(04-08-2011 09:07 PM)saxamoophone Wrote:  Remember the football schools invited NOVA in part to appease the basketball schools. Now everyone "tried".

Let's see how this plays out.

There has never been any indication that this is the case. This has been a decision by the football schools all along.

(04-09-2011 11:44 AM)P. ONeill Wrote:  

(04-09-2011 03:07 AM)Nola Gator Wrote:  Relax, retired Yankees player. Nola means New Orleans. Its a popular moniker for the city. NO for New Orleans. LA for Louisiana. Gator is simply to identify my team affiliation. And I agree that this seems like a late change in the wind, but I still think Villanova joins the football side of the conference next week. At least this gives us a little bit mystery to fill the weekend.

Thanks for the explanation. Now the name makes a lot of sense. Also NO, LA is a great place been here many times. BTW-my moniker is not a former Yankees player (I'm from Philly I'd rather die than have anything named after a NYY!) but it is a famous pseudonym.

I was guessing the P. stood for Paul. As in Paul O'Neill. And yes, living in New Orleans is fantastic when you are under 30. But I'm in my last year of law school and probably wont stay in the city much longer. If I stay in Louisiana, it will most likely be Baton Rouge or somewhere on the Northshore.

I say to only add Nova if 10 rather than 9 really increases the tv money. Otherwise, 9/17 is better. 10/17 works for the hybrid (still play 18 games in hoops although BE tourney will need tweaking due to TCU being added).

Don't worry about whether Nova is competitive. If not, every league has a cellar dwellar. I suspect they will be competitive. The problem would be if they win the league. UCONN lost huge money and had an attendance problem at the Fiesta Bowl. Imagine Nova. No way BCS would be happy with them in one of their games.

We may be better off if they say no but only if BE decides to stick at 9/17. Don' want to go to 10/18. That would fundamentally change the best hoops league in the nation. And not for the better.

BE Football Schools back in the drivers seat, of a broken down NOVA.

(04-10-2011 07:39 AM)Iamready Wrote:  I say to only add Nova if 10 rather than 9 really increases the tv money. Otherwise, 9/17 is better. 10/17 works for the hybrid (still play 18 games in hoops although BE tourney will need tweaking due to TCU being added).

Don't worry about whether Nova is competitive. If not, every league has a cellar dwellar. I suspect they will be competitive. The problem would be if they win the league. UCONN lost huge money and had an attendance problem at the Fiesta Bowl. Imagine Nova. No way BCS would be happy with them in one of their games.

We may be better off if they say no but only if BE decides to stick at 9/17. Don' want to go to 10/18. That would fundamentally change the best hoops league in the nation. And not for the better.

The BCS is disappointed when anyone but WV and their traveling fan base shows up for the BE for a BCS Bowl now that past powerhouse and TV draw Miami is gone and took VT with them and their rabid traveling fan base too. Fortunately L'Ville and Cinn have represented the BE well with the fans they sent to their BCS Bowls though.

(04-10-2011 07:43 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  BE Football Schools back in the drivers seat, of a broken down NOVA.

(04-10-2011 07:43 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  BE Football Schools back in the drivers seat, of a broken down NOVA.

Nova means no go in Spanish.

(04-09-2011 11:13 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  The bizarro part of your posts, imho, is that you seem to think you are some prophetic voice out alone in the wildnerness crying out these shortcomings and that no one else has voiced these same concerns.

Your opinion is far from unique in terms of its basis, its your apocalyptic doomsday outcome assessments that most are shaking their heads at.

The league added UConn, USF, and Cincinnati in the last round. In other words, we added two programs basically just out of FCS, one of which averaged about the same in attendance as Nova, and a marginal FBS program that had difficulty averaging 22K. On top of this the league still had a Rutgers program that was struggling to get over 25K and a Syracuse program that was going in the tank in terms of on-field performance.

If we survived that, I think the league can "survive" the addition of TCU and possibly Nova.

Cheers,
Neil

And this right here is exactly what I have feared all along. Because the decision has no obvious merits we've now been reduced to discussing how eminently "survivable" it will likely be.

Unreal.

Please ask yourself the following question. If our goal has now been reduced to "surviving" expansion then why are we expanding at all? Was the Pac-10 trying to "survive" when it added Utah and Colorado? Was the Big Ten looking to "survive" when it added Nebraska? And yet here we are proudly proclaiming that with a little bit of planning and a whole lot of luck we should be able to "survive" this expansion.

Flat. Out. Weird.
---and incredibly stupid---

I apologize if my directness offends some but if I'm being completely honest I must admit that I could not possibly care less how I am viewed by a bunch of anonymous strangers. What I care about is common sense prevailing in a VERY IMPORTANT conversation that seemingly has less and less of it as the days roll along.

I'm sorry but I am not going to hold hands with everyone and try to talk myself into this being a good decision for the Big East after all when the advocates of this decision are now touting its utter "survivability."

As for your comparisons between this expansion and the expansion of 2003, again, I apologize if this offends anyone but WTF? Seriously, W-T-F?!

A.) In 2003, unlike today, we HAD to expand or we were going to be extinct. This time we are expanding out of choice, not necessity, so "survival" should be low on our list of core goals.

B.) In UConn, South Florida and Cincinnati, we added three large public institutions with requisite financial backing and bona fide stadium plans that did not entail any of them playing in large high school-sized facilities. That made them much more like East Carolina, Central Florida and Houston than the small, private schools we are adding instead.

I'm sure that most reasonable folks would agree that those are some fairly significant distinctions that probably change the tenor of the entire discussion.

Oh well. In the end you are probably right. We will probably "survive" this expansion and we'll continue to be the distant No. 6 among the six BCS leagues. What's done is done and I'm sure I'll get over it eventually. I guess it's kind of like your teenage daughter coming home and telling you that she's pregnant. You are not at all happy about it because you understand the long term ramifications of her reckless decision making but what else can you do but shake your head and support her despite her sheer idiocy? That's kind of where I am here with this whole thing. But fear not for my well being as I'm sure I'll "survive."

Would there really be that much of a difference in the perception of the BE by the rest of the country if UCF, ECU or one of the ususl suspects, was added INSTEAD of Villanova?

Villanova is family. Family comes first.

(04-10-2011 11:35 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(04-09-2011 11:13 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  The bizarro part of your posts, imho, is that you seem to think you are some prophetic voice out alone in the wildnerness crying out these shortcomings and that no one else has voiced these same concerns.

Your opinion is far from unique in terms of its basis, its your apocalyptic doomsday outcome assessments that most are shaking their heads at.

The league added UConn, USF, and Cincinnati in the last round. In other words, we added two programs basically just out of FCS, one of which averaged about the same in attendance as Nova, and a marginal FBS program that had difficulty averaging 22K. On top of this the league still had a Rutgers program that was struggling to get over 25K and a Syracuse program that was going in the tank in terms of on-field performance.

If we survived that, I think the league can "survive" the addition of TCU and possibly Nova.

Cheers,
Neil

And this right here is exactly what I have feared all along. Because the decision has no obvious merits we've now been reduced to discussing how eminently "survivable" it will likely be.

Unreal.

Please ask yourself the following question. If our goal has now been reduced to "surviving" expansion then why are we expanding at all? Was the Pac-10 trying to "survive" when it added Utah and Colorado? Was the Big Ten looking to "survive" when it added Nebraska? And yet here we are proudly proclaiming that with a little bit of planning and a whole lot of luck we should be able to "survive" this expansion.

Flat. Out. Weird.
---and incredibly stupid---

I apologize if my directness offends some but if I'm being completely honest I must admit that I could not possibly care less how I am viewed by a bunch of anonymous strangers. What I care about is common sense prevailing in a VERY IMPORTANT conversation that seemingly has less and less of it as the days roll along.

I'm sorry but I am not going to hold hands with everyone and try to talk myself into this being a good decision for the Big East after all when the advocates of this decision are now touting its utter "survivability."

As for your comparisons between this expansion and the expansion of 2003, again, I apologize if this offends anyone but WTF? Seriously, W-T-F?!

A.) In 2003, unlike today, we HAD to expand or we were going to be extinct. This time we are expanding out of choice, not necessity, so "survival" should be low on our list of core goals.

B.) In UConn, South Florida and Cincinnati, we added three large public institutions with requisite financial backing and bona fide stadium plans that did not entail any of them playing in large high school-sized facilities. That made them much more like East Carolina, Central Florida and Houston than the small, private schools we are adding instead.

I'm sure that most reasonable folks would agree that those are some fairly significant distinctions that probably change the tenor of the entire discussion.

Oh well. In the end you are probably right. We will probably "survive" this expansion and we'll continue to be the distant No. 6 among the six BCS leagues. What's done is done and I'm sure I'll get over it eventually. I guess it's kind of like your teenage daughter coming home and telling you that she's pregnant. You are not at all happy about it because you understand the long term ramifications of her reckless decision making but what else can you do but shake your head and support her despite her sheer idiocy? That's kind of where I am here with this whole thing. But fear not for my well being as I'm sure I'll "survive."

Again, some valid points amongst the doomsday rhetoric.

However, there simply is NO expansion possible the Big East can do that will change its perception as the 6th best BCS conference. None, nadda, zippo.

PSU, ND, Miami, FSU, etc are not walking through the doors. Not even BC and Maryland or Kansas, K-State, and Mizzou.

Once you understand that the better your blood pressure will be.

Cheers,
Neil

A huge plus that TCU brings that I believe is being over looked is that metro Dallas produces more top gridiron talent than any other metro area in the nation. Adding TCU means that the conference can recruit much more easily in that talent hotbed and as a result I expect the quality of BE play to improve significantly. Don't you realize that while being the smallest of the BCS conferences the BE is the only one that has a presence in two of the three top football talent hotbeds (CA, FL & TX). While Nova is smaller and private, look at the success that UCONN has had in BE football and they never won an FCS title or went that far in the FCS playoffs. With an FCS title 2 years ago and a final 4 appearance last year I expect that Nova's talent level will continue to get better, especially when they're awarded BE membership. There's a ton of talent within 100 miles of Philadelphia- 1) NJ 2) MD(only 1 BCS program) 3) northern VA (only 2 BCS teams) 4) Delaware and DC (no BCS teams) not to mention PA itself, didn't mention NYC because it really doesn't produce all that much for football.

As a chicago area native, Nova joining a BCS conference frankly scares the hell out of me. The Chicago archdiocese is the largest in the nation and Joliet is fast growing, a huge % of Illinois's HS football talent plays in the Catholic & Private school leagues. Having a 3rd Roman Catholic division BCS program recruiting Chicago area talent will put another dent in the small number of top local players who play their college ball instate.

(04-10-2011 11:35 AM)gosports1 Wrote:  Would there really be that much of a difference in the perception of the BE by the rest of the country if UCF, ECU or one of the ususl suspects, was added INSTEAD of Villanova?

Villanova is family. Family comes first.

All the issues that people bring up about Nova, those schools don't have. Fan bases, stadiums, money, proven success at the FBS level. If Villanova is going to grow and become a viable program like all UConn, UC, and USF then why wouldn't any of the expansion candidates? Those schools are much farther along. If it's all about family then why aren't ww pushing the other bb schools?

(04-10-2011 11:35 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  B.) In UConn, South Florida and Cincinnati, we added three large public institutions with requisite financial backing and bona fide stadium plans that did not entail any of them playing in large high school-sized facilities. That made them much more like East Carolina, Central Florida and Houston than the small, private schools we are adding instead.

To add to your point, TCU and Villanova combined have half as many undergrads as Cincinnati.

UCF has nearly as many undergrads as Cincinnati and UConn combined.

http://www.voodoofive.com/2011/4/10/2102...-villanova

(04-10-2011 01:27 PM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  

(04-10-2011 11:35 AM)gosports1 Wrote:  Would there really be that much of a difference in the perception of the BE by the rest of the country if UCF, ECU or one of the ususl suspects, was added INSTEAD of Villanova?

Villanova is family. Family comes first.

All the issues that people bring up about Nova, those schools don't have. Fan bases, stadiums, money, proven success at the FBS level. If Villanova is going to grow and become a viable program like all UConn, UC, and USF then why wouldn't any of the expansion candidates? Those schools are much farther along. If it's all about family then why aren't ww pushing the other bb schools?

True those other schools have the facilities and fill the seats. However is their reputation SIGNIFIGANTLY better than a team like Villanova? We're not talking Penn St, ND, Maryland or even BC. Nova's future success is uncertain. UCF probably has more potential but its no slam dunk. Nova could become like BC which would be acceptable
No matter who is chosen the BE is taking a risk. Nova may be the path of least resistance
Cmon, push the other schools? Which of the NON PLAYING FB schools would you push exactly? Other than Georgetown no one has a team