(11-23-2011 09:57 PM)TUJim Wrote:  

(11-23-2011 09:31 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-23-2011 06:33 AM)UH Law 97 Wrote:  Seems to me that Temple would help cement the BE as the nation's best basketball conference,

We already are that.

Quote: would get us the Philly market

Nobody in Philly cares about Temple football.

Like USF or UCF arre big players in the Florida market and let's be honest the BE will do whatever ESPN tell then to do

LOL You must know VERY little about the Big East. BE is going to tell ESPN to go screw themselves when it comes time to negotiate TV contract.

(11-23-2011 09:57 PM)TUJim Wrote:  the BE will do whatever ESPN tell then to do

Did ESPN instruct the league to kick out Temple in 2004 after the Owls had gone 14-79 during their 14 years in the league?

"Look, I understand that you don't like UofL because USM was left behind in C-USA in 2005 and because no conference outside of C-USA is interested in having USM as a member (USM's unattractiveness is probably UofL's fault as well). I also understand that you might think it is UofL's job to hand out welfare checks to USM or to make sure USM is taken care of when major realignment shifts happen. But this is a capitalist society and college athletics is a business regardless of what the academics try to say. UofL has to look out for itself and do what is best for its own financial interests (just like every other university is doing currently)."

FACT: USM hasn't been collecting welfare checks....Louisville has. I love capitalism.....eutopian societies are doomed to fail. Thanks for your input.

"But here is a novel approach. Rather than blaming USM's unattractiveness on the baby eating, peeing-on-the-elderly b***ards at Louisville, why not focus on doing things to make USM actually attractive to other conferences? You know, things like improving USM's academic image or increasing USM's athletic budget. Facilities could use a facelift and improving on the field performance (Boise, BYU, TCU, etc) wouldn't hurt. But then again, that would involve work and self admission of USM's own flaws. It is easier to simple stick to the same, idiotic "it's UofL's fault" meme."

FACT: USM has been doing just that. Facility improvements are ongoing, though our basketball stadium needs upgrades quicker than they are occurring. Football rules the house right now. Baseball facilities are second to none. Keep trying Card.

FACT: USM's on the field performance in the big three sports (fb, bb, baseball...esp football and baseball) has been more than credible for a while. Do the cardinals have 18 straight winning seasons in football.....NO. USM baseball has been great for a long time. Both USM and Louisville have been to the CWS in recent yrs. Overall, our baseball program has been much better than yours FOR MANY, MANY YRS. I will admit that our basketball program needs to be making more noise, but we've steadily been improving. Attendance needs to improve dramatically though. That said, it was pathetic that we weren't invited to the NIT last yr with our SOS and our overall record. Again, keep trying to downplay USM's success on the field....quite comical actually.

FACT: The latest moves by the big east concerning conference realignment show that your conference administrators are not interested in athletic prowess on the field, only tv markets. SDST, SMU (combined 4-5 winning seasons in the last 15 to 20 yrs....are you kidding me????). C'mon now, try harder!

Like USF or UCF arre big players in the Florida market

Actually they are big players. You have the largest university (UCF) and the third largest university (USF) in the state. The two schools are pumping out more than 20k alumni every year. Sorry but that's a major player.

Surprised. Thought the BE would have been thinking about Temple coming back all along. Wouldn't hurt it seems.

(11-24-2011 08:32 AM)eagle215 Wrote:  "Look, I understand that you don't like UofL because USM was left behind in C-USA in 2005 and because no conference outside of C-USA is interested in having USM as a member (USM's unattractiveness is probably UofL's fault as well). I also understand that you might think it is UofL's job to hand out welfare checks to USM or to make sure USM is taken care of when major realignment shifts happen. But this is a capitalist society and college athletics is a business regardless of what the academics try to say. UofL has to look out for itself and do what is best for its own financial interests (just like every other university is doing currently)."

FACT: USM hasn't been collecting welfare checks....Louisville has. I love capitalism.....eutopian societies are doomed to fail. Thanks for your input.

"But here is a novel approach. Rather than blaming USM's unattractiveness on the baby eating, peeing-on-the-elderly b***ards at Louisville, why not focus on doing things to make USM actually attractive to other conferences? You know, things like improving USM's academic image or increasing USM's athletic budget. Facilities could use a facelift and improving on the field performance (Boise, BYU, TCU, etc) wouldn't hurt. But then again, that would involve work and self admission of USM's own flaws. It is easier to simple stick to the same, idiotic "it's UofL's fault" meme."

FACT: USM has been doing just that. Facility improvements are ongoing, though our basketball stadium needs upgrades quicker than they are occurring. Football rules the house right now. Baseball facilities are second to none. Keep trying Card.

FACT: USM's on the field performance in the big three sports (fb, bb, baseball...esp football and baseball) has been more than credible for a while. Do the cardinals have 18 straight winning seasons in football.....NO. USM baseball has been great for a long time. Both USM and Louisville have been to the CWS in recent yrs. Overall, our baseball program has been much better than yours FOR MANY, MANY YRS. I will admit that our basketball program needs to be making more noise, but we've steadily been improving. Attendance needs to improve dramatically though. That said, it was pathetic that we weren't invited to the NIT last yr with our SOS and our overall record. Again, keep trying to downplay USM's success on the field....quite comical actually.

FACT: The latest moves by the big east concerning conference realignment show that your conference administrators are not interested in athletic prowess on the field, only tv markets. SDST, SMU (combined 4-5 winning seasons in the last 15 to 20 yrs....are you kidding me????). C'mon now, try harder!

You know, for someone who says he doesn't want his school to join the Big East, it certainly seems like you enjoy posting on this board. It's very funny, and very, very sad.

Would be great if the BE just toke them all. Sort out the ones that didn't become the twinkle in the BCS eye later on. BE has shown that they do not have any problem with getting rid of schools they do not feel is measuring up.

"You know, for someone who says he doesn't want his school to join the Big East, it certainly seems like you enjoy posting on this board. It's very funny, and very, very sad."
[/quote]

you mad? If the big east was acting as if they had a clue, and the AQ would remain (it won't), I would like for USM to be able to join. But alas, the big east doesn't have the slightest clue as to what it is doing. Don't put words in my mouth shamrock..............BTW, sorry, but I don't post here alot. Only post when I see the latest absurd statement that obviously ignores the facts. Again, with Louisville, there is no IF they leave....it's very much WHEN they leave. Same goes for Rutgers and UConn. What is left of the big east will be CUSA 2.0 (and I liked the original CUSA). Carry on.

(11-24-2011 10:03 AM)eagle215 Wrote:  

Quote:"You know, for someone who says he doesn't want his school to join the Big East, it certainly seems like you enjoy posting on this board. It's very funny, and very, very sad."

you mad? If the big east was acting as if they had a clue, and the AQ would remain (it won't), I would like for USM to be able to join. But alas, the big east doesn't have the slightest clue as to what it is doing. Don't put words in my mouth shamrock.

Sorry. It's just the tone I got from your post. I really wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. As for the AQ, I say it's still speculation. Both sides are just doing a bunch of squawking right now. It's like a friggin' political debate these days.

Do I personally think the AQ will go away? No, but I guess that's based on blind faith. Still, stranger things have happened.

(11-24-2011 10:10 AM)GeminiShamrock Wrote:  

(11-24-2011 10:03 AM)eagle215 Wrote:  

Quote:"You know, for someone who says he doesn't want his school to join the Big East, it certainly seems like you enjoy posting on this board. It's very funny, and very, very sad."

you mad? If the big east was acting as if they had a clue, and the AQ would remain (it won't), I would like for USM to be able to join. But alas, the big east doesn't have the slightest clue as to what it is doing. Don't put words in my mouth shamrock.

Sorry. It's just the tone I got from your post. I really wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. As for the AQ, I say it's still speculation. Both sides are just doing a bunch of squawking right now. It's like a friggin' political debate these days.

Do I personally think the AQ will go away? No, but I guess that's based on blind faith. Still, stranger things have happened.

Happy Thanksgiving!

(11-24-2011 10:23 AM)eagle215 Wrote:  

(11-24-2011 10:10 AM)GeminiShamrock Wrote:  

(11-24-2011 10:03 AM)eagle215 Wrote:  

Quote:"You know, for someone who says he doesn't want his school to join the Big East, it certainly seems like you enjoy posting on this board. It's very funny, and very, very sad."

you mad? If the big east was acting as if they had a clue, and the AQ would remain (it won't), I would like for USM to be able to join. But alas, the big east doesn't have the slightest clue as to what it is doing. Don't put words in my mouth shamrock.

Sorry. It's just the tone I got from your post. I really wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. As for the AQ, I say it's still speculation. Both sides are just doing a bunch of squawking right now. It's like a friggin' political debate these days.

Do I personally think the AQ will go away? No, but I guess that's based on blind faith. Still, stranger things have happened.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving to you, too!

SDSU over Temple? What does San Diego State bring?

-2 Million TV's.

-Access to Socal Recruiting.

-72,000 Pro Football Stadium.

-A program with unlimited upside.

And this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xITm4yb9Rlw

I like SDSU a lot, but you can make all of those arguments for Temple too.

(11-25-2011 05:00 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  I like SDSU a lot, but you can make all of those arguments for Temple too.

The main thing that SDSU has in their favor is that there isn't a Catholic school in San Diego that's already in the Big East.

Lucky them USD is in the Pioneer League.

(11-24-2011 08:32 AM)eagle215 Wrote:  FACT: USM hasn't been collecting welfare checks....Louisville has. I love capitalism.....eutopian societies are doomed to fail. Thanks for your input.

Then you should understand that a poor regional university located in a poor, low population state that already has two "state schools" will never be attractive to any major conference. USM simply is not a valuable financial addition to the Big East or any other BCS conference.

(11-24-2011 08:32 AM)eagle215 Wrote:  FACT: USM has been doing just that. Facility improvements are ongoing, though our basketball stadium needs upgrades quicker than they are occurring. Football rules the house right now. Baseball facilities are second to none. Keep trying Card.

Indoor practice facility for either major sport? No
Basketball facilities? No
Football stadium? 36K is okay
Soccer and Track: Come on USM, even high schools have lighted fields. It is 2011. But regardless, top quality

Tennis and Golf? I don't even want to know how terrible these facilities are. They aren't even listed on USM's athletic website. I had to dig through the media guides for each sport to find out where they play.

Baseball/softball are great and the football stadium is passable. But the other facilities need work. Look at UCF or even Memphis.

(11-24-2011 08:32 AM)eagle215 Wrote:  FACT: USM's on the field performance in the big three sports (fb, bb, baseball...esp football and baseball) has been more than credible for a while. Do the cardinals have 18 straight winning seasons in football.....NO. USM baseball has been great for a long time. Both USM and Louisville have been to the CWS in recent yrs. Overall, our baseball program has been much better than yours FOR MANY, MANY YRS. I will admit that our basketball program needs to be making more noise, but we've steadily been improving. Attendance needs to improve dramatically though. That said, it was pathetic that we weren't invited to the NIT last yr with our SOS and our overall record. Again, keep trying to downplay USM's success on the field....quite comical actually.

Baseball: This is what you focused most of your post on. While success in minor sports is great, it is at best icing on the cake. Baseball performance isn't going to make or break a conference invite.

Basketball: USM is non-existent in hoops. That isn't a slam on USM, but when a program has 2 NCAA appearances total and both were over 20 years ago (90, 91), that is the definition of non-existent.

Football: I don't have any problem with saying that USM has a better football history than USF, UConn, UofL, Rutgers, or UC. The problem is USM has been good, never great. USM finished the season ranked 3 times since 1980 (with 0 top ten finishes). Nine of USM's 18 winning seasons were 6 or 7 win season. Certainly a lot to be proud of, but for a school in USM's position (poor regional university with no TV market, no statewide following, 3rd most popular university in a small, poor state), they need to do much better than that to get on anyone's radar.

(11-24-2011 08:32 AM)eagle215 Wrote:  FACT: The latest moves by the big east concerning conference realignment show that your conference administrators are not interested in athletic prowess on the field, only tv markets.

They went after BYU, Boise St, and Navy. BYU and Boise St both blow USM out of the water when it comes to football prowess over the last 20 years. Navy football is on-par with USM, but offers much better TV appeal. I'd also argue that Houston football is on par with what USM offers, but UH has the advantage of offering a sizable TV market and some basketball tradition.

(11-25-2011 10:38 PM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(11-24-2011 08:32 AM)eagle215 Wrote:  FACT: USM hasn't been collecting welfare checks....Louisville has. I love capitalism.....eutopian societies are doomed to fail. Thanks for your input.

Then you should understand that a poor regional university located in a poor, low population state that already has two "state schools" will never be attractive to any major conference. USM simply is not a valuable financial addition to the Big East or any other BCS conference.

(11-24-2011 08:32 AM)eagle215 Wrote:  FACT: USM has been doing just that. Facility improvements are ongoing, though our basketball stadium needs upgrades quicker than they are occurring. Football rules the house right now. Baseball facilities are second to none. Keep trying Card.

Indoor practice facility for either major sport? No
Basketball facilities? No
Football stadium? 36K is okay
Soccer and Track: Come on USM, even high schools have lighted fields. It is 2011. But regardless, top quality

Tennis and Golf? I don't even want to know how terrible these facilities are. They aren't even listed on USM's athletic website. I had to dig through the media guides for each sport to find out where they play.

Baseball/softball are great and the football stadium is passable. But the other facilities need work. Look at UCF or even Memphis.

(11-24-2011 08:32 AM)eagle215 Wrote:  FACT: USM's on the field performance in the big three sports (fb, bb, baseball...esp football and baseball) has been more than credible for a while. Do the cardinals have 18 straight winning seasons in football.....NO. USM baseball has been great for a long time. Both USM and Louisville have been to the CWS in recent yrs. Overall, our baseball program has been much better than yours FOR MANY, MANY YRS. I will admit that our basketball program needs to be making more noise, but we've steadily been improving. Attendance needs to improve dramatically though. That said, it was pathetic that we weren't invited to the NIT last yr with our SOS and our overall record. Again, keep trying to downplay USM's success on the field....quite comical actually.

Baseball: This is what you focused most of your post on. While success in minor sports is great, it is at best icing on the cake. Baseball performance isn't going to make or break a conference invite.

Basketball: USM is non-existent in hoops. That isn't a slam on USM, but when a program has 2 NCAA appearances total and both were over 20 years ago (90, 91), that is the definition of non-existent.

Football: I don't have any problem with saying that USM has a better football history than USF, UConn, UofL, Rutgers, or UC. The problem is USM has been good, never great. USM finished the season ranked 3 times since 1980 (with 0 top ten finishes). Nine of USM's 18 winning seasons were 6 or 7 win season. Certainly a lot to be proud of, but for a school in USM's position (poor regional university with no TV market, no statewide following, 3rd most popular university in a small, poor state), they need to do much better than that to get on anyone's radar.

USM's major problem is that they have been good for a long time.

(11-24-2011 08:32 AM)eagle215 Wrote:  FACT: The latest moves by the big east concerning conference realignment show that your conference administrators are not interested in athletic prowess on the field, only tv markets.

They went after BYU, Boise St, and Navy. BYU and Boise St both blow USM out of the water when it comes to football prowess over the last 20 years. Navy football is on-par with USM, but offers much better TV appeal. I'd also argue that Houston football is on par with what USM offers, but UH has the advantage of offering a sizable TV market and some basketball tradition.

Not only that, but UH also has FIVE

(11-25-2011 10:38 PM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  Soccer and Track: Come on USM, even high schools have lighted fields. It is 2011. But regardless, top quality

Holy cow. I thought that was a joke picture until I checked the image properties. I know track and soccer have nothing to do with realignment, but that is just sad.

My high school and D3 undergrad both have better track and soccer facilities. Seriously.