Someone should tell Villanova women's lacrosse, Loyola men's lacrosse, Davidson football, Morehead State football and many others.

Fine then blame them too. I'm just noting the irony that the most vocal plantiffs were in fact the ones that caused the mess.

I find it amazing that a fan of a current Big East school has less interest in the history of Big East and the eastern football independents than a Maryland fan. But I guess that's to be expected a fan of a program that didn't even exist before 1997.

Im more interested in the FUTURE of the Big East in ALL sports. This is 2009 NOT 1984.

Yep and USF did not have football until 1997 but I can safely say that we could probably beat your Maryland team that has had football for a lot longer. What does that say about the CURRENT status of your program

and USF is a CURRENT member of the Big East.

So if you care so much about Eastern football then maybe you should start a campaign to get Penn State, Boston College and your own Maryland team to join Cuse, Pitt, West Virginia, Uconn and Rutgers in a new league.

Since those schools including your own, decided to do whats best for them and turn their back on "eastern" football is pretty amazing that you are here telling current Big East members that we should care about eastern football history and screw our future because of it.

(05-05-2009 01:49 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  At the top, I'd put DePaul's Lincoln Park campus up there with any great urban neighborhood campus in the country (it's like a combo of NYU and Georgetown while adding in walking distance to Lake Michigan beaches and parks - DePaul consistently gets ranked #1 by the Princeton Review as having the happiest students in the nation), so it's a great location to market to recruits (the arena situation, though, is a different story).

Absolutely agree with this. When I was in Chicago last October this was my favorite neighborhood of all. Granted I liked all the neighborhoods I saw and would move to Chicago in a heartbeat regardless of the weather extremes. This coming from a big Northeastern NJ/NYC apologist. DePaul is in an excellent location that's for certain.

(05-05-2009 04:44 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(05-05-2009 03:39 PM)rferry Wrote:  No such regulation exists. Check the D1 manual. Not in 20.02.6, not 20.9.7, not 3.3. Where else would it be?

The point is that up until 1995 (although not officially until the recent realignment), BE football existed independently of the BE. When WV, Rutgers and others were admitted as members into the all-sports Big East, by their request and with approval of the BE, it set the stage for the conference's future instability and inflexibility to fix its problems. Indeed,
I find it funny that those same fans blame the very existence of Seton Hall and Providence in the BE for the struggles of a football league that could have operated as well, if not better, had they not joined the Big East.

By the way you might want to re-read section 20.02.06
It seems to say that a FBS conference must have 8 teams participating in 6 mens sports and 8 womens sports in such conference including mens and womens basketball.
So there would be no way that the BE would have remained a viable FBS conference if UC,UL or USF had kept those teams in other leagues

The conference needs to meet the required number of 8 full members. Teams are not restricted from being members of other conferences. There's nothing stopping a 9th BE football-only school.

The point I am making is that the 1995 decision harmed them from that point on. They were unable to take steps to improve their football membership that may have retained Miami (very unlikely), BC (very likely) and VA Tech. Even now: they can invite Memphis, UCF, or ECU, which most of "let's split now" group would like to do, but the rest of the BE won't allow it. They know the school is only trying to Rutgers its way into lucrative BE basketball; and the non-football teams will not stand for it.

and thats what I have been saying all along. That the current configuration hamstrings the football side from growing in that sport. By the way Temple was kept as a football member the whole time and was never allowed to move in for basketball and Im pretty sure that Temple would gladly keep that deal at the present time.
As for ECU, yes they might eventually want full membership, who would blame them, but what would be their action if told, no? move back to CUSA and give up BCS access?

Come on you and I know full well that if a team was added as a 9th football member that team can ***** but that situation is better than what is coming from and there are no better options for them,

(05-04-2009 11:03 AM)Hoquista Wrote:  

(05-04-2009 10:18 AM)Murph1 Wrote:  

(05-03-2009 02:21 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Well, ND has a great relationship with Michigan State. ND regularly scheduled the Spartans back when Michigan wanted to crush them, helping Michigan State's program develop.

Purdue and Michigan State have consistently played ND in the past when the AD's of Michigan and Ohio State were calling for a boycott of ND.

It should also be noted that Michigan and Ohio State were two schools that voted against JoePa's Penn State joining the Big Ten.

Penn State certainly had trouble getting into the Big 10.

They only needed 7 votes and there was a good possibility they weren't going to get it. I don't think it's been published anywhere (for obvious reasons) who voted no. NW was hesitant because they thought they would be kicked out.

Many ADs were POed because they were kept in the dark about the whole thing. Bo Schembechler was against it and said it “confirms the worst fear I have of presidents’ getting too much control in athletics. Not one athletic director was consulted on this matter. How can they do that?”

Anyway, they got in and the rest is history....

Could you imagine if PSU was rejected by the B10? JoePa would have needed therapy! 1st his eastern league never got off the ground, then the BE voted PSU full membership down then the B10? Poor Joe

Me thinks Joe be missin' his old mates... :ecu:

(05-05-2009 05:10 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  and thats what I have been saying all along. That the current configuration hamstrings the football side from growing in that sport. By the way Temple was kept as a football member the whole time and was never allowed to move in for basketball and Im pretty sure that Temple would gladly keep that deal at the present time.
As for ECU, yes they might eventually want full membership, who would blame them, but what would be their action if told, no? move back to CUSA and give up BCS access?

Come on you and I know full well that if a team was added as a 9th football member that team can ***** but that situation is better than what is coming from and there are no better options for them,

You and many others.
However, it comes at the wrong time. Today's prospects are way below par.

(05-05-2009 06:05 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  

(05-04-2009 11:03 AM)Hoquista Wrote:  

(05-04-2009 10:18 AM)Murph1 Wrote:  

(05-03-2009 02:21 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Well, ND has a great relationship with Michigan State. ND regularly scheduled the Spartans back when Michigan wanted to crush them, helping Michigan State's program develop.

Purdue and Michigan State have consistently played ND in the past when the AD's of Michigan and Ohio State were calling for a boycott of ND.

It should also be noted that Michigan and Ohio State were two schools that voted against JoePa's Penn State joining the Big Ten.

Penn State certainly had trouble getting into the Big 10.

They only needed 7 votes and there was a good possibility they weren't going to get it. I don't think it's been published anywhere (for obvious reasons) who voted no. NW was hesitant because they thought they would be kicked out.

Many ADs were POed because they were kept in the dark about the whole thing. Bo Schembechler was against it and said it “confirms the worst fear I have of presidents’ getting too much control in athletics. Not one athletic director was consulted on this matter. How can they do that?”

Anyway, they got in and the rest is history....

Could you imagine if PSU was rejected by the B10? JoePa would have needed therapy! 1st his eastern league never got off the ground, then the BE voted PSU full membership down then the B10? Poor Joe

Please note that the BE vote and the all sports conference idea both happened at the same time - early 80s. IIRC, the BE was making a run at Penn State in the late 80s when PSU went to the Big 10.

The BE would have still been there for PSU. Of course, maybe PSU would have preferred to instead head to the ACC. IIRC, JoePa has said several times that PSU would have pursued the ACC had the Big 10 rejected them. Of course, he may also have said that to try and further distance himself from anything associated with the BE.

(05-05-2009 06:07 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Me thinks Joe be missin' his old mates... :ecu:

Just think about how much time it took from the announcement of Penn State to the Big 10 in December of '89 to get PSU fully integrated into the Big 10! I mean, the Big 10 was initally talking about the mid 90s before PSU would be able to fully integrate their athletic programs! Talk about welcoming your newest member with open arms!

(05-06-2009 05:18 AM)Hoquista Wrote:  

(05-05-2009 06:05 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  

(05-04-2009 11:03 AM)Hoquista Wrote:  

(05-04-2009 10:18 AM)Murph1 Wrote:  

(05-03-2009 02:21 PM)TerryD Wrote:  Well, ND has a great relationship with Michigan State. ND regularly scheduled the Spartans back when Michigan wanted to crush them, helping Michigan State's program develop.

Purdue and Michigan State have consistently played ND in the past when the AD's of Michigan and Ohio State were calling for a boycott of ND.

It should also be noted that Michigan and Ohio State were two schools that voted against JoePa's Penn State joining the Big Ten.

Penn State certainly had trouble getting into the Big 10.

They only needed 7 votes and there was a good possibility they weren't going to get it. I don't think it's been published anywhere (for obvious reasons) who voted no. NW was hesitant because they thought they would be kicked out.

Many ADs were POed because they were kept in the dark about the whole thing. Bo Schembechler was against it and said it “confirms the worst fear I have of presidents’ getting too much control in athletics. Not one athletic director was consulted on this matter. How can they do that?”

Anyway, they got in and the rest is history....

Could you imagine if PSU was rejected by the B10? JoePa would have needed therapy! 1st his eastern league never got off the ground, then the BE voted PSU full membership down then the B10? Poor Joe

Please note that the BE vote and the all sports conference idea both happened at the same time - early 80s. IIRC, the BE was making a run at Penn State in the late 80s when PSU went to the Big 10.

The BE would have still been there for PSU. Of course, maybe PSU would have preferred to instead head to the ACC. IIRC, JoePa has said several times that PSU would have pursued the ACC had the Big 10 rejected them. Of course, he may also have said that to try and further distance himself from anything associated with the BE.

I know they happened close to each other, but its my undersatnding, PSU wanted to from a new league. BC and Syracuse (others im sure) were reluctant to leave the young BB driven BE. Those 2 were then the driving force on getting PSU full BE membership. Which failed by one vote. From what Ive read I know Cuse,BC and Providence voted yes, Gtown and Hall no. How the vote went with the others (uconn, nova and StJ's is less certain) What that would have meant for their FB programs Im not clear on.
Oh well, we could talk about this 4 years it wont change a thing