(11-22-2011 12:01 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  I think the BE should just write off BYU. They are totally full of themselves. You don't need them and their baggage. Take Boise and SDSU, New Mexico, and/or Fresno State and call it...

Actually I'd go with Nevada, Tulsa and Temple. Just to push the envelope.

BYU seem to want everything and not give up nothing..

some times it's better to move on.. If Boise cool with SDSU?

Give me Memphis for all sports.

I recall reading somewhere that Boise was the one who suggested SDSU as the backup plan.

(11-22-2011 01:57 AM)attackfrog Wrote:  

(11-22-2011 01:51 AM)DawgPound Wrote:  I recall reading somewhere that Boise was the one who suggested SDSU as the backup plan.

SDSU intiated the contact with Boise once they became aware of Boise wanting a western partner. Boise does alot of recruiting in California, so it makes the addition of a California team helpful for them. They also have a multi-year OOC contract to play BYU---so if BYU falls through it doesnt really affect Boise that badly. They probably will play SDSU as an OOC if BYU ends up being in the Big East.

An update from the Salt Lake Tribune

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/cougars/529...n.html.csp

Independence is perfect for BYU and they have a great deal. None of you really understand what it's like being with BYU. Big 12 found out just sitting across a table, seems the Big East is getting close to the same. Just wait until what happens if you actually get them in. BYU makes Texas look like Gunga Din.

the fact of the matter, what is the big east conference valuated at? No intangible assets (brand), no physical asset (aq bid), there is no value in the conference as a whole,except for bball. Yep I'm I homer, but anyone who can argue those two main arguments against me succesfully, has my vote.

(11-22-2011 03:34 AM)randaddyminer Wrote:  the fact of the matter, what is the big east conference valuated at? No intangible assets (brand), no physical asset (aq bid), there is no value in the conference as a whole,except for bball. Yep I'm I homer, but anyone who can argue those two main arguments against me succesfully, has my vote.

Frankly, no one really cares about what you think so good luck in the MWC/CUSA alliance or whatever it is called. Even if someone took the time to explain to you, you won't ever get it or ever get a clue so it is a complete waste of time. Let BE fans worry about the BE conference.

(11-22-2011 02:28 AM)attackfrog Wrote:  An update from the Salt Lake Tribune

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/cougars/529...n.html.csp

Time for the BE to cut the cord and move on to another direction. We don't need someone with their own set of the rules in the conference. Good luck and goodbye to BYU. There are other options out there.

(11-22-2011 03:34 AM)randaddyminer Wrote:  the fact of the matter, what is the big east conference valuated at? No intangible assets (brand), no physical asset (aq bid), there is no value in the conference as a whole,except for bball. Yep I'm I homer, but anyone who can argue those two main arguments against me succesfully, has my vote.

whats your beef with the BE? people have proven you wrong time and time again but you are still defiant, its not even funny reading these posts and your comments anymore. Are you mad that your school is not being mentioned as a BE candidate? Did you apply to some BE schools and got rejected? Either way, time to move on with your obsession with how "crappy" the BE is.

here are your answers
intangible assets? the BE has survived the storm since its inception in the late 70's even after school defections and certain institutions (ESPN, ACC,NCAA) tried numerous times to bring it down. We are now in the middle of another fallout but the BE keeps getting up and refuses to be knocked down. ESPN butthurt because the BE denied their lowball offer? oh well, their not the only show in town.

physical asset- HUGE MARKET, HUGE ALUMNI BASE and this will only get bigger once the announcement comes out. BE still has the AQ and probably will after 2013 with the new additions. Better yet whats the other conference done the past 5-6 years? Hell, the past 5-6 years we could have had 2 SEC teams fight it out for the national championship game, including this year. Screw the AQ, SEC dominates football and that trend is not changing anytime soon, even after 2013. The top tier of the SEC just takes turn being champions each year, everyone gets a title. So after the AQ gets redone, nobody except the SEC should have an AQ bid.

(11-21-2011 11:07 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  SDSU in the Big East... that's nuts. I'm not sure which side is making the bigger mistake, SDSU which will be playing "western division" games in Texas and Florida or the Big East which will be adding a perennial loser from an NFL city.

Why is that such a big mistake from the conference point of view. The BE is already adding 3 teams merely because of market size (UCF, UH and SMU) and one school nearly 2000 miles from its nearest current footprint (Boise St). Adding a school in the 8th largest city would seem in keeping with the thought process. or lack thereof as the case may be.

(11-21-2011 11:16 PM)canewton Wrote:  I don't really agree with with AttackFrog, and if this is how BYU is going to be then I think we should walk away (Enjoy playing New Mexico State and Idaho in November dumbasses). I wouldn't mind SDSU.

Canewton... explain to me why you're blasting BYU for if this is "how they're going to be" when right now they have a deal in place with ESPN that pretty much guarantees them 6M a year minimum. (don't remember how many years, but it's $1M per home game (I think that's the number))

The BE has _NO_ Deal for football in place after this season right? (they have to get a deal for the 2012 season? Or is it 2013?)... they're "promising" $10 Million per school, but that's only a promise. (and that's an all sports offer... you think that the BE will get enough of a contract to pay BYU $10M just for their football.)

If they take the BE offer, the ESPN offer is pretty much gone, no? so do they take the $6million bird in hand... or do they gamble on a $10m bird in the bush?

I don't blame the BE for trying to get BYU, but I'll be honest, I don't get why anyone thinks BYU should take the BE offer to start with, nor why they'd blast BYU if the deal falls through.

BYU has their income, does that extra "Maybe 4 million" really matter that much? I'd assume they could get that in alumni donations without batting an eye.

(11-21-2011 10:58 PM)Bull Wrote:  Well if you look at who we are adding, we're clearly going for big schools/big markets and thinking long term, not who was hot last weekend. I hate the idea of going to the pacific time zone, but if Boise wants a team out west, why not...

That's false. The cornerstone of the BE expansion plan is Boise based on the news reports out there circulating around. The "long term choices" like SMU, UH and UCF should have been brought into the fold already if these schools were truly thought of as long term solutions to build upon. However, based on what we've read on these boards, the long term solutions were given conditional invites pending the decision of the short term fix in Boise.

Boise is the epitome of short term thinking for the BE. It is a terrible fit for location, market and academics. The only thing the BE needs from Boise is its recent AQ points from its recent final BCS rankings for the past 5 years.

BYU would have been a home run for #12. If it doesn't happen and the BE takes SDS instead they still hit a solid triple considering where they were. The BE needs Boise, Boise is not a perfect fit, but as a FB only it is a good one. Fills a BE need and a Boise need. Same would be true with SD State, Af, or Byu.

(11-22-2011 02:28 AM)attackfrog Wrote:  An update from the Salt Lake Tribune

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/cougars/529...n.html.csp

I think it's pretty obvious after reading this that all the talk of dropping "AQ status" from the BCS is nothing more than an attempt at blocking the Big East from successfully expanding.

(11-21-2011 10:58 PM)Bull Wrote:  Well if you look at who we are adding, we're clearly going for big schools/big markets and thinking long term, not who was hot last weekend. I hate the idea of going to the pacific time zone, but if Boise wants a team out west, why not...

Yeah ok.

(11-22-2011 08:20 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-21-2011 10:58 PM)Bull Wrote:  Well if you look at who we are adding, we're clearly going for big schools/big markets and thinking long term, not who was hot last weekend. I hate the idea of going to the pacific time zone, but if Boise wants a team out west, why not...

That's false. The cornerstone of the BE expansion plan is Boise based on the news reports out there circulating around. The "long term choices" like SMU, UH and UCF should have been brought into the fold already if these schools were truly thought of as long term solutions to build upon. However, based on what we've read on these boards, the long term solutions were given conditional invites pending the decision of the short term fix in Boise.

Boise is the epitome of short term thinking for the BE. It is a terrible fit for location, market and academics. The only thing the BE needs from Boise is its recent AQ points from its recent final BCS rankings for the past 5 years.

A. the 'long term' schools were not brought in earlier simply because the BE did not want to expand (TCU excepted), until it was raided. The situation changed this year, I think that is obvious. Been beaten to death in other threads, lets not go there please...

B. I was not refering to Boise when I said 'long term'. Everyone understands that if BSU did not have all their BCS cred, we would not be going there... schools are being added for different reasons.

(11-21-2011 11:52 PM)splitstud Wrote:  

(11-21-2011 11:05 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(11-21-2011 10:58 PM)Bull Wrote:  Well if you look at who we are adding, we're clearly going for big schools/big markets and thinking long term, not who wasv hot last weekend. I hate the idea of going to the pacific time zone, but if Boise wants a team out west, why not...

Because its an unstable long term model?

Says who?

So Idaho, Colorado, Utah are in a stable long term model, but San Diego is not?

BYU is the untameable cougar.