(06-09-2011 02:38 PM)EastStang Wrote:  ...the BE will do what is in the BE's overall interest. If adding Butlick State would give them a bigger TV contract, they'd start licking. This is driven by two things (1) TV and (2) Dollars. Nothing else matters. And to the TV suits and to the BE Presidents Villanova wins in those two categories. Don't know why, but they do. Loyalty, etc. has nothing to do with it. This is all about the money.

I think you, Frank and I are all on the same page with that.

(06-09-2011 01:49 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-09-2011 11:26 AM)NYNittanyMD Wrote:  So Frank.....how do you feel then about Nova if the Linc was a possibility??. The was I see it...if Temple pays a 1 mil a year for there 6 home games which expires in 2015....why cant both Temple and Nova play there home games there after 2015? I really doubt the Eagles or anyone for that matter would turn down that extra revenue stream. Both of them could pay the 1 mil facility fee each. The eagles would double their revenue by including Nova. And if Temple said no....where the hell else would they go....are they gonna outbid Nova???.....not if Nova has BCS $$$ behindd them. And before anyone starts chirping that it cant be done.....it can!!!. The meadowlands stadium does it on much grander level with 2 NFL teams. We are talking 2 lower level college football teams here. no reason why it couldnt work. PPL should be expanded so they could play their lower level games there....but when Rutgers/WVU/PSU and the like come thru....those games could be played at the Linc. It could work....no reason why it cant.

It's nice in theory and preferable if possible, but everything that I've seen about the Linc is that you can't bank on Temple not getting preferential treatment since they are both actually within the Philly city limits and a public institution. Whatever the situation is with the Linc, it's likely fairly complicated.

Sorry....but it really shouldnt be. Im not saying the Linc is not to renew Temple's contract. What I am saying is I dont see how if Nova offered the same money to schedule games on Temple's off-weekends, the Linc officials would be foolish to turn it down. The conflict I see would be if Temple woukld be dead against it, but what leverage do they have. The Linc would not change anytghing for them.....all they would be doing in theory is just allow another tenant in the house when they are not home.

And what would the argument be then?? If the Linc wants to....i'm pretty sure they could make it happen. 1 million dollars is 1 million dollars....now that is cut and dry.

(06-09-2011 11:32 AM)LostInSpace Wrote:  

(06-09-2011 11:26 AM)NYNittanyMD Wrote:  So Frank.....how do you feel then about Nova if the Linc was a possibility??. The was I see it...if Temple pays a 1 mil a year for there 6 home games which expires in 2015....why cant both Temple and Nova play there home games there after 2015? I really doubt the Eagles or anyone for that matter would turn down that extra revenue stream. Both of them could pay the 1 mil facility fee each. The eagles would double their revenue by including Nova. And if Temple said no....where the hell else would they go....are they gonna outbid Nova???.....not if Nova has BCS $$$ behindd them. And before anyone starts chirping that it cant be done.....it can!!!. The meadowlands stadium does it on much grander level with 2 NFL teams. We are talking 2 lower level college football teams here. no reason why it couldnt work. PPL should be expanded so they could play their lower level games there....but when Rutgers/WVU/PSU and the like come thru....those games could be played at the Linc. It could work....no reason why it cant.

Linc has a grass surface, Meadowlands has field turf. That's the difference. If Lurie could be persuaded to install field turf it would potentially be doable, but I wouldn't count on that happening. The Eagles have made being "green" an important part of their branding strategy. So much so, that they are going ahead with plans to install solar panels at the Linc depsite the fact the value of state tax credits for solar electric production has plunged and the Eagles are likely to lose money on the project. Putting in field turf is anathema to Lurie as far as I can tell.

A couple other things - Temple's lease runs through the 2017 season and at least in their current lease, they have exclusive rights to the stadium for college football, the Army/Navy game excepted. I don't know what will happen with Temple's next lease as far as stadium control is concerned, but it certainly wouldn't be surprising if it is essentially the same as the current lease. Also, the 1999 bill appropriating state funds for Linc construction requires that the Eagles make the stadium available to Temple and they have to do so on the same terms that they rent the facility to the City, host of the Army/Navy game (odd that the City owns the building but has to rent it for the Army/Navy game, but that's the way it works). IOW, they have to lease the facility to Temple, and they do not have the option of pitting the two universities against each other in a bidding war.

If Villanova is going to make the move it will be with PPL as their primary home stadium. They'll have to see if they can schedule a couple of games at larger venues and I assume that they are in fact working on this. IMO, the most likley venues would be Franklin Field or CBP.

First of all what does going "green" have anything to do with having a nautral grass field. Correct me if I am mistaken, but isnt the intenion of going green all about being energy efficient? Hahahaha....how does spending 1000s of gallons of water to maintain the field contribut to going green? Installing a synthetic turf would be way more efficient than mainatining a football field through 2 football seasons (NFL and College). So your argument about havig a gerass field is a moot point

Second....Im not saying Nova should get into a bidding war with Temple because I agree...it is not possible because of city legislation. What I am saying is, if I have a product (The Linc), that is very valuable to a market (college football),....why not maximize your revenue stream??

There have been other situations where other middle of the road college teams have shared a stadium together....for example Rice/SMU. it can be done with the right plan....and the right leadership.

I can understand Temple's trepidation about having to share a venue with Nova...but the reality is....whether or not this plan comes to fruition....as soon as Nova moves up to the BE...whether its PPL...CBP...or the Linc.....Temple will be behind the eight ball. No way will they be able to compete on equal footing with Nova....just aint possible.

(06-09-2011 09:58 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  That's certainly possible, but why, if you're running the BE, would you take anyone before such potential is fulfilled? Let one or more of those schools set themselves apart (the way TCU and Utah have done) and then we can talk. And when I say "gazillions" of dollars, if we're looking at $10 million or so per school that ESPN has already offered, then that means that EACH additional BE expansion candidate would effectively have to bring the value of the ENTIRE new C-USA contract just for the BE to break even. In order for the BE to actually make money on expansion (compared to staying put), then there indeed would have to be "gazillions of dollars" involved. So, anyone that is arguing that the BE would make money on football expansion is de facto needing the foregoing to occur.

The AQ label definitely helps, but it's also way too simple to say that slapping an AQ label on a school or conference instantly makes massive differences in dollars, too. The BE itself has seen that compared to the other AQ conferences. Once again, EACH additional BE school has to bring in the value of the ENTIRE value of the C-USA contract for the BE to break even based on what ESPN has offered. No matter how much an AQ label helps, there's no fuzzy math in the world that can spin how the 3 usual suspects from C-USA that we continue to talk about can bring in $30 million ALONE to the BE when those same 3 plus 9 others in C-USA bring in about 1/3rd of that.

Let me take a crack at some fuzzy math. Let's say Ohio State or Penn State leave the B10 to join the MAC. Each B10 team gets ~$17m a year, the collective contract for the entire MAC is ~$1m a year. What do you project a new MAC contract would be with Ohio State? My guess... maybe $6m total. Hell, throw in Penn State and the entire thing would still be less than $15m. Put it another way, how much more would a C-USA contract be with Louisville, USF, and Cincinnati? Not $30m more... not even close... not even a small fraction.

Finally, it's not the BE taking a risk on potential. Its whoever is offering the TV contract. The question is not should the BE take a gamble on a team, it's a question of whether ESPN / Fox / CBS are looking to.

But I agree with you, that there's no reason for the BE to gamble on potential. There's no reason to add anyone minus a sure thing that falls in your lap (ie BYU, ND, etc) without the blessing / financial backing of the TV contract provider.

Laurie does not want temple there, Rendle forced his hand
why would laurie let nova in

(06-09-2011 09:58 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-09-2011 09:37 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  Wow, the arrogance and condescention is astounding. Not to mention that you seem to compare AQ conference TV deals versus Non-AQ deals like that is apples to apples. Not evey non-AQ team belongs in a non-AQ conference. Not every AQ team belongs in and AQ conference. But the TV deals are squarly reflective of the difference between non-AQ and AQ. That doesn't necessarily indicate one particular school does not cary some value. You also exaggerate when you say people claim their school will bring in gazillion's of $$$. I don't think one fan here has hinted that would happen. They do however bicker over what their potential is....HUGE difference.

If you think that once you add a team that the bar is there and the Big East will never go below that, then you are either very naive or intentionally trying to yank people's chain.

The point is that the BE has no use for "potential" in expansion. Maybe UCF, ECU, Houston, or some other school we haven't talked about as much here can fulfill that potential. That's certainly possible, but why, if you're running the BE, would you take anyone before such potential is fulfilled? Let one or more of those schools set themselves apart (the way TCU and Utah have done) and then we can talk. And when I say "gazillions" of dollars, if we're looking at $10 million or so per school that ESPN has already offered, then that means that EACH additional BE expansion candidate would effectively have to bring the value of the ENTIRE new C-USA contract just for the BE to break even. In order for the BE to actually make money on expansion (compared to staying put), then there indeed would have to be "gazillions of dollars" involved. So, anyone that is arguing that the BE would make money on football expansion is de facto needing the foregoing to occur.

The AQ label definitely helps, but it's also way too simple to say that slapping an AQ label on a school or conference instantly makes massive differences in dollars, too. The BE itself has seen that compared to the other AQ conferences. Once again, EACH additional BE school has to bring in the value of the ENTIRE value of the C-USA contract for the BE to break even based on what ESPN has offered. No matter how much an AQ label helps, there's no fuzzy math in the world that can spin how the 3 usual suspects from C-USA that we continue to talk about can bring in $30 million ALONE to the BE when those same 3 plus 9 others in C-USA bring in about 1/3rd of that.

So, yes, the bar is definitely high. TCU has a Rose Bowl win, another BCS bowl appearance, and consistently ranked teams going back over a decade (even prior to this current run). They have shown to get to the highest level without the crutch of the "we'd be so much better if we were in an AQ conference" line of argument. TCU and Utah didn't rely on that crap and MADE themselves into AQ-level schools (not just bastions of potential). Assuming that 12 school conferences are really the realistic maximum and that the Big 12 doesn't want to expand anytime soon, that means the Big East has only 1 or 3 open spots at the most FOREVER (and really only 1 spot to give right now). So, if there's 1 spot available in the ENTIRE AQ universe, then it actually would be very prudent for the BE to allow 1 school out of the 50-plus at the non-AQ level to distinguish itself.

Funny how some continually ignore the MWC TV Contract, which ESPN got out-bid on a few years ago...as even though the conf had teams like Utah, TCU, BYU, etc...the WINNING TV package only paid each MWC member just a little over $1 Million per year.

Guess that means Utah, TCU and BYU have very little value right?

Oh wait...Utah...jumping to the expanded Pac-12...will be receiving approx $20 Million (or more) annually, once they receive full shares...which is $8 Million MORE than the entire MWC Contract was paying the entire conf!!

Amazing how adding inventory, adding games (including Champ Game in some cases), plus, moving to a BCS Conf can see a team's tv "value rise, just like TCU will see come next season and beyond (as a BCS Member), yet these same teams while in non-BCS Conferences could only bring in a small percentage of what BCS programs could.

(06-09-2011 03:37 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  Laurie does not want temple there, Rendle forced his hand
why would laurie let nova in

we are talking a couple of million into his pocket....I know he is a billionaire....but that couple of mil is less money outta his pocket. Just makes sense from a business standpoint. Especially when you have an opportunity to bring a school like PSU to the Linc once every year....wasnt it sold out for PSU last time they played??? He could use that same model and have it written into the contract somewhere to bring other big name schools to Philly yearly...for example ND...or other big ass schools with a national following.

(06-09-2011 03:46 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(06-09-2011 09:58 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-09-2011 09:37 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  Wow, the arrogance and condescention is astounding. Not to mention that you seem to compare AQ conference TV deals versus Non-AQ deals like that is apples to apples. Not evey non-AQ team belongs in a non-AQ conference. Not every AQ team belongs in and AQ conference. But the TV deals are squarly reflective of the difference between non-AQ and AQ. That doesn't necessarily indicate one particular school does not cary some value. You also exaggerate when you say people claim their school will bring in gazillion's of $$$. I don't think one fan here has hinted that would happen. They do however bicker over what their potential is....HUGE difference.

If you think that once you add a team that the bar is there and the Big East will never go below that, then you are either very naive or intentionally trying to yank people's chain.

The point is that the BE has no use for "potential" in expansion. Maybe UCF, ECU, Houston, or some other school we haven't talked about as much here can fulfill that potential. That's certainly possible, but why, if you're running the BE, would you take anyone before such potential is fulfilled? Let one or more of those schools set themselves apart (the way TCU and Utah have done) and then we can talk. And when I say "gazillions" of dollars, if we're looking at $10 million or so per school that ESPN has already offered, then that means that EACH additional BE expansion candidate would effectively have to bring the value of the ENTIRE new C-USA contract just for the BE to break even. In order for the BE to actually make money on expansion (compared to staying put), then there indeed would have to be "gazillions of dollars" involved. So, anyone that is arguing that the BE would make money on football expansion is de facto needing the foregoing to occur.

The AQ label definitely helps, but it's also way too simple to say that slapping an AQ label on a school or conference instantly makes massive differences in dollars, too. The BE itself has seen that compared to the other AQ conferences. Once again, EACH additional BE school has to bring in the value of the ENTIRE value of the C-USA contract for the BE to break even based on what ESPN has offered. No matter how much an AQ label helps, there's no fuzzy math in the world that can spin how the 3 usual suspects from C-USA that we continue to talk about can bring in $30 million ALONE to the BE when those same 3 plus 9 others in C-USA bring in about 1/3rd of that.

So, yes, the bar is definitely high. TCU has a Rose Bowl win, another BCS bowl appearance, and consistently ranked teams going back over a decade (even prior to this current run). They have shown to get to the highest level without the crutch of the "we'd be so much better if we were in an AQ conference" line of argument. TCU and Utah didn't rely on that crap and MADE themselves into AQ-level schools (not just bastions of potential). Assuming that 12 school conferences are really the realistic maximum and that the Big 12 doesn't want to expand anytime soon, that means the Big East has only 1 or 3 open spots at the most FOREVER (and really only 1 spot to give right now). So, if there's 1 spot available in the ENTIRE AQ universe, then it actually would be very prudent for the BE to allow 1 school out of the 50-plus at the non-AQ level to distinguish itself.

Funny how Frank continually ignores the MWC TV Contract, where ESPN lost out on in 2005...as even though it had teams like Utah, TCU, BYU, etc...the WINNING TV package only paid each MWC member just a little over $1 Million per year.

Guess that means Utah, TCU and BYU have very little value right?

Oh wait...Utah...jumping to the expanded Pac-12...will be receiving approx $20 Million (or more) annually, once they receive full shares...which is $8 Million MORE than the entire MWC Contract was paying the entire conf!!

Amazing how adding inventory, adding games (including Champ Game in some cases), plus, moving to a BCS Conf can see a team's tv "value rise, just like TCU will see come next season and beyond (as a BCS Member), yet these same teams while in non-BCS Conferences could only bring in a small percentage of what BCS programs could.

The MWC is a unique case. They were the first to attempt a network and in doing so signed a long term deal to help minimize risk for their tv partners getting the mtn off the ground. They'll be stuck with 2005-2006 level payouts for a few more years.

Also the Pac deal had more to do with the Pac 10 than utah.

(06-09-2011 03:46 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(06-09-2011 09:58 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-09-2011 09:37 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  Wow, the arrogance and condescention is astounding. Not to mention that you seem to compare AQ conference TV deals versus Non-AQ deals like that is apples to apples. Not evey non-AQ team belongs in a non-AQ conference. Not every AQ team belongs in and AQ conference. But the TV deals are squarly reflective of the difference between non-AQ and AQ. That doesn't necessarily indicate one particular school does not cary some value. You also exaggerate when you say people claim their school will bring in gazillion's of $$$. I don't think one fan here has hinted that would happen. They do however bicker over what their potential is....HUGE difference.

If you think that once you add a team that the bar is there and the Big East will never go below that, then you are either very naive or intentionally trying to yank people's chain.

The point is that the BE has no use for "potential" in expansion. Maybe UCF, ECU, Houston, or some other school we haven't talked about as much here can fulfill that potential. That's certainly possible, but why, if you're running the BE, would you take anyone before such potential is fulfilled? Let one or more of those schools set themselves apart (the way TCU and Utah have done) and then we can talk. And when I say "gazillions" of dollars, if we're looking at $10 million or so per school that ESPN has already offered, then that means that EACH additional BE expansion candidate would effectively have to bring the value of the ENTIRE new C-USA contract just for the BE to break even. In order for the BE to actually make money on expansion (compared to staying put), then there indeed would have to be "gazillions of dollars" involved. So, anyone that is arguing that the BE would make money on football expansion is de facto needing the foregoing to occur.

The AQ label definitely helps, but it's also way too simple to say that slapping an AQ label on a school or conference instantly makes massive differences in dollars, too. The BE itself has seen that compared to the other AQ conferences. Once again, EACH additional BE school has to bring in the value of the ENTIRE value of the C-USA contract for the BE to break even based on what ESPN has offered. No matter how much an AQ label helps, there's no fuzzy math in the world that can spin how the 3 usual suspects from C-USA that we continue to talk about can bring in $30 million ALONE to the BE when those same 3 plus 9 others in C-USA bring in about 1/3rd of that.

So, yes, the bar is definitely high. TCU has a Rose Bowl win, another BCS bowl appearance, and consistently ranked teams going back over a decade (even prior to this current run). They have shown to get to the highest level without the crutch of the "we'd be so much better if we were in an AQ conference" line of argument. TCU and Utah didn't rely on that crap and MADE themselves into AQ-level schools (not just bastions of potential). Assuming that 12 school conferences are really the realistic maximum and that the Big 12 doesn't want to expand anytime soon, that means the Big East has only 1 or 3 open spots at the most FOREVER (and really only 1 spot to give right now). So, if there's 1 spot available in the ENTIRE AQ universe, then it actually would be very prudent for the BE to allow 1 school out of the 50-plus at the non-AQ level to distinguish itself.

Funny how some continually ignore the MWC TV Contract, which ESPN got out-bid on a few years ago...as even though the conf had teams like Utah, TCU, BYU, etc...the WINNING TV package only paid each MWC member just a little over $1 Million per year.

Guess that means Utah, TCU and BYU have very little value right?

Oh wait...Utah...jumping to the expanded Pac-12...will be receiving approx $20 Million (or more) annually, once they receive full shares...which is $8 Million MORE than the entire MWC Contract was paying the entire conf!!

Amazing how adding inventory, adding games (including Champ Game in some cases), plus, moving to a BCS Conf can see a team's tv "value rise, just like TCU will see come next season and beyond (as a BCS Member), yet these same teams while in non-BCS Conferences could only bring in a small percentage of what BCS programs could.

Problem with that rationale is in 2006....all three of those schools combined for ONE bcs game.....again ONE bcs game. That 2004 Utah team was seen as kinda of being a fluke....played a weak ass PITT team...they were the first BCS buster....and their coach skipped outta town shortly after. Who knew Utah would become the juggernaut that they became? I betcha if TCU/Utah/BYU woulda all stayed together, not only would they have gotten a BCS AQ bid...but they woulda quadrupled the MWC TV contract too. Those teams became the "Trendy It" schools of college football...everyone roots for the underdog. Those schools have of the pedigree of kings of college football....but they brought it to the best of the best whenever they played them...in impressive fashion at that.....and on the big stage.

So ya see...you cant compare that TV contract in 2006 to what woulda been now if they stayed together. But there's was no gaurantee...thats why it all fell apart. What is a gaurantee is if you go to a BCS game.....eyebrows will be raised......and you go to a second.....an AQ conference will be at your doorstep.....with a dozen white roses!!!!

I would like to have seen what Utah's, TCU, & Boise's record would have been with ECU's schedule over the past few years.

(06-09-2011 08:11 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-08-2011 09:38 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(06-08-2011 03:46 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Believe me, if there was another TCU out there, then the BE would be all over it. The problem is that there isn't and the BE is far beyond the position of needing to be the training ground to search for another TCU.

I know TCU has dominated BYU on the football field for the last 3 years, and if that's the criteria the Big East used in picking the Frogs, more power to 'em. But in most of the ways that really matter over the long-run, BYU brings everything to the table that TCU does, plus a whole lot more.

That's why I've consistently been in full support of adding BYU to the BE if they're willing. They're the type of program that unambiguously raises football revenue and even brings something to the basketball side.

Since it appears that BYU has turned down a football only membership do you believe that BE braintrust will offer BYU a full conference membership?
If they do, BYU would be foolish to turn that down which would bring you to 10/18. Needing only 2 more programs to get to 12 assuming Nova moves from FCS to the BE; the conference would need to add one more football only membership to get to 12 on the football side w/o getting above 18 on the hoops side. Who should #12 be, Boise State?

(06-09-2011 03:34 PM)NYNittanyMD Wrote:  First of all what does going "green" have anything to do with having a nautral grass field. Correct me if I am mistaken, but isnt the intenion of going green all about being energy efficient? Hahahaha....how does spending 1000s of gallons of water to maintain the field contribut to going green? Installing a synthetic turf would be way more efficient than mainatining a football field through 2 football seasons (NFL and College). So your argument about havig a gerass field is a moot point

Second....Im not saying Nova should get into a bidding war with Temple because I agree...it is not possible because of city legislation. What I am saying is, if I have a product (The Linc), that is very valuable to a market (college football),....why not maximize your revenue stream??

There have been other situations where other middle of the road college teams have shared a stadium together....for example Rice/SMU. it can be done with the right plan....and the right leadership.

I can understand Temple's trepidation about having to share a venue with Nova...but the reality is....whether or not this plan comes to fruition....as soon as Nova moves up to the BE...whether its PPL...CBP...or the Linc.....Temple will be behind the eight ball. No way will they be able to compete on equal footing with Nova....just aint possible.

Haven't read the board in a while. Forgot you're a troll.

(06-09-2011 04:44 PM)onlinepole Wrote:  

(06-09-2011 08:11 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-08-2011 09:38 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(06-08-2011 03:46 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Believe me, if there was another TCU out there, then the BE would be all over it. The problem is that there isn't and the BE is far beyond the position of needing to be the training ground to search for another TCU.

I know TCU has dominated BYU on the football field for the last 3 years, and if that's the criteria the Big East used in picking the Frogs, more power to 'em. But in most of the ways that really matter over the long-run, BYU brings everything to the table that TCU does, plus a whole lot more.

That's why I've consistently been in full support of adding BYU to the BE if they're willing. They're the type of program that unambiguously raises football revenue and even brings something to the basketball side.

Since it appears that BYU has turned down a football only membership do you believe that BE braintrust will offer BYU a full conference membership?
If they do, BYU would be foolish to turn that down which would bring you to 10/18. Needing only 2 more programs to get to 12 assuming Nova moves from FCS to the BE; the conference would need to add one more football only membership to get to 12 on the football side w/o getting above 18 on the hoops side. Who should #12 be, Boise State?

ECU for all sports.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-09-2011 06:22 PM)LostInSpace Wrote:  

(06-09-2011 03:34 PM)NYNittanyMD Wrote:  First of all what does going "green" have anything to do with having a nautral grass field. Correct me if I am mistaken, but isnt the intenion of going green all about being energy efficient? Hahahaha....how does spending 1000s of gallons of water to maintain the field contribut to going green? Installing a synthetic turf would be way more efficient than mainatining a football field through 2 football seasons (NFL and College). So your argument about havig a gerass field is a moot point

Second....Im not saying Nova should get into a bidding war with Temple because I agree...it is not possible because of city legislation. What I am saying is, if I have a product (The Linc), that is very valuable to a market (college football),....why not maximize your revenue stream??

There have been other situations where other middle of the road college teams have shared a stadium together....for example Rice/SMU. it can be done with the right plan....and the right leadership.

I can understand Temple's trepidation about having to share a venue with Nova...but the reality is....whether or not this plan comes to fruition....as soon as Nova moves up to the BE...whether its PPL...CBP...or the Linc.....Temple will be behind the eight ball. No way will they be able to compete on equal footing with Nova....just aint possible.

Haven't read the board in a while. Forgot you're a troll.

How so???.....Im a troll because I support Nova being a member than most of you all?? Not one time to I put down any other candidates....all I do is voice my support who I feel is the best candidate for BE football....and state all other candidates should prove themselves on the field. If that is trolling.....than call me MR GREMLIN!!!!....hahahaha.

For some reason people get offended by me stating the obvious....no one likes or should I say wants to accept reality. If I am a troll so be it....no sweat off my back. This is an opinionated forum....correct? I will continue to show my support for Nova....just like you will continue to show your support for your schools.

(06-09-2011 04:14 PM)Brick City Pirate Wrote:  I would like to have seen what Utah's, TCU, & Boise's record would have been with ECU's schedule over the past few years.

Its no fun to speculate on the hypothetical......BCS games are BCS games....no matter who you play during the regular season. Ive said it before multiple times.....if any of the so called candidates really want to get the invite....follow those schools blueprint.....go to a BCS game. If that happens....the BE would be begging....I repeat begging for that school to join.

Quote:For 2011, here is the home OOC schedule for the BE:

Cincy: Austin Peay, Akron, NC St.
UConn: Fordham, Iowa St., Western Mich.
UL: Murray St., FIU, Marshall
Pitt: Buffalo, Maine, Notre Dame, Utah
RU: NC Central, Ohio, Navy
SU: Wake Forest, Rhode Island, Toledo
USF: Ball St., Florida A&M, Miami Fla
WVU: Marshall, Norfolk St., Bowling Green

WVU plays LSU at home too

Jackson

(06-09-2011 07:05 PM)Jackson1011 Wrote:  

Quote:For 2011, here is the home OOC schedule for the BE:

Cincy: Austin Peay, Akron, NC St.
UConn: Fordham, Iowa St., Western Mich.
UL: Murray St., FIU, Marshall
Pitt: Buffalo, Maine, Notre Dame, Utah
RU: NC Central, Ohio, Navy
SU: Wake Forest, Rhode Island, Toledo
USF: Ball St., Florida A&M, Miami Fla
WVU: Marshall, Norfolk St., Bowling Green

WVU plays LSU at home too

Jackson

Payback in Morgantown.....I am so trying to catch a flight down there and catch that game!!!!

(06-09-2011 04:44 PM)onlinepole Wrote:  

(06-09-2011 08:11 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-08-2011 09:38 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(06-08-2011 03:46 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Believe me, if there was another TCU out there, then the BE would be all over it. The problem is that there isn't and the BE is far beyond the position of needing to be the training ground to search for another TCU.

I know TCU has dominated BYU on the football field for the last 3 years, and if that's the criteria the Big East used in picking the Frogs, more power to 'em. But in most of the ways that really matter over the long-run, BYU brings everything to the table that TCU does, plus a whole lot more.

That's why I've consistently been in full support of adding BYU to the BE if they're willing. They're the type of program that unambiguously raises football revenue and even brings something to the basketball side.

Since it appears that BYU has turned down a football only membership do you believe that BE braintrust will offer BYU a full conference membership?
If they do, BYU would be foolish to turn that down which would bring you to 10/18. Needing only 2 more programs to get to 12 assuming Nova moves from FCS to the BE; the conference would need to add one more football only membership to get to 12 on the football side w/o getting above 18 on the hoops side. Who should #12 be, Boise State?

Personally.....I feel it should then come down to Houston or UCF for all sports....19 could work in BB....18 game schedule.

(06-09-2011 04:01 PM)NYNittanyMD Wrote:  What is a gaurantee is if you go to a BCS game.....eyebrows will be raised......and you go to a second.....an AQ conference will be at your doorstep.....with a dozen white roses!!!!

Sure about that?

Your right that it is not a guarantee but Boise does have some issues that do not affect many other schools involved namely a bad location and a lower perception of the academics versus the school they would likely join.