It's just my opinion. If you don't care for it, don't respond to it! =).

(04-07-2011 11:51 AM)malves21 Wrote:  http://www.examiner.com/college-football...s-big-east

"A source close to the situation has relayed to VUhoops that the trustees in favor of this move currently have enough votes for the measure to pass on Tuesday. That news was, of course, pending the results of the discussions with the Big East as well as the final fundraising push."

but I don't want them to move up



I just have an absolutely horrible feeling that they'll be worse than Temple was if they do move up

(04-07-2011 10:10 PM)Theodoresdaddy Wrote:  but I don't want them to move up



I just have an absolutely horrible feeling that they'll be worse than Temple was if they do move up

Don't worry about that. It would almost be impossible to be as horrible as Temple was while they were in the BE. They could however be vastly better than Temple was and still be horrible and never go to a bowl.

(04-07-2011 06:48 PM)animus Wrote:  People just have a lot of AQ wishes right now and reading certain quotes the way they want to and it may or may not be what the individual said.

The same could be said for those who don't want the Big East to expand any further or just stop with Villanova...they take full quotes and only give credence to the portion that supports their theory. They ignore other portions that have undeniable meaning. Yes, the meaning is unclear but there is meaning to it. It's more than ok to hypothesize as a fan since we have no bearing or affect on the situation. That hypothesization is no more invalid than those who take a part of a quote and draw complete conclusions as if all the facts were included in that one piece.

(04-07-2011 07:39 PM)Brick City Pirate Wrote:  One thing to remember, with TCU already in a BCS Conference and possibly Houston & UCF/ECU soon to join, it will make the Non-BCS path to a BCS bowl easier for a school like UCF/ECU that has the fanbase and facilities in place to become the next TCU or Boise. ECU would have to lighten it's out of conference schedule, but not having to play UCF and Houston will make the path a little easier.

We need to lighten it a lot to have a real shot. I hate that this system rewards playing a bunch of bums, but thats the way it is. Part of me wants to drop the schedule down, but the other part wonders if we do but our record doesn't greatly improve will our attendance take a big hit? We can go 7-5 with our current schedule and all the seats will be filled because we play great OOC opposition. If we replaced USC East, VT, and UNC with a Suck-belt and 2 FCS schools then we would have to be winning 10+ games a year, because average fans dont want to see an average team play below average competition.

(04-08-2011 07:06 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  The same could be said for those who don't want the Big East to expand any further or just stop with Villanova...they take full quotes and only give credence to the portion that supports their theory. They ignore other portions that have undeniable meaning. Yes, the meaning is unclear but there is meaning to it. It's more than ok to hypothesize as a fan since we have no bearing or affect on the situation. That hypothesization is no more invalid than those who take a part of a quote and draw complete conclusions as if all the facts were included in that one piece.

(04-08-2011 07:51 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(04-07-2011 07:39 PM)Brick City Pirate Wrote:  One thing to remember, with TCU already in a BCS Conference and possibly Houston & UCF/ECU soon to join, it will make the Non-BCS path to a BCS bowl easier for a school like UCF/ECU that has the fanbase and facilities in place to become the next TCU or Boise. ECU would have to lighten it's out of conference schedule, but not having to play UCF and Houston will make the path a little easier.

We need to lighten it a lot to have a real shot. I hate that this system rewards playing a bunch of bums, but thats the way it is. Part of me wants to drop the schedule down, but the other part wonders if we do but our record doesn't greatly improve will our attendance take a big hit? We can go 7-5 with our current schedule and all the seats will be filled because we play great OOC opposition. If we replaced USC East, VT, and UNC with a Suck-belt and 2 FCS schools then we would have to be winning 10+ games a year, because average fans dont want to see an average team play below average competition.

Not only that, if you take the easy schedule route it takes many years for people to buy into the idea you are really good as a 10+ win team. Look how long it took for Boise St. to really gain believers. Fortunately for them, the establishment of winning 10 games consistently drastically improved their recruiting. By the time people were willing to buy into them (and some still haven't) they actually had solid teams. They've also had a pretty good stable of coaches. Going the easy route is a tricky business. With the right formula there is high reward. Miss on a piece or two and it can sink your program. Given our athletic program's expenditures, we have ALOT more $$$ wise to lose than Boise St. ever could think about. It was an easy decision for them. Not so much for us.

(04-08-2011 08:03 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(04-08-2011 07:51 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(04-07-2011 07:39 PM)Brick City Pirate Wrote:  One thing to remember, with TCU already in a BCS Conference and possibly Houston & UCF/ECU soon to join, it will make the Non-BCS path to a BCS bowl easier for a school like UCF/ECU that has the fanbase and facilities in place to become the next TCU or Boise. ECU would have to lighten it's out of conference schedule, but not having to play UCF and Houston will make the path a little easier.

We need to lighten it a lot to have a real shot. I hate that this system rewards playing a bunch of bums, but thats the way it is. Part of me wants to drop the schedule down, but the other part wonders if we do but our record doesn't greatly improve will our attendance take a big hit? We can go 7-5 with our current schedule and all the seats will be filled because we play great OOC opposition. If we replaced USC East, VT, and UNC with a Suck-belt and 2 FCS schools then we would have to be winning 10+ games a year, because average fans dont want to see an average team play below average competition.

Not only that, if you take the easy schedule route it takes many years for people to buy into the idea you are really good as a 10+ win team. Look how long it took for Boise St. to really gain believers. Fortunately for them, the establishment of winning 10 games consistently drastically improved their recruiting. By the time people were willing to buy into them (and some still haven't) they actually had solid teams. They've also had a pretty good stable of coaches. Going the easy route is a tricky business. With the right formula there is high reward. Miss on a piece or two and it can sink your program. Given our athletic program's expenditures, we have ALOT more $$$ wise to lose than Boise St. ever could think about. It was an easy decision for them. Not so much for us.

Yep there are a lot of things to consider when people say ECU should just lighten their schedule. If we are going to do it we have to do it the right way. I would like to see 2 AQ's (or a service academy) 1 very local FCS school that would bring fans (App State, ODU, JMU, Richmond) and 1 other non-AQ team. Need to work it out where you have 1 of the AQ/academies on the home schedule every year. That type of schedule would be weak enough that it would give us a chance to win 10+ games, but still have some games that will draw fans. It would help us out if App or ODU would move up to FBS and they could move into that 1 non-AQ game catagory, because right now there aren't any we could play that would bring any fans to our stadium.

(04-07-2011 09:40 PM)saxamoophone Wrote:  It's just my opinion. If you don't care for it, don't respond to it! =).

Well that's kinda the point... there is a LOT of opinion and wishful thinking here. That's all fun and fine, but people are bluring the lines. Wishes must be distinguished from what little 'facts' we all have, which is what a few of us here are trying to point out.

(04-08-2011 08:48 AM)Bull Wrote:  

(04-07-2011 09:40 PM)saxamoophone Wrote:  It's just my opinion. If you don't care for it, don't respond to it! =).

Well that's kinda the point... there is a LOT of opinion and wishful thinking here. That's all fun and fine, but people are bluring the lines. Wishes must be distinguished from what little 'facts' we all have, which is what a few of us here are trying to point out.

I see your point...although I think 99.999% of all the stuff posted on here has been in the 'wishes' catagory.

And heck, with the BIG10/BIG12 stuff last year, we all saw how schools like to "play" each other (hey texas!).

I think an asssumption that ESPN wants 12 might be misplaced. In championship week they are still going to want several games to fill all their stations (ABC, ESPN, ESPN 2, ESPN U). They aren't going to be getting anything from the Big Ten, PAC-12, or SEC (will be on Fox and CBS). They aren't even going to be getting the Conference USA Championship (will be on some network owned by Fox). They also won't be getting Mountain West games (on the Mountain).

What does that leave ESPN with? It leaves them with the ACC Championship game, the MAC Championship game, various Sun Belt and WAC games and Big 12 and Big East games. The Big 12 and Big East are the only bigger conferences it's geting several games from. If either adds a championship, that might give the network one big game, but unless it's a very big game, it's debatable whether it's going to be worth more to them at that point than a bunch of final regular season games that can occupy multiple time slots.

(04-07-2011 08:57 PM)Goldenbuc Wrote:  Here's what I see playing out...Nova moves up and the Big East will be fine with 10 by 2014. To move to 12...it'll have to take a big time ESPN or whoever TV contract to convince the Big East that it's worth it. If that is the case....

Then...

Houston is next at #11 and the Big East looks at #12 as a football-only. There are schools (ECU, Navy...etc) that'll fit a football-only mold. The FB-only school allows the Big East 12/18. Obviously ECU would accept a FB-only in a heartbeat. Navy however may be their first choice if they'd accept. If not...look for ECU.

As far as UCF is concerned...it seems to me that Houston has taken a front seat from their point of view. I'll go along with this with the most recent smoke.

The Big East may have already voted on the matter in March (reasons being that the Big East president that was the head of the expansion committe position expired on April 1st) and the big east prefers a unanimous vote. If it's too close...they prefer to re-evaluate. I think this is what happend over the summer with UCF and Memphis' rumors. The source could have found out that the Big East indeed voted on that outcome to come about, but it wasn't unanimous and those opposed appealed to re-evaluate and see if they can get TCU and work in Villanova. As a compromise...those in support of UCF agreed that it'd depend on Villanova's decision (the news we heard last fall after TCU accepted). While the wait for Villanova was on....the supporter of Houston (using TCU's acceptance as a entry) was able to allow them to make a pitch and that's why there was a scramble from Houston to get their act together. I'm thinking that many of the Big East presidents don't see much of a difference between the schools. Houston being able to get in front of the Big East Presidents and make a last minute pitch could have been enough to get them over the edge.

I still think UCF has some support in the Big East...but again..the Big East probably doesn't see much of a difference between the two and Houston is the only one of the two that has heavy support from a Big East President. And while UCF had support from the Big East...it didn't have a president that was known to be totally against UCF's inclusion or promoting UCF, like Houston.

Off the mark...I have never read a reliable source that really puts Houston at the top of a list. If nova accepts the Big east stops expansion...if Nova declines..it will be UCF..book it.

(04-08-2011 07:06 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(04-07-2011 06:48 PM)animus Wrote:  People just have a lot of AQ wishes right now and reading certain quotes the way they want to and it may or may not be what the individual said.

The same could be said for those who don't want the Big East to expand any further or just stop with Villanova...they take full quotes and only give credence to the portion that supports their theory. They ignore other portions that have undeniable meaning. Yes, the meaning is unclear but there is meaning to it. It's more than ok to hypothesize as a fan since we have no bearing or affect on the situation. That hypothesization is no more invalid than those who take a part of a quote and draw complete conclusions as if all the facts were included in that one piece.

http://www.bigeast.org/News/tabid/435/Ar...nsion.aspx

Quote:PHILADELPHIA - The BIG EAST Conference submitted the results of its extensive self-analysis and evaluation of the college athletics environment today at its annual Conference Board of Directors meeting. Based on those results, the BIG EAST presidents agreed that the interests of each of the conference’s 16 member institutions would be served by increasing the number of Bowl Subdivision football-playing members to 10. They unanimously approved the process to evaluate the terms and conditions for potential expansion candidates.

"Today, our Board of Directors affirmed a set of key strategic initiatives, including expansion, designed to enhance membership stability and maximize our value," stated Commissioner John Marinatto.

Marinatto said the conference will refrain from commenting further on the expansion process.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com...nd-to-ten/

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010...ll-members

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/11/02/big-ea...expansion/

Game, set, match.

To be honest, I dont know what to believe anymore....the Big East is all over the map here.

1) They approve to add two football playing members, but just add TCU in all sports.

2) They ask Nova if they want to move up.

3) They say that they are not waiting on the Nova decision.

4) They wait until Nova makes a decision.

Is Nova the other football playing member they approved to add in November? Why did they say they weren't waiting on a Nova decision...to give Illiana Limon something to talk about or because they had pie-in-the sky ideas that a Big 12 program would come their way?

I have a couple of BIG questions here that should be answered on 4/12...1) Where is Nova going to play LONG-TERM, because PPL park is not a realistic option long term fro Big East football games (maybe I-AA or the Sun Belt). 2) When is Nova moving up? and MOST Importantly 3) How does Nova moving up affect the Big East's TV Contract in football. Because increasing revenues is supposed to be the POINT of expansion right?

Is the Big East going to answer these questions, because their Commish has previously said that NO OTHER PROGRAM offers full value to the Big East (except apparently now TCU). So by asking Nova to move up, the Big East shold be able to provide documented evidence that NOVA football provides VALUE to the Big East OVER the schools the Big East felt the need to put down.

Otherwise, the Big East office is talking out of both sides of their mouth. They claim that other programs cant help them, surmise that Nova football does, but cant provide evidence that Nova football will offer more.

The only answer that makes sense is that the only reason for Nova football to be added to the Big East is for inventory purposes, i.e. more BE games and that the Big East PREFERRED to work with Nova because of their long term ties as an institution to the Big East. Now, most would be extremely surprised if the BE claims that Nova football provides more VALUE for TV purposes, etc...then many of the alternatives, because that is just simply not the case.

Lets see where the media goes with this decision...the TCU one really only had the geography question, but this Nova decision is questionable on A LOT of fronts.

I think, no matter what, this decision further clouds the supposed separation between an AQ program and a non AQ program...and further questions the revenue discrepancies. Villanova has never done anything to justify automatic revenues from the BCS. They dont have a stadium, they have little market share, they have only won a handful of D-1 games, yet they receive more money from the BCS.

I wouldnt be surprised if CUSA and the MWC use this decision as an example in furthering their argument against the current BCS revenue distributions.

I look at it like this, the football schools needed to invite Villanova for the football schools to be able to invite TCU. The Commish is doing his best to say the right things like "we're not going to wait for Nova". But its quite apparent that he did. If Nova says no, things could get a little more interesting up there in Providence.

The reality of this situation is that we are in the middle of a media WAR with the BCS.

Lincoln Riley, ECU's OC recently was quoted as saying (paraphrasing) that he felt like "he was taking a step down when he took the ECU job (in CUSA) from working in the Big 12" (even though it was a promotion in responsibilities). He's a young guy and had obviously been affected from the BCS era media that attempts to put programs "in their place". He believed that Iowa State was better then East Carolina, when if fact it isnt (except for the guaranteed revenue). I believe that was what Marinnato was saying with his comments about institutions not providing full value.

Riley concluded with saying that there are "MANY" BCS-AQ programs that would love to have the fan support and facilities that ECU has and that he decided to work harder to promote what ECU had and the inaccuracies in the marketplace.

Villanova football is about the have the grand stage that Duke football and Washington State football among others have also experienced. They will be "looked at" as a top level program, while other programs that are actually better programs, are written off as the "little sisters of the poor" and not having "full value" by the BCS big wigs.

Get ready, because the media will be pushed to cover this story harder then ever and to expose the inconsistencies of this decision. No one was arguing with Utah or TCU, they performed as programs, but adding an I-AA program with little fan support and no facilities to an AQ league in 2011 as a "strategic initiative" does not pass the "smell test", as if the BCS ever actually did. The revenues generated for that program need to be questioned, over and over.

(04-08-2011 09:19 AM)animus Wrote:  

(04-08-2011 07:06 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(04-07-2011 06:48 PM)animus Wrote:  People just have a lot of AQ wishes right now and reading certain quotes the way they want to and it may or may not be what the individual said.

The same could be said for those who don't want the Big East to expand any further or just stop with Villanova...they take full quotes and only give credence to the portion that supports their theory. They ignore other portions that have undeniable meaning. Yes, the meaning is unclear but there is meaning to it. It's more than ok to hypothesize as a fan since we have no bearing or affect on the situation. That hypothesization is no more invalid than those who take a part of a quote and draw complete conclusions as if all the facts were included in that one piece.

http://www.bigeast.org/News/tabid/435/Ar...nsion.aspx

Quote:PHILADELPHIA - The BIG EAST Conference submitted the results of its extensive self-analysis and evaluation of the college athletics environment today at its annual Conference Board of Directors meeting. Based on those results, the BIG EAST presidents agreed that the interests of each of the conference’s 16 member institutions would be served by increasing the number of Bowl Subdivision football-playing members to 10. They unanimously approved the process to evaluate the terms and conditions for potential expansion candidates.

"Today, our Board of Directors affirmed a set of key strategic initiatives, including expansion, designed to enhance membership stability and maximize our value," stated Commissioner John Marinatto.

Marinatto said the conference will refrain from commenting further on the expansion process.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com...nd-to-ten/

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010...ll-members

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/11/02/big-ea...expansion/

Game, set, match.

You point to articles that only state the portion that supports your theory and call that game, set and match? It's pretty clear there is more to this than just those articles...and folks like Luck have been quoted as saying the possibility was there. Yet, you ignore that part quite conveniently. Am I saying that it will happen? No. Am I saying there is more to it than you are willing to humor? Absolutely.

(04-08-2011 09:32 AM)animus Wrote:  I look at it like this, the football schools needed to invite Villanova for the football schools to be able to invite TCU. The Commish is doing his best to say the right things like "we're not going to wait for Nova". But its quite apparent that he did. If Nova says no, things could get a little more interesting up there in Providence.

Why would it get any more interesting if they are dead set on 10 or less. It just means they do nothing or add UCF or Houston. Not real interesting...unless you admit that there may be a chance they go more than 10.

(04-08-2011 09:49 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(04-08-2011 09:19 AM)animus Wrote:  

(04-08-2011 07:06 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(04-07-2011 06:48 PM)animus Wrote:  People just have a lot of AQ wishes right now and reading certain quotes the way they want to and it may or may not be what the individual said.

The same could be said for those who don't want the Big East to expand any further or just stop with Villanova...they take full quotes and only give credence to the portion that supports their theory. They ignore other portions that have undeniable meaning. Yes, the meaning is unclear but there is meaning to it. It's more than ok to hypothesize as a fan since we have no bearing or affect on the situation. That hypothesization is no more invalid than those who take a part of a quote and draw complete conclusions as if all the facts were included in that one piece.

http://www.bigeast.org/News/tabid/435/Ar...nsion.aspx

Quote:PHILADELPHIA - The BIG EAST Conference submitted the results of its extensive self-analysis and evaluation of the college athletics environment today at its annual Conference Board of Directors meeting. Based on those results, the BIG EAST presidents agreed that the interests of each of the conference’s 16 member institutions would be served by increasing the number of Bowl Subdivision football-playing members to 10. They unanimously approved the process to evaluate the terms and conditions for potential expansion candidates.

"Today, our Board of Directors affirmed a set of key strategic initiatives, including expansion, designed to enhance membership stability and maximize our value," stated Commissioner John Marinatto.

Marinatto said the conference will refrain from commenting further on the expansion process.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com...nd-to-ten/

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010...ll-members

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/11/02/big-ea...expansion/

Game, set, match.

You point to articles that only state the portion that supports your theory and call that game, set and match? It's pretty clear there is more to this than just those articles...and folks like Luck have been quoted as saying the possibility was there. Yet, you ignore that part quite conveniently. Am I saying that it will happen? No. Am I saying there is more to it than you are willing to humor? Absolutely.

They're based on "official" statements from the Big East, and not random quotes by BE AD's. Those articles prove what the Big East is going to do. If Nova says no, expect another legit candidate to emerge.

(04-08-2011 09:52 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(04-08-2011 09:32 AM)animus Wrote:  I look at it like this, the football schools needed to invite Villanova for the football schools to be able to invite TCU. The Commish is doing his best to say the right things like "we're not going to wait for Nova". But its quite apparent that he did. If Nova says no, things could get a little more interesting up there in Providence.

Why would it get any more interesting if they are dead set on 10 or less. It just means they do nothing or add UCF or Houston. Not real interesting...unless you admit that there may be a chance they go more than 10.

I'm saying a little more interesting due to the chance of adding someone to get to 12 and the Catholic portion possibly being upset that Nova said no.