+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: College Sports and Conference Realignment (/forum-637.html)
+---- Thread: Greenberg: UConn Should Be in Big East (/thread-836435.html)
RE: Greenberg: UConn Should Be in Big East - johnbragg - 12-10-2017 12:14 PM
(12-10-2017 12:00 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote: The C7 voted yes on Tulane because Aresco pitched more money because of the big markets that were being added.
We don't really know that. It's kind of a black box.
We don't know what data Aresco had from the TV networks.
We don't know what information Aresco gave, or not, to the presidents.
We do know that the Tagliabue-Swarbrick New Big East expansion plan was all about big schools in big markets, a new edition of the Gavitt Big East plan from 1979. Tulane and NEw Orleans certainly fits that plan, and ECU really doesn't.
Quote: C7 did not vote on ECU because they were football only member. However, with all the new additions, their voting majority was going to be eliminated, hence why they knew ECU would inevitably become a full member.
Then why not just make ECU a full member from the start? That's just a weird decision, that says to me that at least one of the C7 presidents was a swing vote on the path forward.
RE: Greenberg: UConn Should Be in Big East - gosports1 - 12-10-2017 03:33 PM
steering slightly back to original post, UConn doesnt need the BE and the BE doesn't need UConn
RE: Greenberg: UConn Should Be in Big East - Attackcoog - 12-10-2017 03:37 PM
(12-10-2017 12:14 PM)johnbragg Wrote:(12-10-2017 12:00 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote: The C7 voted yes on Tulane because Aresco pitched more money because of the big markets that were being added.
We don't really know that. It's kind of a black box.
We don't know what data Aresco had from the TV networks.
We don't know what information Aresco gave, or not, to the presidents.
We do know that the Tagliabue-Swarbrick New Big East expansion plan was all about big schools in big markets, a new edition of the Gavitt Big East plan from 1979. Tulane and NEw Orleans certainly fits that plan, and ECU really doesn't.
Quote: C7 did not vote on ECU because they were football only member. However, with all the new additions, their voting majority was going to be eliminated, hence why they knew ECU would inevitably become a full member.
Then why not just make ECU a full member from the start? That's just a weird decision, that says to me that at least one of the C7 presidents was a swing vote on the path forward.
They knew they were leaving. The C7 just didnt think they could start the new Big East until 2014 at that point.
RE: Greenberg: UConn Should Be in Big East - gosports1 - 12-10-2017 03:51 PM
better article regarding Notre Dame and C7
http://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9003784/notre-dame-ad-jack-swarbrick-open-joining-catholic-7-league-one-season
RE: Greenberg: UConn Should Be in Big East - quo vadis - 12-10-2017 03:56 PM
(12-10-2017 11:32 AM)gosports1 Wrote: link with quote from ND AD. Like I said might not have been serious option but it was an option.
http://www.herloyalsons.com/blog/2013/03/04/catholic-7-to-leave-big-east-become-big-east-notre-dame-waits-for-next-move/
Right, but at that point, ND had already moved to the ACC, so the idea was maybe to go with the C7 for a year until they could actually join the ACC.
At that point, ND had already joined the ACC starting in 2014, the only discussion was what to do in the interim before that date was reached.
That's totally different from what was asserted earlier, which was that when the C7 split, they hoped ND would join them permanently and were jilted and so have pined for UConn ever since. Neither of those things was/is true.
RE: Greenberg: UConn Should Be in Big East - johnbragg - 12-10-2017 03:59 PM
(12-10-2017 03:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:(12-10-2017 12:14 PM)johnbragg Wrote:(12-10-2017 12:00 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote: The C7 voted yes on Tulane because Aresco pitched more money because of the big markets that were being added.
We don't really know that. It's kind of a black box.
We don't know what data Aresco had from the TV networks.
We don't know what information Aresco gave, or not, to the presidents.
We do know that the Tagliabue-Swarbrick New Big East expansion plan was all about big schools in big markets, a new edition of the Gavitt Big East plan from 1979. Tulane and NEw Orleans certainly fits that plan, and ECU really doesn't.
Quote: C7 did not vote on ECU because they were football only member. However, with all the new additions, their voting majority was going to be eliminated, hence why they knew ECU would inevitably become a full member.
Then why not just make ECU a full member from the start? That's just a weird decision, that says to me that at least one of the C7 presidents was a swing vote on the path forward.
They knew they were leaving. They just didnt think they would be able to leave until 2014 at that point.
I really don't think so. You had 7 presidents, and I think it's a mistake to regard us as too much of a unit. I'm guessing that there was division among the C7 presidents. Speculating wildly, you probably had a group that was preparing the groundwork for the split from the moment that Syracuse and Pitt were out the door, and it looked like another raid was coming from somewhere, anywhere, that would wreck the basketball value of the football side. (Where I was.) You probably had a group that was adamantly against splitting, buying into the narrative of football driving the bus, and that without the football schools we'd be where the A-10 is. (Where Stever20 was.) And in between, probably a group that was in wait-and-see mode, not wholly convinced by either side and waiting for the TV contract numbers to come in.
Figure that middle group was the swing vote. Following the Swarbrick-Tagliabue-MArinatto expansion blueprint, Tulane made some amount of sense--sizable TV market, top academics, some degree of athletic blue-blood ("Didja know Tulane used to be in the SEC? 1 Rose Bowl, 2 Sugar Bowls") They could easily live with Tulane as a full-time partner--road games in New Orleans, oh twist our arms again.
East Carolina brought nothing to the table but a passionate football fanbase--mediocre academics, unattractive location, lack of football accomplishment--so I think keeping East Carolina out of the basketball league indicates that the C7 wasn't out the door yet. (It took about two more weeks).
EDIT: Think about it. IF you're living with a girl, and you break up, and you're leaving the apartment, do you give a crap what lamp she buys to replace the one you're taking? No you don't. If the C7 had pre-decided to leave, they'd have approved ECU's full membership.
RE: Greenberg: UConn Should Be in Big East - Attackcoog - 12-10-2017 04:46 PM
(12-10-2017 03:59 PM)johnbragg Wrote:(12-10-2017 03:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:(12-10-2017 12:14 PM)johnbragg Wrote:(12-10-2017 12:00 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote: The C7 voted yes on Tulane because Aresco pitched more money because of the big markets that were being added.
We don't really know that. It's kind of a black box.
We don't know what data Aresco had from the TV networks.
We don't know what information Aresco gave, or not, to the presidents.
We do know that the Tagliabue-Swarbrick New Big East expansion plan was all about big schools in big markets, a new edition of the Gavitt Big East plan from 1979. Tulane and NEw Orleans certainly fits that plan, and ECU really doesn't.
Quote: C7 did not vote on ECU because they were football only member. However, with all the new additions, their voting majority was going to be eliminated, hence why they knew ECU would inevitably become a full member.
Then why not just make ECU a full member from the start? That's just a weird decision, that says to me that at least one of the C7 presidents was a swing vote on the path forward.
They knew they were leaving. They just didnt think they would be able to leave until 2014 at that point.
I really don't think so. You had 7 presidents, and I think it's a mistake to regard us as too much of a unit. I'm guessing that there was division among the C7 presidents. Speculating wildly, you probably had a group that was preparing the groundwork for the split from the moment that Syracuse and Pitt were out the door, and it looked like another raid was coming from somewhere, anywhere, that would wreck the basketball value of the football side. (Where I was.) You probably had a group that was adamantly against splitting, buying into the narrative of football driving the bus, and that without the football schools we'd be where the A-10 is. (Where Stever20 was.) And in between, probably a group that was in wait-and-see mode, not wholly convinced by either side and waiting for the TV contract numbers to come in.
Figure that middle group was the swing vote. Following the Swarbrick-Tagliabue-MArinatto expansion blueprint, Tulane made some amount of sense--sizable TV market, top academics, some degree of athletic blue-blood ("Didja know Tulane used to be in the SEC? 1 Rose Bowl, 2 Sugar Bowls") They could easily live with Tulane as a full-time partner--road games in New Orleans, oh twist our arms again.
East Carolina brought nothing to the table but a passionate football fanbase--mediocre academics, unattractive location, lack of football accomplishment--so I think keeping East Carolina out of the basketball league indicates that the C7 wasn't out the door yet. (It took about two more weeks).
EDIT: Think about it. IF you're living with a girl, and you break up, and you're leaving the apartment, do you give a crap what lamp she buys to replace the one you're taking? No you don't. If the C7 had pre-decided to leave, they'd have approved ECU's full membership.
If they were sticking around, then why not push for 'Nova? They had the votes. Hell, only 3 football members even had voting rights at that point. If they were worried about their long term home---why didnt they at least push for an all sports team with some basketball potential like UMass or Colorado St? Instead, they selected Tulane? Im pretty sure the only reason they approved any all-sports member is the Big East had to have 8 all-sports members to sponsor FBS football. I think they were gone and had no intention of spending a year in a conference with ECU--Tulane was at least an academci fit they could grit thier teeth and deal with for one year.
I suspect you are probably right in that there wasnt universal agreement in the C7--but I also have zero doubt that if at least 2 or 3 were going to make the move regardless of the group vote---then the others were following rather than staying behind as members of the Aresco Conference (lol...I that was your pre-AAC name for it back then).
RE: Greenberg: UConn Should Be in Big East - Bogg - 12-10-2017 05:00 PM
(12-10-2017 04:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: If they were sticking around, then why not push for 'Nova? They had the votes.
By this do you mean why didn't they facilitate Nova moving to FBS football as one of their football-playing schools? I don't think the OBE could have paid Nova enough to make that move at that time. Villanova has to be leaving looking at UConn's current predicament and be thanking God that they elected to leave football in the A10/CAA when they did.
RE: Greenberg: UConn Should Be in Big East - johnbragg - 12-10-2017 05:16 PM
(12-10-2017 04:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:(12-10-2017 03:59 PM)johnbragg Wrote:(12-10-2017 03:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:(12-10-2017 12:14 PM)johnbragg Wrote:(12-10-2017 12:00 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote: The C7 voted yes on Tulane because Aresco pitched more money because of the big markets that were being added.
We don't really know that. It's kind of a black box.
We don't know what data Aresco had from the TV networks.
We don't know what information Aresco gave, or not, to the presidents.
We do know that the Tagliabue-Swarbrick New Big East expansion plan was all about big schools in big markets, a new edition of the Gavitt Big East plan from 1979. Tulane and NEw Orleans certainly fits that plan, and ECU really doesn't.
Quote: C7 did not vote on ECU because they were football only member. However, with all the new additions, their voting majority was going to be eliminated, hence why they knew ECU would inevitably become a full member.
Then why not just make ECU a full member from the start? That's just a weird decision, that says to me that at least one of the C7 presidents was a swing vote on the path forward.
They knew they were leaving. They just didnt think they would be able to leave until 2014 at that point.
I really don't think so. You had 7 presidents, and I think it's a mistake to regard us as too much of a unit. I'm guessing that there was division among the C7 presidents. Speculating wildly, you probably had a group that was preparing the groundwork for the split from the moment that Syracuse and Pitt were out the door, and it looked like another raid was coming from somewhere, anywhere, that would wreck the basketball value of the football side. (Where I was.) You probably had a group that was adamantly against splitting, buying into the narrative of football driving the bus, and that without the football schools we'd be where the A-10 is. (Where Stever20 was.) And in between, probably a group that was in wait-and-see mode, not wholly convinced by either side and waiting for the TV contract numbers to come in.
Figure that middle group was the swing vote. Following the Swarbrick-Tagliabue-MArinatto expansion blueprint, Tulane made some amount of sense--sizable TV market, top academics, some degree of athletic blue-blood ("Didja know Tulane used to be in the SEC? 1 Rose Bowl, 2 Sugar Bowls") They could easily live with Tulane as a full-time partner--road games in New Orleans, oh twist our arms again.
East Carolina brought nothing to the table but a passionate football fanbase--mediocre academics, unattractive location, lack of football accomplishment--so I think keeping East Carolina out of the basketball league indicates that the C7 wasn't out the door yet. (It took about two more weeks).
EDIT: Think about it. IF you're living with a girl, and you break up, and you're leaving the apartment, do you give a crap what lamp she buys to replace the one you're taking? No you don't. If the C7 had pre-decided to leave, they'd have approved ECU's full membership.
If they were sticking around, then why not push for 'Nova?
For one thing, Villanova wasn't really interested in FBS football. They felt like going FBS was a favor to the league, not a favor to Nova.
Quote:They had the votes. Hell, only 3 football members even had voting rights at that point. If they were worried about their long term home---why didnt they at least push for an all sports team with some basketball potential like UMass or Colorado St?
1. You're overrating UMAss' or Colorado STate's basketball potential. UMass or CSU ain't replacing Louisville or Syracuse. After adding Memphis and Temple, there were no difference-making basketball programs left in FBS. SMU, Houston and UCF brought top 10 and top 20 TV markets.
By the time Tulane was the top name on the draft board, there were no good options left in FBS. To emphasize that, I remind you that the next school picked after Tulane and ECU? Tulsa. Nothing says big-time-league like University of Tulsa.
Quote:Instead, they selected Tulane? Im pretty sure the only reason they approved any all-sports member is the Big East had to have 8 all-sports members to sponsor FBS football.
Lemmee see, UConn, UC, USF is 3, UCF, SMU, UH make 6. Memphis and Temple give you 8 already. Boise State and SDSU were scheduled to come on board--we "needed" Tulane and ECU to have 12 teams and a football CCG in 2014, after Rutgers and Louisville left but before NAvy and TBA (Tulsa) came in.
Quote:I think they were gone and had no intention of spending a year in a conference with ECU--Tulane was at least an academci fit they could grit thier teeth and deal with for one year.
You've got it backwards. Tulane was an academic fit they could deal with on a long term basis. East Carolina would be something you could grit your deal and deal with for one year, but not on a permanent basis. IT's not like Greeneville is that much worse than Morgantown or Blacksburg, or like ECU is so much worse than USF or UCF or Temple or "Memphis State" or, as the phrase of the day goes, "a midlevel commuter school" like Louisville.
But having no academic credibility, no basketball credibility, no big TV market--there's no reason to bring that into the league. Football guys want to play them, fine.
Quote:I suspect you are probably right in that there wasnt universal agreement in the C7--but I also have zero doubt that if at least 2 or 3 were going to make the move regardless of the group vote
2 or 3 can't make the move, because you need numbers to make up a conference. 4 maybe, if the prenup allowed decisions in the group on a straight majority vote, which I doubt. Probably there was a 2/3 (5/7) or 3/4 (6/7) clause for major decisions like spitting the league.
And even then, if a Georgetown or a Villanova or a St Johns were on the losing side, and were committed to the hybrid, that might be enough to get wavering schools to blink.
Quote:---then the others were following rather than staying behind as members of the Aresco Conference (lol...I that was your pre-AAC name for it back then).
Aresco League.
RE: Greenberg: UConn Should Be in Big East - LostInSpace - 12-10-2017 05:39 PM
(12-10-2017 04:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:(12-10-2017 03:59 PM)johnbragg Wrote:(12-10-2017 03:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:(12-10-2017 12:14 PM)johnbragg Wrote:(12-10-2017 12:00 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote: The C7 voted yes on Tulane because Aresco pitched more money because of the big markets that were being added.
We don't really know that. It's kind of a black box.
We don't know what data Aresco had from the TV networks.
We don't know what information Aresco gave, or not, to the presidents.
We do know that the Tagliabue-Swarbrick New Big East expansion plan was all about big schools in big markets, a new edition of the Gavitt Big East plan from 1979. Tulane and NEw Orleans certainly fits that plan, and ECU really doesn't.
Quote: C7 did not vote on ECU because they were football only member. However, with all the new additions, their voting majority was going to be eliminated, hence why they knew ECU would inevitably become a full member.
Then why not just make ECU a full member from the start? That's just a weird decision, that says to me that at least one of the C7 presidents was a swing vote on the path forward.
They knew they were leaving. They just didnt think they would be able to leave until 2014 at that point.
I really don't think so. You had 7 presidents, and I think it's a mistake to regard us as too much of a unit. I'm guessing that there was division among the C7 presidents. Speculating wildly, you probably had a group that was preparing the groundwork for the split from the moment that Syracuse and Pitt were out the door, and it looked like another raid was coming from somewhere, anywhere, that would wreck the basketball value of the football side. (Where I was.) You probably had a group that was adamantly against splitting, buying into the narrative of football driving the bus, and that without the football schools we'd be where the A-10 is. (Where Stever20 was.) And in between, probably a group that was in wait-and-see mode, not wholly convinced by either side and waiting for the TV contract numbers to come in.
Figure that middle group was the swing vote. Following the Swarbrick-Tagliabue-MArinatto expansion blueprint, Tulane made some amount of sense--sizable TV market, top academics, some degree of athletic blue-blood ("Didja know Tulane used to be in the SEC? 1 Rose Bowl, 2 Sugar Bowls") They could easily live with Tulane as a full-time partner--road games in New Orleans, oh twist our arms again.
East Carolina brought nothing to the table but a passionate football fanbase--mediocre academics, unattractive location, lack of football accomplishment--so I think keeping East Carolina out of the basketball league indicates that the C7 wasn't out the door yet. (It took about two more weeks).
EDIT: Think about it. IF you're living with a girl, and you break up, and you're leaving the apartment, do you give a crap what lamp she buys to replace the one you're taking? No you don't. If the C7 had pre-decided to leave, they'd have approved ECU's full membership.
If they were sticking around, then why not push for 'Nova? They had the votes. Hell, only 3 football members even had voting rights at that point. If they were worried about their long term home---why didnt they at least push for an all sports team with some basketball potential like UMass or Colorado St? Instead, they selected Tulane? Im pretty sure the only reason they approved any all-sports member is the Big East had to have 8 all-sports members to sponsor FBS football. I think they were gone and had no intention of spending a year in a conference with ECU--Tulane was at least an academci fit they could grit thier teeth and deal with for one year.
I suspect you are probably right in that there wasnt universal agreement in the C7--but I also have zero doubt that if at least 2 or 3 were going to make the move regardless of the group vote---then the others were following rather than staying behind as members of the Aresco Conference (lol...I that was your pre-AAC name for it back then).
The C7 got serious about exploring separating themselves as soon as it became obvious that Temple couldn’t be kept out of the conference. Villanova hadn’t spent years fighting to keep Temple out only to give in. That’s why Temple was required to keep all sports except for football in the A10 for an additional year. Villanova required that condition to buy time for VU to get everyone on board with the idea of splitting and for the C7 to explore their options in the hope that they would avoid ever having Temple as fellow basketball conference member.
It’s impossible to understate how strongly Villanova hated having to agree to Temple joining as a full member. The Tulane kerfluffle was a smokescreen. Temple was the final straw because Temple’s admission fundamentally changed Villanova’s perspective on stay vs leave.
RE: Greenberg: UConn Should Be in Big East - BigHouston - 12-10-2017 05:42 PM
(12-06-2017 04:49 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:(12-06-2017 04:44 PM)ken d Wrote: I was watching when Greenberg made that comment. I don't think it had much to do with money. He was speaking, I believe, about UConn's prospects for future success on the basketball court.
When UConn got left behind, and the AAC was trying to salvage/reinvent itself, one of the narratives I kept hearing was that UConn hoops was so strong it would be able to elevate the basketball fortunes of the other AAC members. That they were a national brand who was sure to remain that way post Big East. When I challenged that narrative, and questioned whether UConn could retain its lofty status on its own, I was dismissed out of hand by Husky fans.
My take was that Calhoun and being a member of the Big East is what made UConn successful, and that they only had a short window to show they could sustain success without either of those things. I think Greenberg is saying that they can't, and that they have shown that they can't. They aren't elevating their conference, and the AAC isn't elevating them the way the Big East, with its strong local flavor, did more than 20 years ago.
It may be too late for UConn. The aura of a perennial national contender may have been permanently shattered. And if they are both a football bottom feeder and a so-so basketball program, their future looks bleak. Maybe they could recreate their success by returning to the Big East and maybe they can't. But it's starting to look like it's their only chance.
UConn's coaching situation is worse than their conference affiliation right now. If the AAC was so gawd-awful, they should be dominating the league with the talent they have compared to everyone else. Instead, they finished 6th in the AAC the past two seasons and will likely fail to reach that mark this season based on what I have seen to date.
My thoughts exactly ^^^ but not only that... Just look how strong Wichita State got so big in their weaker previous conference... Wichita State joining the AAC now will only improve their power rankings even more.
UConn's imo has to be more aggressive with their basketball decisions, much like when they were while in their old big east days.
RE: Greenberg: UConn Should Be in Big East - johnbragg - 12-10-2017 05:59 PM
(12-10-2017 05:39 PM)LostInSpace Wrote: The C7 got serious about exploring separating themselves as soon as it became obvious that Temple couldn’t be kept out of the conference. Villanova hadn’t spent years fighting to keep Temple out only to give in. That’s why Temple was required to keep all sports except for football in the A10 for an additional year. Villanova required that condition to buy time for VU to get everyone on board with the idea of splitting and for the C7 to explore their options in the hope that they would avoid ever having Temple as fellow basketball conference member.
That fits with the known facts. Admitting a new full member required a 3/4 vote of the membership, and at the time the membership was the C7, Notre Dame, UConn, UC, USF, Rutgers and Louisville, 13 votes. 13*.75=9.75, so 4 schools could block a new member. Villanova didn't have a majority of the C7 at the time. But it makes sense that it was the last straw for Villanova.
I think that Georgetown was a major advocate of the hybrid, and the Tagliabue-Swarbrick-MArinatto strategy of building through football and getting ALL TEH MARKETS.
I was jumping up and down at the time about the move--if we were cutting someone a check to pay a big exit fee to jump without notice and replace West Virginia, send the check to the Mountain West and bring in Boise STate a year early. (Yes, the Big EAst Football Conference would have only had 7 full members for that year and needed a waiver. Boo hoo--Temple wasn't a full member for 2012-13 anyway, so we still technically needed the waiver).
I didn't know about the pre-nup, of course. The bylaws were loudly silent on that issue.
Quote:It’s impossible to understate how strongly Villanova hated having to agree to Temple joining as a full member. The Tulane kerfluffle was a smokescreen. Temple was the final straw because Temple’s admission fundamentally changed Villanova’s perspective on stay vs leave.
For Villanova, that makes perfect sense. For the rest of the C7, I think the last straw(s) were (1) losing Louisville, and (2) either seeing the TV contract estimates Aresco was getting, or not seeing any TV contract estimates from Aresco--which told them that Dodd and McMurphy were probably right about there being no pot of gold at the end of the Swarbrick-Tagliabue-Marinatto-Aresco rainbow.
EDIT: Now that I think about it, considering the C7 spectrum of opinion as Georgetown on one end (stay close to FBS at all costs), and Villanova at the other end (activate the pre-nup ASAP), with other schools somewhere in between (see what the TV contract looks like, maybe there won't be any more realignment after all), maybe losing Notre Dame was more important than I thought.
If you're one of the presidents in between those two extremes, association with Notre Dame is a big plus for keeping the hybrid. But then Notre Dame--one of the architects, through Swarbrick, of the Big East football expansion strategy--is gone. So maybe Notre Dame is the next-to-last straw.
RE: Greenberg: UConn Should Be in Big East - gosports1 - 12-10-2017 06:32 PM
the last straw for the c7 was when the BE was turning into CUSA and the only FB schools left were USF, Cincy and UConn. Why would they be willing to let their fates be controlled by schools they had little history with and/or marginal interest in being associated with? Not intended as a slight but Houston, Memphis etc have/had different needs than St Johns and Villanova.
seemed to work out for both sides
RE: Greenberg: UConn Should Be in Big East - Bogg - 12-10-2017 07:06 PM
(12-10-2017 05:42 PM)BigHouston Wrote:(12-06-2017 04:49 PM)CliftonAve Wrote: UConn's coaching situation is worse than their conference affiliation right now. If the AAC was so gawd-awful, they should be dominating the league with the talent they have compared to everyone else. Instead, they finished 6th in the AAC the past two seasons and will likely fail to reach that mark this season based on what I have seen to date.
My thoughts exactly ^^^ but not only that... Just look how strong Wichita State got so big in their weaker previous conference... Wichita State joining the AAC now will only improve their power rankings even more.
UConn's imo has to be more aggressive with their basketball decisions, much like when they were while in their old big east days.
This is true but also kind of beside the point. If UConn's winning 30 games a year and advancing to the second and third weekends of the tournament the fans will show up whether they're in the AAC or the CAA. The real comparison to be made when assessing fit is the non-UConn AAC vs the NBE (since a dominant UConn would be beneficial to either conference).
I'll grant that the AAC maybe going through a collective down spell at the same time the NBE has been particularly strong and that, coupled with the Wichita add, may mean that the long-term outlook between the two groups may not be as different as we saw the last couple years. However, in terms of general appeal to UConn fans it's not really all that close, both because of historical/geographic ties as well as general fan accessibility to the tournament in NY. I'm simply not spending half a week flying out to the Dallas suburbs in a year when UConn's only so-so, but even in a down year I might take a half-day at work and hop a train to see UConn in an opening-day 8/9 matchup at MSG. That kind of thing matters when trying to keep fans engaged during the bad times, and it's what we're seeing with attendance nosediving for UConn games in the last couple years (which includes, it should be mentioned, a conference championship two years ago, so it's not like they've been horrific).
RE: Greenberg: UConn Should Be in Big East - The Cutter of Bish - 12-10-2017 07:38 PM
Villanova's been about as rotten as it gets to the other Big 5 schools ever since joining the Big East. And, academically, it wasn't much different to St. Joe's in the 60's and 70's, but the BE sure changed that for VU as not being in the BE did to SJU. Their fans will spin it, but the Big 5 had to halt because of them, too. Irony of ironies them thinking they're too good for it when the school they wish they were but will N-E-V-E-R be never started this kind of ****.
But, keep Temple and FBS football on their respective tracks things Villanova hated. To know how much Villanova didn't want the fbs buzz is to understand how the school STILL treats the sport like a second class citizen, and how leadership was a bit annoyed by Philly's media asking about fbs viability as the school was trying to raise money for basketball infrastructure. Around these parts, we know Villanova didn't want football unless ACC membership was attached (and even that didn't matter, VU threw themselves to the ACC in desperation after Pitt and Cuse bolted and there wasn't much of a plan then). Doing business with Temple was bad, but they got Temple to agree to fund VU football...doing business with big time football in general kept them in lockstep with the other six.
RE: Greenberg: UConn Should Be in Big East - RutgersGuy - 12-11-2017 11:39 AM
(12-10-2017 07:38 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote: Villanova's been about as rotten as it gets to the other Big 5 schools ever since joining the Big East. And, academically, it wasn't much different to St. Joe's in the 60's and 70's, but the BE sure changed that for VU as not being in the BE did to SJU. Their fans will spin it, but the Big 5 had to halt because of them, too. Irony of ironies them thinking they're too good for it when the school they wish they were but will N-E-V-E-R be never started this kind of ****.
But, keep Temple and FBS football on their respective tracks things Villanova hated. To know how much Villanova didn't want the fbs buzz is to understand how the school STILL treats the sport like a second class citizen, and how leadership was a bit annoyed by Philly's media asking about fbs viability as the school was trying to raise money for basketball infrastructure. Around these parts, we know Villanova didn't want football unless ACC membership was attached (and even that didn't matter, VU threw themselves to the ACC in desperation after Pitt and Cuse bolted and there wasn't much of a plan then). Doing business with Temple was bad, but they got Temple to agree to fund VU football...doing business with big time football in general kept them in lockstep with the other six.
I'm gonna call BS on this one. I've heard that it was GTown then Nova and even SJU. I don't believe any of that. The C7 had been a group that had a plan to form their own league since the first ACC raid in 2003. By 2010 both the C7 and the BE FB schools were supposed to split up with the FB schools rebranding themselves as a new conference.
The only times I hear about the C7 schools individually begging the ACC for membership is from ACC posters and AAC posters trying to denigrate the Big East schools.
RE: Greenberg: UConn Should Be in Big East - The Cutter of Bish - 12-11-2017 12:24 PM
(12-11-2017 11:39 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote: I'm gonna call BS on this one. I've heard that it was GTown then Nova and even SJU. I don't believe any of that. The C7 had been a group that had a plan to form their own league since the first ACC raid in 2003. By 2010 both the C7 and the BE FB schools were supposed to split up with the FB schools rebranding themselves as a new conference.
The only times I hear about the C7 schools individually begging the ACC for membership is from ACC posters and AAC posters trying to denigrate the Big East schools.
Just days after the Pitt and Cuse announcement, reported and then confirmed.
It was said every football member applied, or, that the ACC got a number of applications from the Big East that covered all remaining football members plus others. Villanova seems to be the one (only?) C7 to have maybe been "caught."
RE: Greenberg: UConn Should Be in Big East - SC-KNIGHT - 12-11-2017 01:40 PM
Villanova should have moved their FB up to FBS when the BE offer was on the table. If they played at the FBS level they would certainly be on the ACC's radar at any point in time for the Philly market and TV sets. I'd still try to move up if I were them at this point (MAC-AAC FB only) to position themselves for the next potential realignment period around 2024 / 2025. BC, Pitt, Cuse, Miami, L'Ville, and VT would vote for them in the ACC if they had FB at the FBS level to go along with their BB program.
RE: Greenberg: UConn Should Be in Big East - megadrone - 12-11-2017 02:29 PM
(12-11-2017 01:40 PM)SC-KNIGHT Wrote: Villanova should have moved their FB up to FBS when the BE offer was on the table. If they played at the FBS level they would certainly be on the ACC's radar at any point in time for the Philly market and TV sets. I'd still try to move up if I were them at this point (MAC-AAC FB only) to position themselves for the next potential realignment period around 2024 / 2025. BC, Pitt, Cuse, Miami, L'Ville, and VT would vote for them in the ACC if they had FB at the FBS level to go along with their BB program.
Except for these two details it's a great idea:
- No real desire to do so
- No place to play -- the stadium in Chester wasn't a good option.
It was a half-assed upgrade plan to keep the conference happy. It wasn't something Villanova really wanted to do.
RE: Greenberg: UConn Should Be in Big East - GoldenWarrior11 - 12-11-2017 02:34 PM
(12-11-2017 01:40 PM)SC-KNIGHT Wrote: Villanova should have moved their FB up to FBS when the BE offer was on the table. If they played at the FBS level they would certainly be on the ACC's radar at any point in time for the Philly market and TV sets. I'd still try to move up if I were them at this point (MAC-AAC FB only) to position themselves for the next potential realignment period around 2024 / 2025. BC, Pitt, Cuse, Miami, L'Ville, and VT would vote for them in the ACC if they had FB at the FBS level to go along with their BB program.
So a Villanova program that is a start-up, and most likely not been competitive for the first several years, would have been seen as more valuable than a UConn/Cincinnati/USF/etc.? I don't think so. UConn was passed over due to its weak football program. No way Villanova would have been approved for similar reasons.
Villanova not starting up football was one of best decisions their administration could have made. There was simply too much money to be invested into a potential program with too little guarantees for return, with or without an ACC invitation.