(02-23-2011 01:41 PM)MichaelSavage Wrote:  The SEC has shown no interest in a 9 game conference schedule. That makes sense as they get to preserve their bodybag games & their regular 7 (and in some cases 8) game home slates.

Savage, I was thinking the exact same. When most of the SEC can play 8 home games, there is little motivation to change anything. I'm even a bit surprised the B-11,12,13... made the move to nine.

(02-23-2011 01:49 PM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  

(02-23-2011 01:41 PM)MichaelSavage Wrote:  The SEC has shown no interest in a 9 game conference schedule. That makes sense as they get to preserve their bodybag games & their regular 7 (and in some cases 8) game home slates.

Savage, I was thinking the exact same. When most of the SEC can play 8 home games, there is little motivation to change anything. I'm even a bit surprised the B-11,12,13... made the move to nine.

That's a great reason to play an 8 game schedule if we make the jump to 10.

(02-23-2011 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-23-2011 10:05 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  It seems to me that everyone has a completely different idea as to what is best for eastern football. This is precisely why eastern football still lags behind every other football conference in the nation when it comes to perception. Everyone is pulling in different directions, and there is no consensus...

I think it's one reason, but not the fundamental one. Despite the fact that football was invented in the east and that eastern teams were the original powers (up until about WWI), for many decades thereafter interest in eastern CFB declined dramatically, leaving most eastern teams with weak programs (poor fan support, poor facilities, losing records). Meanwhile, interest in the south and mid-west boomed.

So yes, the lack of consensus helps perpetuate that legacy by making it harder for us to overcome it, but it's not the cause of it, and that legacy is what we're trying to build up from to reach parity with the other sectors.

You're wrong on this one, dude...

Had the eastern independents ever gotten on the same page, with equal revenue sharing, and setup a true all-sports conference back in the 1960s, when an eastern conference was first proposed, it would have included PSU, Pitt, SU, RU, WVU, Temple, Maryland, and BC. With that core of teams the east would have a conference that would be as stable as any conference in the nation. All of these discussions would never have happened, or would be composed of a completely different mix of players...

Also, football in the east was strong until WWII. You forget Army's last 2 national championships...

(02-23-2011 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-23-2011 10:05 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  It seems to me that everyone has a completely different idea as to what is best for eastern football. This is precisely why eastern football still lags behind every other football conference in the nation when it comes to perception. Everyone is pulling in different directions, and there is no consensus...

I think it's one reason, but not the fundamental one. Despite the fact that football was invented in the east and that eastern teams were the original powers (up until about WWI), for many decades thereafter interest in eastern CFB declined dramatically, leaving most eastern teams with weak programs (poor fan support, poor facilities, losing records). Meanwhile, interest in the south and mid-west boomed.

So yes, the lack of consensus helps perpetuate that legacy by making it harder for us to overcome it, but it's not the cause of it, and that legacy is what we're trying to build up from to reach parity with the other sectors.

The especially sad thing about Eastern football was that its last full decade, the 1980s, was probably one of its best. Penn St, Pitt, Syracuse, West Virginia and Boston College all fielded very good teams during that time frame. I met a guy at a football game who played at a small school (can't remember where he said it was), but told me that during his time as a college football player he played against Pitt/Dan Marino, Boston College/Doug Flutie and West Virginia/Jeff Hostetler. That's not too bad

Jackson

(02-22-2011 11:09 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I have zero interest in a 10 team league for football. I would hate to see a 9 game conference schedule because it would be exactly like the 8 team FB conf except that there would only be 3 OOC games to play around with to help round out an exciting football schedule. Since Pitt plays ND 8 out of 10 years and there is talk about a new extension of the series, that would kill any chance for getting other interesting teams into Heinz. Some of the existing BE schools may be excited about this; however, it would be bad for Pitt and most likely for WVU, SU and RU as well.

WVU fans, your school appears to have a close relationship with Maryland. How would you feel if schools like LSU would not be scheduled and you would end up with Maryland as your only BCS level school and 2 cupcakes every year in perpetuity.

Syracuse fans, do you really want to lock yourselves in with BC and be content to see different varieties of cupcakes every year?

I would not consider us as being "locked in" with BC in that we would rather play them than pretty much every team in the Big East. To be honest the conference schedule is a complete drag without BC, Miami, and Virginia Tech and I mean that with respect to the current Big East football members. You would think we get up for WVU or Pitt but attendance wise it just is not true. Cincy and Louisville have both come here in recent years while in the top ten and we had as many fans for those games as we would playing Colgate or Buffalo. We still look down on Uconn and Rutgers and USF is no Miami. TCU should get a nice crowd in 2012 for the novelty factor but I do not see it lasting.

To answer your question I believe we would prefer the eight game schedule with divisions so if we are going past nine members we should go to 12 and get a championship game.

(02-23-2011 01:51 PM)animus Wrote:  

(02-23-2011 01:49 PM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  

(02-23-2011 01:41 PM)MichaelSavage Wrote:  The SEC has shown no interest in a 9 game conference schedule. That makes sense as they get to preserve their bodybag games & their regular 7 (and in some cases 8) game home slates.

Savage, I was thinking the exact same. When most of the SEC can play 8 home games, there is little motivation to change anything. I'm even a bit surprised the B-11,12,13... made the move to nine.

That's a great reason to play an 8 game schedule if we make the jump to 10.

Yea that sounds about right. I'd like to maximize the number of protected games however. Strictly to protect historical series/rivalries as much as possible. I'd want to make sure the 5 eastern schools play each other annually in such a setup.

(02-23-2011 04:46 PM)snowycuse Wrote:  I would not consider us as being "locked in" with BC in that we would rather play them than pretty much every team in the Big East. To be honest the conference schedule is a complete drag without BC, Miami, and Virginia Tech and I mean that with respect to the current Big East football members. You would think we get up for WVU or Pitt but attendance wise it just is not true. Cincy and Louisville have both come here in recent years while in the top ten and we had as many fans for those games as we would playing Colgate or Buffalo. We still look down on Uconn and Rutgers and USF is no Miami. TCU should get a nice crowd in 2012 for the novelty factor but I do not see it lasting.

To answer your question I believe we would prefer the eight game schedule with divisions so if we are going past nine members we should go to 12 and get a championship game.

Of all the past and current members of the Big East, Syracuse has probably been the weakest draw for Cincinnati fans as well ... even when we were in CUSA and 'Cuse was pretty good. Only 18,000 attended the game in 2000 when Cincinnati bested a decent Syracuse team on a last second field goal.

I'm not certain as to why our programs have yet to garner more than a passing interest in each other.

When TCU joins, I'd bet they'll "leapfrog" the Orange in popularity for Cincinnati fans too.

I'm personally in favor of a nine game schedule. It would be nice to eliminate the 1-AA games in the future.

(02-23-2011 02:13 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-23-2011 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-23-2011 10:05 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  It seems to me that everyone has a completely different idea as to what is best for eastern football. This is precisely why eastern football still lags behind every other football conference in the nation when it comes to perception. Everyone is pulling in different directions, and there is no consensus...

I think it's one reason, but not the fundamental one. Despite the fact that football was invented in the east and that eastern teams were the original powers (up until about WWI), for many decades thereafter interest in eastern CFB declined dramatically, leaving most eastern teams with weak programs (poor fan support, poor facilities, losing records). Meanwhile, interest in the south and mid-west boomed.

So yes, the lack of consensus helps perpetuate that legacy by making it harder for us to overcome it, but it's not the cause of it, and that legacy is what we're trying to build up from to reach parity with the other sectors.

You're wrong on this one, dude...

Had the eastern independents ever gotten on the same page, with equal revenue sharing, and setup a true all-sports conference back in the 1960s, when an eastern conference was first proposed, it would have included PSU, Pitt, SU, RU, WVU, Temple, Maryland, and BC. With that core of teams the east would have a conference that would be as stable as any conference in the nation. All of these discussions would never have happened, or would be composed of a completely different mix of players...

Also, football in the east was strong until WWII. You forget Army's last 2 national championships...

I think we're talking about two different things - you're focusing more on stability and me on quality. A conference can be very stable but not be very good/competitive. Interest in eastern college football has just seriously lagged other parts of the nation, and that makes achieving quality difficult. Penn State has been the glaring exception, because PSU is more like a mid-west state in its attitude towards college football.

As for Army, Army was strong during WW2 because all the good athletes had been .. drafted into the Army. :)

Anyway, that's just one team.

(02-23-2011 05:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  As for Army, Army was strong during WW2 because all the good athletes had been .. drafted into the Army. :)

Truth be told, they volunteered. There was no draft at that time...

BTW, here's a list of AP national champions from 1936-1945 taken from the AP poll website...

1936 Minnesota (#3 Pitt, #10 Penn, #12 Yale, #13 Dartmouth, #14 Duquesne, #15 Fordham, #18-T Navy)
1937 Pitt (#3 Fordham, #6 Villanova, #7 Dartmouth, #12 Yale, #14-T Holy Cross)
1938 TCU (#6 Carnegie Tech, #8 Pitt, #9 Holy Cross, #12 Cornell, #15 Fordham, #18 Villanova, #20 Dartmouth)
1939 Texas A&M (#4 Cornell, #10 Duquesne, #11 BC, #17 Fordham)
1940 Minnesota (#5 BC, #12 Fordham, #13 Georgetown, #15 Cornell)
1941 Minnesota (#6 Fordham, #8 Duquesne, #10 Navy, #15 Penn)
1942 Ohio State (#8 BC, #14 William & Mary, #19-T Holy Cross)
1943 Notre Dame (#4 Navy, #11 Army, #16 Dartmouth, #20 Penn)
1944 Army (#4 Navy)
1945 Army (#8 Penn, #16 Holy Cross, #20 Columbia)

As you can see, Army isn't the only eastern team on the list of top 20 teams in the AP poll between 1936-45. I could go on. But I don't feel like it, and you should be smart enough to get the point by now...

Your claim that Army was the ONE exception, and it was only because the Army drafted all the good football talent, wasn't the only mistake you made. Both Army and Navy were good because all the good football players were in boot camp or overseas getting shot at. But several Army and Navy training facilities had football teams during the war, and many appeared in the AP poll during that time...

Read up on eastern football history the next time you feel like making wild assumptions like these...

i hope you're kidding about the army comment

9 game conference schedule would suck. USF's goal is to have 7 home games every year. On the years when we had only 4 BE home games, we'd need all 3 of our OOC games to be at home. That would really limit the OOC scheduling capability and would lead to either poor matchups or a 6 game home schedule. And for what, to add a yearly home-home with Houston, ECU, or UCF? It just doesnt seem worth it. If any of those schools approached any of our schools with anything more than a 1-1 it would be declined immediately. The only exception I guess being WVU-ECU, and maybe TCU-Houston.

The biggest complaint we had for the past 6 years was the uneven home schedule, now its fixed, we have a very ideal 4-4-4 set up (4 home, 4 away, 4 ooc). Why would we mess that up for Houston or Central Florida? Its not worth it.

Only reason to expand is if there are rumblings of a 12 team requirement for BCS, or if we are seriously worried about another raid.

12 team requirement wouldnt shock me though, would be a way for the BCS to defer a playoff.

(02-23-2011 05:27 PM)dalbc Wrote:  

(02-23-2011 04:46 PM)snowycuse Wrote:  I would not consider us as being "locked in" with BC in that we would rather play them than pretty much every team in the Big East. To be honest the conference schedule is a complete drag without BC, Miami, and Virginia Tech and I mean that with respect to the current Big East football members. You would think we get up for WVU or Pitt but attendance wise it just is not true. Cincy and Louisville have both come here in recent years while in the top ten and we had as many fans for those games as we would playing Colgate or Buffalo. We still look down on Uconn and Rutgers and USF is no Miami. TCU should get a nice crowd in 2012 for the novelty factor but I do not see it lasting.

To answer your question I believe we would prefer the eight game schedule with divisions so if we are going past nine members we should go to 12 and get a championship game.

Of all the past and current members of the Big East, Syracuse has probably been the weakest draw for Cincinnati fans as well ... even when we were in CUSA and 'Cuse was pretty good. Only 18,000 attended the game in 2000 when Cincinnati bested a decent Syracuse team on a last second field goal.

I'm not certain as to why our programs have yet to garner more than a passing interest in each other.

When TCU joins, I'd bet they'll "leapfrog" the Orange in popularity for Cincinnati fans too.

I'm personally in favor of a nine game schedule. It would be nice to eliminate the 1-AA games in the future.

I Believe theres a little more interest in the Cuse by Bearcat fans than what you say, according to a news TV 5 web article:


The lowest attendance of the season was during the home opener, where 26,913 people saw the ‘Cats beat Eastern Kentucky 40-7. The highest was a stadium record of over 35,098 on November 22 against Pittsburgh, which was essentially for the conference championship.

The’Cats beat Pitt, and followed up the next week by beating Syracuse 30-10 on front of 34,603 fans. After the game, UC claimed the Big East Championship trophy.

http://www.wlwt.com/r/21160824/detail.html[/url]


Also, this past season the attendance was well over 32,000.

12. Add UCF, Houston, and either Navy (if they want to join) or ECU.

(02-23-2011 07:12 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  i hope you're kidding about the army comment

Who are you talking to, and which comment are you talking about? There have been several. You must be specific here, if you want anyone to figure things out...

(02-23-2011 06:57 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  As you can see, Army isn't the only eastern team on the list of top 20 teams in the AP poll between 1936-45. I could go on.

Point taken. Eastern football was obviously strong during that time.

Quote:Read up on eastern football history the next time you feel like making wild assumptions like these...

... and since more than 10 million men were drafted into the US armed forces between 1940 and 1946, you should read up on some military history before making outlandish claims about the Army and the WW2 draft...

The United States wasn't at war until Pearl Harbor, and the nation enlisted en masse. Draftees were in the minority, since most able bodied men wanted to go to war...

(02-23-2011 09:13 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-23-2011 07:12 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  i hope you're kidding about the army comment

Who are you talking to, and which comment are you talking about? There have been several. You must be specific here, if you want anyone to figure things out...

not you. the comment about army "drafting" the good players

(02-23-2011 09:33 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The United States wasn't at war until Pearl Harbor, and the nation enlisted en masse. Draftees were in the minority, since most able bodied men wanted to go to war...

Yep. Most MLB players willfully enlisted because they felt it was their duty. Bob Feller for example waived his deferment as sole provider for his family to enlist:

http://www.navalhistory.org/2010/12/16/r...ob-feller/

(02-23-2011 06:57 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Your claim that Army was the ONE exception, and it was only because the Army drafted all the good football talent, wasn't the only mistake you made. Both Army and Navy were good because all the good football players were in boot camp or overseas getting shot at. But several Army and Navy training facilities had football teams during the war, and many appeared in the AP poll during that time...

True. An example:

(02-23-2011 09:52 PM)mattsarz Wrote:  

(02-23-2011 09:33 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The United States wasn't at war until Pearl Harbor, and the nation enlisted en masse. Draftees were in the minority, since most able bodied men wanted to go to war...

Yep. Most MLB players willfully enlisted because they felt it was their duty. Bob Feller for example waived his deferment as sole provider for his family to enlist.

No doubt, many men voluntarily enlisted. Nevertheless, the notion that there was no draft is incorrect.

The draft law was actually enacted well before Pearl Harbor, in September 1940. It was the first peace-time draft in US history.