the agenda for two years.

Just because it has been on the agenda doesn't mean that this hasn't been handled with the grace of a quadriplegic ballerina.

From the complete lack of communication, to not setting forth clear expectations for Villanova's stadium, this has been a disaster. The commissioner's office should be the force behind making sure these exact things don't happen. Conference expansion is a big deal for a conference, and it doesn't involve a 'hands off' approach on the part of the commissioner.

The whole charade has been a travesty.

Lack of communication? The no vote does not necessarily equate with a lack of communication. Pitt has voiced its displeaure for some time now about NOVA and football. Pitt even went public with its criticism. I suspect the Commish got an ear full from other football schools as well. IF anything, this is on the Commish and NOVA. This should not have gone to a vote. Obviously, NOVA did not present a workable proposal. If anything, this reflects poorly on NOVA and the Big East Office. And thank you Pitt, Rutgers, and the football schools that had the good sense to do some "bud-nipping."

Ding!

I disagree. Nova is beholden to the Big East, not Pitt. And I do think the BE and Nova had a responsibility to communicate DURING this process and thus not waste all this time chasing a 'plan' that would be found unacceptable at the last minute. Communication is how this is avoided, communication is what was not happening. And nothing is obvious about the plan (just becuase the two closest schools to Nova don't like it) until we see the specifics.


RE: Uh oh...Villanova's vote delayed - gosports1 - 04-12-2011 07:12 PM

(04-12-2011 01:18 PM)No Bull Wrote:  
(04-12-2011 01:04 PM)WacoBearcat Wrote:  Nova is not prepared, willing, able to make the financial commitment required for BCS football. It doesn't have a clue.

Whats that say about the leadership in Providence? They tried to foist this upon the football schools.....

Why didnt the FB schools express their doubts last fall? I find it hard to imagine Marinatto woke one morning and said we should invite villanova, i'll call the media but not confer with the league members.

It continues to amaze me, how some people have such a low opinion of the football schools that they believe they are "forced" to do things against their best interests.