(10-26-2010 08:52 AM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(10-23-2010 10:23 AM)Bill Marsh Wrote:  But Pitt and WVU? Those are programs with long histories of being among the elete of major college football, even if Pitt's recent history isn't as good. They are football-first schools in football country. I can understand where they'd see being saddled up with Villanova as more demeaning or whatever.

Define "elite". And let's keep it to post-WWII. Going back 65 years should be long enough ago.

I'm referring to how those programs perceive themselves, not how you or I perceive them. You may disagree, but that is how they think of themselves, and they base their decisions on their own opinions, not your opinion or mine either.
[/quote]

How about being in the top 14-20 of all time college football wins as WVU, Syracuse and Pitt are?

(10-26-2010 09:05 AM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(10-26-2010 08:52 AM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(10-23-2010 10:23 AM)Bill Marsh Wrote:  But Pitt and WVU? Those are programs with long histories of being among the elete of major college football, even if Pitt's recent history isn't as good. They are football-first schools in football country. I can understand where they'd see being saddled up with Villanova as more demeaning or whatever.

Define "elite". And let's keep it to post-WWII. Going back 65 years should be long enough ago.

I'm referring to how those programs perceive themselves, not how you or I perceive them. You may disagree, but that is how they think of themselves, and they base their decisions on their own opinions, not your opinion or mine either.

How about being in the top 14-20 of all time college football wins as WVU, Syracuse and Pitt are?
[/quote]

WVU has the most wins of any schools that has not won a national championship

(10-25-2010 11:35 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Your backhanded comments against the Catholic Church are getting old. It's always Catholic this or Catholic that. Do you think it's the Catholic Church that is keeping Memphis down? Do you seriously think that the Catholic Church is behind the BE conference moves? WTF? If you have such a hard on for the Catholic Church, then go to some other forum so you can go bash it with like minded individuals and stay away from here.

I am not anti-Catholic, and I have never "bashed" that faith. The 8 non-football members do happen to all be Catholic and I think that is an additional tie which binds them together. I certainly don't think "the Catholic Church is behind BE conference moves", but it is clear to me that those 8 schools are united and have undue influence upon BE decision-making which is selfish, short-sighted and not in the best interests of the all-sports members.

(10-26-2010 09:12 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(10-25-2010 11:35 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Your backhanded comments against the Catholic Church are getting old. It's always Catholic this or Catholic that. Do you think it's the Catholic Church that is keeping Memphis down? Do you seriously think that the Catholic Church is behind the BE conference moves? WTF? If you have such a hard on for the Catholic Church, then go to some other forum so you can go bash it with like minded individuals and stay away from here.

I am not anti-Catholic, whatsoever. The 8 non-football members do happen to all be Catholic and I think that is an additional tie which binds them together. I certainly don't think "the Catholic Church is behind BE conference moves", but it is clear to me that those 8 schools are united and have undue influence upon BE decision-making which is not in the best interests of the all-sports members.

Many want to believe there is some "undue influence upon BE decision making which is not in the best interests of the all-sports members." If this were the case then the all-sports members would get together and leave. They've been together long enough to do this--could take bb credits I believe and could likely work the name change/name issues out with the BCS since the membership wouldn't actually be different and the BCS bid wasn't earned by Depaul or Providence College. The reality is WVU, Louisville, Cincy, Pitt, UConn, Syracuse, etc. WANT their basketball to continue to be associated with the best league in the nation and know their earnings potential for the future is greater WITH the bb schools than with a bunch of also rans that might join them in a split.

(10-26-2010 09:20 AM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(10-26-2010 09:12 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(10-25-2010 11:35 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Your backhanded comments against the Catholic Church are getting old. It's always Catholic this or Catholic that. Do you think it's the Catholic Church that is keeping Memphis down? Do you seriously think that the Catholic Church is behind the BE conference moves? WTF? If you have such a hard on for the Catholic Church, then go to some other forum so you can go bash it with like minded individuals and stay away from here.

I am not anti-Catholic, whatsoever. The 8 non-football members do happen to all be Catholic and I think that is an additional tie which binds them together. I certainly don't think "the Catholic Church is behind BE conference moves", but it is clear to me that those 8 schools are united and have undue influence upon BE decision-making which is not in the best interests of the all-sports members.

Many want to believe there is some "undue influence upon BE decision making which is not in the best interests of the all-sports members." If this were the case then the all-sports members would get together and leave. They've been together long enough to do this--could take bb credits I believe and could likely work the name change/name issues out with the BCS since the membership wouldn't actually be different and the BCS bid wasn't earned by Depaul or Providence College. The reality is WVU, Louisville, Cincy, Pitt, UConn, Syracuse, etc. WANT their basketball to continue to be associated with the best league in the nation and know their earnings potential for the future is greater WITH the bb schools than with a bunch of also rans that might join them in a split.

Just asking but which BB league has won the past 3 or so BB titles? Just asking.

(10-26-2010 09:20 AM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(10-26-2010 09:12 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(10-25-2010 11:35 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Your backhanded comments against the Catholic Church are getting old. It's always Catholic this or Catholic that. Do you think it's the Catholic Church that is keeping Memphis down? Do you seriously think that the Catholic Church is behind the BE conference moves? WTF? If you have such a hard on for the Catholic Church, then go to some other forum so you can go bash it with like minded individuals and stay away from here.

I am not anti-Catholic, whatsoever. The 8 non-football members do happen to all be Catholic and I think that is an additional tie which binds them together. I certainly don't think "the Catholic Church is behind BE conference moves", but it is clear to me that those 8 schools are united and have undue influence upon BE decision-making which is not in the best interests of the all-sports members.

Many want to believe there is some "undue influence upon BE decision making which is not in the best interests of the all-sports members." If this were the case then the all-sports members would get together and leave. They've been together long enough to do this--could take bb credits I believe and could likely work the name change/name issues out with the BCS since the membership wouldn't actually be different and the BCS bid wasn't earned by Depaul or Providence College. The reality is WVU, Louisville, Cincy, Pitt, UConn, Syracuse, etc. WANT their basketball to continue to be associated with the best league in the nation and know their earnings potential for the future is greater WITH the bb schools than with a bunch of also rans that might join them in a split.

I actually agree with you on this. If it were ONLY the Catholic members that were opposed to FB expansion, then the FB members could've chosen to split off already. What I believe is going on is that the FB members support expansion as a general amorphous concept, but in no way shape or form agree on WHO to expand with. The devil is ultimately in the details. There's no viable expansion option on the FB side that makes all of the FB members say, "Wow! School A is so awesome in FB that it's worth it for us to dump our profitable basketball league and the BE Tourney at MSG and the NYC/Chicago/DC markets!" That magical School A doesn't exist (or rather, are spoken for in the form of ND's stance on independence and PSU's membership in the Big Ten), which is why there is a real standstill (and how Villanova appears to be the compromise). I like Memphis well enough, but is the BE going to split for Memphis or any of the C-USA members? Heck no. The conference barely seems to be acknowledging the existence of TCU and that's one of the few non-AQ schools that would actually raise the national profile of the BE.

Logical explanation for the lack of movement. Adding a new member has consequences. Unfortunately there is no "Wow" School, each candidate has strengths and weaknesses. There is no urgency to rush into what may in retrospect be a wrong decision. Expansion candidates are aware the BE is considering expansion. This opportunity should motivate deserving candidates to do the necessary work to make themselves attractive for membership. If not they can only blame themselves.

(10-26-2010 09:42 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-26-2010 09:20 AM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(10-26-2010 09:12 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(10-25-2010 11:35 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Your backhanded comments against the Catholic Church are getting old. It's always Catholic this or Catholic that. Do you think it's the Catholic Church that is keeping Memphis down? Do you seriously think that the Catholic Church is behind the BE conference moves? WTF? If you have such a hard on for the Catholic Church, then go to some other forum so you can go bash it with like minded individuals and stay away from here.

I am not anti-Catholic, whatsoever. The 8 non-football members do happen to all be Catholic and I think that is an additional tie which binds them together. I certainly don't think "the Catholic Church is behind BE conference moves", but it is clear to me that those 8 schools are united and have undue influence upon BE decision-making which is not in the best interests of the all-sports members.

Many want to believe there is some "undue influence upon BE decision making which is not in the best interests of the all-sports members." If this were the case then the all-sports members would get together and leave. They've been together long enough to do this--could take bb credits I believe and could likely work the name change/name issues out with the BCS since the membership wouldn't actually be different and the BCS bid wasn't earned by Depaul or Providence College. The reality is WVU, Louisville, Cincy, Pitt, UConn, Syracuse, etc. WANT their basketball to continue to be associated with the best league in the nation and know their earnings potential for the future is greater WITH the bb schools than with a bunch of also rans that might join them in a split.

I actually agree with you on this. If it were ONLY the Catholic members that were opposed to FB expansion, then the FB members could've chosen to split off already. What I believe is going on is that the FB members support expansion as a general amorphous concept, but in no way shape or form agree on WHO to expand with. The devil is ultimately in the details. There's no viable expansion option on the FB side that makes all of the FB members say, "Wow! School A is so awesome in FB that it's worth it for us to dump our profitable basketball league and the BE Tourney at MSG and the NYC/Chicago/DC markets!" That magical School A doesn't exist (or rather, are spoken for in the form of ND's stance on independence and PSU's membership in the Big Ten), which is why there is a real standstill (and how Villanova appears to be the compromise). I like Memphis well enough, but is the BE going to split for Memphis or any of the C-USA members? Heck no. The conference barely seems to be acknowledging the existence of TCU and that's one of the few non-AQ schools that would actually raise the national profile of the BE.

Barring the loggistics(football only) and Catholics reception of a LDS school, BYU is another excellent Value Program in every way, except for those 2 mentioned issues. Definately meets all other categories and would definately bet on them accepting a BE or B12 offer!

(10-26-2010 09:42 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  What I believe is going on is that the FB members support expansion as a general amorphous concept, but in no way shape or form agree on WHO to expand with. The devil is ultimately in the details. There's no viable expansion option on the FB side that makes all of the FB members say, "Wow! School A is so awesome in FB that it's worth it for us to dump our profitable basketball league and the BE Tourney at MSG and the NYC/Chicago/DC markets!"

This is what's going on. TCU is close, but not close enough. Hell, I have no idea why TCU doesn't fit the definition Frank provides. They are as good as it will ever get. But apparently, that is not good enough, and that is very disheartening for those of us who want better quality football.

(10-26-2010 05:10 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(10-26-2010 09:42 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  What I believe is going on is that the FB members support expansion as a general amorphous concept, but in no way shape or form agree on WHO to expand with. The devil is ultimately in the details. There's no viable expansion option on the FB side that makes all of the FB members say, "Wow! School A is so awesome in FB that it's worth it for us to dump our profitable basketball league and the BE Tourney at MSG and the NYC/Chicago/DC markets!"

This is what's going on. TCU is close, but not close enough. Hell, I have no idea why TCU doesn't fit the definition Frank provides. They are as good as it will ever get. But apparently, that is not good enough, and that is very disheartening for those of us who want better quality football.

So, which school or schools are standing in the way? Does anyone have a reasonable idea? Is it the BB only schools or are some of the FB schools culprits too? So is it Pitt, Rutgers and Syracuse again like most of you believe?

(10-26-2010 05:10 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(10-26-2010 09:42 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  What I believe is going on is that the FB members support expansion as a general amorphous concept, but in no way shape or form agree on WHO to expand with. The devil is ultimately in the details. There's no viable expansion option on the FB side that makes all of the FB members say, "Wow! School A is so awesome in FB that it's worth it for us to dump our profitable basketball league and the BE Tourney at MSG and the NYC/Chicago/DC markets!"

This is what's going on. TCU is close, but not close enough. Hell, I have no idea why TCU doesn't fit the definition Frank provides. They are as good as it will ever get. But apparently, that is not good enough, and that is very disheartening for those of us who want better quality football.

TCU is a "no-brainer"....... Villanova?..umm

(10-26-2010 05:15 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(10-26-2010 05:10 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(10-26-2010 09:42 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  What I believe is going on is that the FB members support expansion as a general amorphous concept, but in no way shape or form agree on WHO to expand with. The devil is ultimately in the details. There's no viable expansion option on the FB side that makes all of the FB members say, "Wow! School A is so awesome in FB that it's worth it for us to dump our profitable basketball league and the BE Tourney at MSG and the NYC/Chicago/DC markets!"

This is what's going on. TCU is close, but not close enough. Hell, I have no idea why TCU doesn't fit the definition Frank provides. They are as good as it will ever get. But apparently, that is not good enough, and that is very disheartening for those of us who want better quality football.

So, which school or schools are standing in the way? Does anyone have a reasonable idea? Is it the BB only schools or are some of the FB schools culprits too? So is it Pitt, Rutgers and Syracuse again like most of you believe?

These are just examples, but I think it goes something like Louisville, Cincy and WVU want to add TCU (for example), but then Pitt, Syracuse and UConn want to add Temple (for example). I don't think anyone is blocking expansion outright. It's just that they cannot agree.

I do however believe that the schools rumored for the Big Ten were delaying any talk of expansion until they did or did not get their invitations. It's no coincidence that Big East expansion is now a front burner issue since no invitations were issued to Big East schools. Jmo, not a fact.

I think all of this is a crazy cloak and dagger chess game. We all have our thoughts as to what is going to happen. I don't see the Big East expanding beyond 10. I don't like the thought of Villanova from a FBS standpoint but I understand the behind the doors stuff to break/change the gridlock. I do like TCU. Our BB side plays 18 conference games everyon once pluss two so sounds like we can add two full member schools and keep BB as hybrid which I do like. I absolutely like the thought of TCU..... we don't need another killer BB team we have those... just someone to be competative. I think we stay at 10 waiting on the next BCS decisions and ND. Will Texas go indendent or will they need a conference protection for everyting else. We are ND's conference protection

What I see happening is Villanova and TCU being added. TCU full membership leaving one open slot. Staying at 10 based on discussions with ND. I think at some point all BCS conferences will need to be at 12 members minimum and pehaps no independent ND type deals. That would push ND into Big East where they have a shot at winning every once in a while. I also think they bring Boston College with them as the 12/18th member and Temple goes to ACC. If not BC then Navy, Tulane (USNWR #51 school and southern recruiting grounds). ECU (football over academics) or hey wildcard of BYU.

ND, BC, Pitt, Syracuse, Villanova, Rutgers
UL, WVU, Cincy, USF, UCONN,TCU

Now if BIG EAST members block TCU then in the spirit of taking my football home because you won't let me play......

I say UL,WVU,Cincy, USF go talk to BIG 12 about going from 10 to the BIG 14. Great for Football but not so geeked about basketball. UL probably goes to an Auburn or gasp maybe a UK type team in that BIG 14 but would prefer playing football with excitement vs the alternative.

Just my uninfomed talked to no one know no insiders thoughts

Will the likes of Seton Hall and Providence be able to afford trips to Ft. Worth, TX for basketball and non-revemnue sports such as volleyball?

(10-27-2010 11:40 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  Will the likes of Seton Hall and Providence be able to afford trips to Ft. Worth, TX for basketball and non-revemnue sports such as volleyball?

And that is as plausible as any reason for why TCU would be blocked. It seems like going to a divisional format would solve this problem though. That way the basketball schools would only have to make the trip every 4th year and only play them every other year.

(10-27-2010 11:53 AM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(10-27-2010 11:40 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  Will the likes of Seton Hall and Providence be able to afford trips to Ft. Worth, TX for basketball and non-revemnue sports such as volleyball?

And that is as plausible as any reason for why TCU would be blocked. It seems like going to a divisional format would solve this problem though. That way the basketball schools would only have to make the trip every 4th year and only play them every other year.

Divisions would cut travel costs for the "olympic" sports, but they are not ideal for basketball because they disadvantage the stronger teams in the weaker division (who would have a stronger schedule and better NCAA tournament prospects if there were no divisions). The SEC has this problem, but they're sticking with the divisions for basketball.

So how about divisions for every sport except hoops, and a 16-game round-robin for hoops (in a 17-team league that includes TCU). Any school that finds that too costly should find a lower-cost league in which to compete.

(10-27-2010 01:22 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-27-2010 11:53 AM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(10-27-2010 11:40 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  Will the likes of Seton Hall and Providence be able to afford trips to Ft. Worth, TX for basketball and non-revemnue sports such as volleyball?

And that is as plausible as any reason for why TCU would be blocked. It seems like going to a divisional format would solve this problem though. That way the basketball schools would only have to make the trip every 4th year and only play them every other year.

Divisions would cut travel costs for the "olympic" sports, but they are not ideal for basketball because they disadvantage the stronger teams in the weaker division (who would have a stronger schedule and better NCAA tournament prospects if there were no divisions). The SEC has this problem, but they're sticking with the divisions for basketball.

So how about divisions for every sport except hoops, and a 16-game round-robin for hoops (in a 17-team league that includes TCU). Any school that finds that too costly should find a lower-cost league in which to compete.

That makes too much sense. Stop that now. NOW!!

If we split into divisions, keep 'em for basketball as well, or don't do it at all. I hate this one thing for one sport and something else for every other sport. Split us into divisions - or into completely different conferences. One or the other...

(10-27-2010 11:40 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  Will the likes of Seton Hall and Providence be able to afford trips to Ft. Worth, TX for basketball and non-revemnue sports such as volleyball?

If the Big East is anywhere near the BB conference it's supposed to be, then they'll have the funds to make it to Cowtown once every year or two... considering, if TCU takes a BE invite and is willing to make the same loggistics at least 8 or more times per year.

Plus, in the MWC, no one is whining about flying to FW every year considering the Toads are going out West 8-9 times annually already. and that brings up another plus for adding Houston or SMU... while BE Bball schools make the long trip on a thurs., then they could catch the other Texas school on Sat.(once per year) making TCU less burdensome to the Rich little Bball schools who are making a killing as a Big East member already.