Listening to them talk about it early this morning on ESPNU, UC should get considered. Georgetown is only in the discussion because their early ranking was so high...

(02-08-2009 03:01 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(02-08-2009 02:36 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  I think while that would be the best deal. Is really not going to happen. Is like not going on a date waiting or Angelina Jolie to drop Brad Pitt for you.
I do agree that an all-sports league right now is not better than what we have. But I do think that 12 team league of 9 football members + Notre Dame,Villanova and Georgetown is the BEST money maker and allows for future growth.
The current league I think is too big and has some schools that I really question their support for big time athletics and their ability to compete in the future.

Unlike you, I pray every night for Angelina Jolie to leave Brad Pitt for me. The league you describe is still a hybrid, and the problems would still be present. Seems like they would need a league where everybody played everybody in every sport.

Why? Is C-USA really a better league now that it is all-sports rather than a partial hybrid? The league is in it's 4th year and it is looking at it's 3rd consecutive year of being a 1-bid league.

Being all-sports doesn't seem to have done much for the second most important sport.

Again, as I've said before, it comes down to the programs in the league. For some leagues, all-sports is the only way to go. For others, particularly the Big East, unless the all-sports include PSU, ND, Miami, and BC, a hybrid is better.

Just not necessarily this equal hybrid monstrosity we have now.

Cheers,
Neil

I could take a pass on ND and Miami, if we got PSU and BC. Maryland would be a better 2nd team out of the ACC too. They're more of a traditional rival for eastern schools. Miami was forced upon us...

WACO, I agree with you on TV markets.
NOW my preference for a splitt & it does not mean squat.
IS Temple, Memphis & UCF along with ND for Oylimpic sports & ECU for FB & Baseball.
ND covers Chi Market [Depaul]
Memphis - Millawakee [wash]
Orlando-Prov [wash]
Temple- Vill [wash]
StJohn's & SH are overlapped
BE would lose Wash market with GT

BE FB TV markets grow 25%
I can't see why BE could not get same TV contract or better
granted I'm not behind closed doors, but the #'s add up.

Not only that
Memphis has coprate sponsor that pays thier way
ECU says they can cover thier ass on thier own
Tell Temple get same deal as ECU
UCF garentee's FB championship
& these 4 don't cost BE anything to add

(02-08-2009 03:16 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I could take a pass on ND and Miami, if we got PSU and BC. Maryland would be a better 2nd team out of the ACC too. They're more of a traditional rival for eastern schools. Miami was forced upon us...

It doesn't really matter. PSU isn't leaving the Big Ten, Maryland, Miami, and BC are not leaving the ACC. And ND isn't giving up independence for football.

There are only three choices -

Remaining as the league is with a possible expansion to 18.

A true even split, with BABE (Breakaway Big East, football schools) adding one or two of Memphis, UCF, ECU.

A partial hybrid whereby one to three bb schools splits with the football schools and one C-USA East member is invited to join that league.

I prefer option three, then option two, but apparently the BE football presidents prefer the first option. And that is all that truly matters.

Cheers,
Neil

If they do go with option 1, and expand, they should split the basketball side into divisions, and seed the tourney accordingly...

(02-08-2009 03:38 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  

(02-08-2009 03:16 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I could take a pass on ND and Miami, if we got PSU and BC. Maryland would be a better 2nd team out of the ACC too. They're more of a traditional rival for eastern schools. Miami was forced upon us...

It doesn't really matter. PSU isn't leaving the Big Ten, Maryland, Miami, and BC are not leaving the ACC. And ND isn't giving up independence for football.

There are only three choices -

Remaining as the league is with a possible expansion to 18.

A true even split, with BABE (Breakaway Big East, football schools) adding one or two of Memphis, UCF, ECU.

A partial hybrid whereby one to three bb schools splits with the football schools and one C-USA East member is invited to join that league.

I prefer option three, then option two, but apparently the BE football presidents prefer the first option. And that is all that truly matters.

Cheers,
Neil

Neil
Im with you option 3, makes the most sense in moving the league forward but as you said we dont make those decisions

(02-08-2009 02:35 PM)WacoBearcat Wrote:  

(02-08-2009 02:04 PM)Jackson1011 Wrote:  Ugghhh....I have yet to see a realistic all sports model that makes more money then this current alignment...ignore wins and losses because programs rise and fall...losing access to major eastern bball markets and adding more mouths to feed in football (not PSU or ND) does not equal more money for us

Jackson

What major eastern bbmarkets would we lose in a split? Providence, Seton Hall, even St. Johns for that matter don't carry jack. Depaul doesn't carry the Chicago market. I guess Marquette carries the Milwaukee market but how much does that add to the bb contract. UCONN, Syracuse, Rutgers together IS the Eastern Market.

Frankly, I find it hard to believe that the football schools in a split by adding let's say Memphis and Temple, could not approximate closely the contract we currently have in this dsyfunctional monstrocity.

-- Whether they control the markets or not is not important, only the fact that we can and get TV coverage etc. Our Saturday/Sunday GOTWs get great coverage..IMO

-- Rutgers has almost no presence in basketball. They haven't been to the NCAAs in at least 15 years. If you are counting on them to "bring NYC" then you are mistaken. We have such a presence in NYC not only because of the schools you mentioned but because of St Johns and Seton Hall which are or accross the river from NYC, and are in a much closer proximity to the city

-- Split means the loss of Washington DC, Baltimore, Philly, Chicago, Milwaukee, a % of NYC, and a % of New England....a split and adding Memphis and Temple does of set some of the losses on the bball side but adds at best "?s" marks on the football side and at worst dead weight which would likely mean a drop on our BCS/football tv money per school...if for example Memphis becomes the Boise St of the eastern half of the country then certainly the equation changes, but till then I think there is more money in the current format

Jackson

(02-08-2009 03:12 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  

(02-08-2009 03:01 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(02-08-2009 02:36 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  I think while that would be the best deal. Is really not going to happen. Is like not going on a date waiting or Angelina Jolie to drop Brad Pitt for you.
I do agree that an all-sports league right now is not better than what we have. But I do think that 12 team league of 9 football members + Notre Dame,Villanova and Georgetown is the BEST money maker and allows for future growth.
The current league I think is too big and has some schools that I really question their support for big time athletics and their ability to compete in the future.

Unlike you, I pray every night for Angelina Jolie to leave Brad Pitt for me. The league you describe is still a hybrid, and the problems would still be present. Seems like they would need a league where everybody played everybody in every sport.

Why? Is C-USA really a better league now that it is all-sports rather than a partial hybrid? The league is in it's 4th year and it is looking at it's 3rd consecutive year of being a 1-bid league.

Being all-sports doesn't seem to have done much for the second most important sport.

Again, as I've said before, it comes down to the programs in the league. For some leagues, all-sports is the only way to go. For others, particularly the Big East, unless the all-sports include PSU, ND, Miami, and BC, a hybrid is better.

Just not necessarily this equal hybrid monstrosity we have now.

Cheers,
Neil

I think CUSA has it's problems which are mainly due to geography. However, considering it's best teams were raided, it is a better league than it was before. You at least know who is in the league, and they play all sports together. It definitely has more identity than it had when some teams played basketball, and some teams played football, and some teams played olympic sports.

(02-08-2009 06:11 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(02-08-2009 03:12 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  

(02-08-2009 03:01 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(02-08-2009 02:36 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  I think while that would be the best deal. Is really not going to happen. Is like not going on a date waiting or Angelina Jolie to drop Brad Pitt for you.
I do agree that an all-sports league right now is not better than what we have. But I do think that 12 team league of 9 football members + Notre Dame,Villanova and Georgetown is the BEST money maker and allows for future growth.
The current league I think is too big and has some schools that I really question their support for big time athletics and their ability to compete in the future.

Unlike you, I pray every night for Angelina Jolie to leave Brad Pitt for me. The league you describe is still a hybrid, and the problems would still be present. Seems like they would need a league where everybody played everybody in every sport.

Why? Is C-USA really a better league now that it is all-sports rather than a partial hybrid? The league is in it's 4th year and it is looking at it's 3rd consecutive year of being a 1-bid league.

Being all-sports doesn't seem to have done much for the second most important sport.

Again, as I've said before, it comes down to the programs in the league. For some leagues, all-sports is the only way to go. For others, particularly the Big East, unless the all-sports include PSU, ND, Miami, and BC, a hybrid is better.

Just not necessarily this equal hybrid monstrosity we have now.

Cheers,
Neil

I think CUSA has it's problems which are mainly due to geography. However, considering it's best teams were raided, it is a better league than it was before. You at least know who is in the league, and they play all sports together. It definitely has more identity than it had when some teams played basketball, and some teams played football, and some teams played olympic sports.

So it's better in men's bb just because they all play it whereas in old C-USA, Army did not???

Is that seriously your stance? Seems to me getting 4,6,4 bids out of 14 teams was better than getting 2, 1, 1, 1 (maybe two if UAB beats Memphis) out of 12.

Cheers,
Neil

You know it's the offseason. The split/realignment talk is starting to predominate...

(02-08-2009 06:18 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  

(02-08-2009 06:11 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(02-08-2009 03:12 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  

(02-08-2009 03:01 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(02-08-2009 02:36 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  I think while that would be the best deal. Is really not going to happen. Is like not going on a date waiting or Angelina Jolie to drop Brad Pitt for you.
I do agree that an all-sports league right now is not better than what we have. But I do think that 12 team league of 9 football members + Notre Dame,Villanova and Georgetown is the BEST money maker and allows for future growth.
The current league I think is too big and has some schools that I really question their support for big time athletics and their ability to compete in the future.

Unlike you, I pray every night for Angelina Jolie to leave Brad Pitt for me. The league you describe is still a hybrid, and the problems would still be present. Seems like they would need a league where everybody played everybody in every sport.

Why? Is C-USA really a better league now that it is all-sports rather than a partial hybrid? The league is in it's 4th year and it is looking at it's 3rd consecutive year of being a 1-bid league.

Being all-sports doesn't seem to have done much for the second most important sport.

Again, as I've said before, it comes down to the programs in the league. For some leagues, all-sports is the only way to go. For others, particularly the Big East, unless the all-sports include PSU, ND, Miami, and BC, a hybrid is better.

Just not necessarily this equal hybrid monstrosity we have now.

Cheers,
Neil

I think CUSA has it's problems which are mainly due to geography. However, considering it's best teams were raided, it is a better league than it was before. You at least know who is in the league, and they play all sports together. It definitely has more identity than it had when some teams played basketball, and some teams played football, and some teams played olympic sports.

So it's better in men's bb just because they all play it whereas in old C-USA, Army did not???

Is that seriously your stance? Seems to me getting 4,6,4 bids out of 14 teams was better than getting 2, 1, 1, 1 (maybe two if UAB beats Memphis) out of 12.

Cheers,
Neil

You're talking about 1 sport after the conferences best basketball schools left. I'm talking about the conference as a whole.

(02-08-2009 06:27 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(02-08-2009 06:18 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  

(02-08-2009 06:11 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(02-08-2009 03:12 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  

(02-08-2009 03:01 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(02-08-2009 02:36 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  I think while that would be the best deal. Is really not going to happen. Is like not going on a date waiting or Angelina Jolie to drop Brad Pitt for you.
I do agree that an all-sports league right now is not better than what we have. But I do think that 12 team league of 9 football members + Notre Dame,Villanova and Georgetown is the BEST money maker and allows for future growth.
The current league I think is too big and has some schools that I really question their support for big time athletics and their ability to compete in the future.

Unlike you, I pray every night for Angelina Jolie to leave Brad Pitt for me. The league you describe is still a hybrid, and the problems would still be present. Seems like they would need a league where everybody played everybody in every sport.

Why? Is C-USA really a better league now that it is all-sports rather than a partial hybrid? The league is in it's 4th year and it is looking at it's 3rd consecutive year of being a 1-bid league.

Being all-sports doesn't seem to have done much for the second most important sport.

Again, as I've said before, it comes down to the programs in the league. For some leagues, all-sports is the only way to go. For others, particularly the Big East, unless the all-sports include PSU, ND, Miami, and BC, a hybrid is better.

Just not necessarily this equal hybrid monstrosity we have now.

Cheers,
Neil

I think CUSA has it's problems which are mainly due to geography. However, considering it's best teams were raided, it is a better league than it was before. You at least know who is in the league, and they play all sports together. It definitely has more identity than it had when some teams played basketball, and some teams played football, and some teams played olympic sports.

So it's better in men's bb just because they all play it whereas in old C-USA, Army did not???

Is that seriously your stance? Seems to me getting 4,6,4 bids out of 14 teams was better than getting 2, 1, 1, 1 (maybe two if UAB beats Memphis) out of 12.

Cheers,
Neil

You're talking about 1 sport after the conferences best basketball schools left. I'm talking about the conference as a whole.

A conference is its football and its men's basketball. In a 'true' all-sports conference, there are basically only 3 sports all institutions participate in - football, men's bb, and women's bb. The rest - the olympic sports - are hit and miss. Like only 9 of 12 from C-USA play men's soccer and baseball, but all 12 play women's volleyball.

Cheers,
Neil

(02-08-2009 01:55 PM)CatsClaw Wrote:  

(02-08-2009 01:29 PM)rferry Wrote:  

(02-08-2009 11:27 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  Fans and newscasters have bought into the idea that those leagues because of the bigger atheltic budgets and around the year exposure (from football and basketball) are in a higher plane than the rest. Villanova and Georgetown know full well that a league with the nonfootball members will be a step down from current situation.

Georgetown, Villanova and top basketball schools do not lose prestige once March Madness ends. Middle of October, ask any sports fan who has the better athletic program, and you'll hear Villanova, Georgetown and Marquette way before USF and Rutgers. You'll hear Gonzaga well before a long list of BCS schools.

You completely missed the point of the conversation. Whether or not they're bigger names is a moot point. The fact is, a basketball-only conference will be looked at as a mid-major by the media. You can ask the fans all you want, but they will always thumb their noses down at a basketball-only conference. Look at the A-10. It was a major conference before the BCS, and now it's considered mid-major. Same with C-USA, which was, originally, a basketball-only conference before merging with the Metro conference. You talk about asking sports fans who has the better athletic program, C-USA had Cincinnati, Louisville, Marquette, Memphis, Charlotte, Depaul and others and was STILL considered mid-major. Perfect example, you talk about Villanova, Georgetown, Marquette, Gonzaga, all it takes is one down year and people will view most of those schools as mid-major. Heck, you're bragging about Gonzaga, but nobody knew who were they prior to 1999, outside of a handful of people know that that is the school that John Stockton came from. The main reason the football schools tend to be stronger for longer lengths of time is because they usually generate more revenue. And they usually get their name out more (since people also hear about them in football).

Two different things.

CUSA was a major conference. It was regularly beating BCS conferences for bids. CUSA weakened its prestige by expanding for football. It lost its status with the defections to the Big East. Had it stayed as it was, it would be held up along with the BCS conferences as the top conferences in the land.

Your point might hold relevance for the A-10. It was a major, but you forget it was also the weakest of the majors. It lost its status earlier this decade, not because the BCS conferences passed them, but because the 2 east coast BCS conferences became the top basketball conferences in the land. Soon after, the top A-10 squads like UMass and Temple began losing recruits to the worst teams in the Big East and ACC. In this decade, the ACC and Big East damaged the reps of the A-10 and MAAC.

My point stands. The best are known. Whether they're simply the best during football or basketball season. Just having a year-round athletics program? Not so much. Gonzaga's known. USF may still not be despite having their name across the ticker September to March.

I think the A-10, being a bb league, is dependent on its coaches for marketability. Just like the Big East in the 80s was dependent on its coaches.

When UMass had Calipari, Don Chaney at Temple, St. Joe's Martelli, Skip Prosser at Xavier, etc in the mid-90s that was when that league was at its pinnacle.

Even having clunkers like Fordham, St. Bonaventure, and LaSalle didn't seem to matter then.

Now, what do they have? Miller at Xavier is probably the best of the lot and if Dixon does go to Arizona after this season is over, does anyone doubt that Miller will be on the short list as his replacement at Pitt?

Cheers,
Neil

(02-08-2009 07:26 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  I think the A-10, being a bb league, is dependent on its coaches for marketability. Just like the Big East in the 80s was dependent on its coaches.

When UMass had Calipari, Don Chaney at Temple, St. Joe's Martelli, Skip Prosser at Xavier, etc in the mid-90s that was when that league was at its pinnacle.

Even having clunkers like Fordham, St. Bonaventure, and LaSalle didn't seem to matter then.

Now, what do they have? Miller at Xavier is probably the best of the lot and if Dixon does go to Arizona after this season is over, does anyone doubt that Miller will be on the short list as his replacement at Pitt?

Cheers,
Neil

John Chaney.

The point is will those names still be there 10 years later of playing in a weaker league and as you mentioned start losing talent to the BE weaker teams. Those schools revenues will go own by not playing the Big Boys that their fans got used to seeing.
Its all hypothetical since we cant prove it unless it actually happens, but I think is fair to say that Villanova an Georgetown in such a league would not get as much benefits as they do now. So it will weaken them.

(02-08-2009 07:28 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(02-08-2009 07:26 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  I think the A-10, being a bb league, is dependent on its coaches for marketability. Just like the Big East in the 80s was dependent on its coaches.

When UMass had Calipari, Don Chaney at Temple, St. Joe's Martelli, Skip Prosser at Xavier, etc in the mid-90s that was when that league was at its pinnacle.

Even having clunkers like Fordham, St. Bonaventure, and LaSalle didn't seem to matter then.

Now, what do they have? Miller at Xavier is probably the best of the lot and if Dixon does go to Arizona after this season is over, does anyone doubt that Miller will be on the short list as his replacement at Pitt?

Cheers,
Neil

John Chaney.

Thanks for the correction.

Cheers,
Neil

Any conference with the likes of Gtown ,villanova, marquette and ND will ever be considered midmajor.Like it or not all the BB schools have tradition.(dating back decades) Some /many have seen better days but it doesnt mean they wont be back.
The A10 is viewed more and more as midmajor becasue of teams like Bonaventure, fordham laSalleduquesne(despite their recent win)etc. They arent in the same league as the BE BB schools. Many of the A10 schools are the "other" school in their market. The BE schools are the favorite and thast unlikley to change evn if the FB and BB schools split.


The question is who would keep the BE name and tradition? Since the FB schools would be most likely to initiate a split would they lose the name?
I still dont like a partial hybrid idea. I think Gtown, ND and Nova would be like the red headed step- children in such a FB 1st setup and they probably know it

(02-08-2009 07:30 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  The point is will those names still be there 10 years later of playing in a weaker league and as you mentioned start losing talent to the BE weaker teams. Those schools revenues will go own by not playing the Big Boys that their fans got used to seeing.
Its all hypothetical since we cant prove it unless it actually happens, but I think is fair to say that Villanova an Georgetown in such a league would not get as much benefits as they do now. So it will weaken them.

And, as I have shown in the past, the big crowds at Nova and GT are for Syracuse, UConn, and Louisville. The games that get shown on national TV for Nova and GT tend to be their match-ups with the upper echelon football schools, each other, and against ND or Marquette.

On the other hand, the majority of the national TV games tend to be the upper echelon football schools vs. GT, Nova, ND, or Marquette; then upper echelon football schools against each other; then GT, Nova, ND, and Marquette against each other; and then upper echelon football schools vs. other football schools.

So it is obvious that GT, Nova, ND, and Marquette bring value to the league due to their historical name recognition, their markets, and their current level of play.

Cheers,
Neil