(03-09-2012 05:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  (in a nutshell, I think our recent moves, excepting inviting UCF, are uniformly bad)

See, this sense of arrogance is what rubs people the wrong way... because (with all due respect to my fellow Big East Bulls) you are a USF fan/alum.

USF football was just a decade removed from working out of trailers when they were invited.

OTOH, programs like Memphis, Temple, Houston, Navy, Boise State, SMU, etc, contribute to the cache of this conference. These programs bring BCS bowl trophies, Heisman trophies (4 of them), Final Four banners...

Temple was Big East when the BCS was formed. Tell me how they aren't worthy now that they've restored their football program and have won another regular season basketball title.

If I was asking this of an Alabama fan, I might understand where he was coming from. I wouldn't agree with it but I'd recognize his bias. However, you are reppin USF...

(03-09-2012 05:53 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(03-09-2012 05:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  (in a nutshell, I think our recent moves, excepting inviting UCF, are uniformly bad)

See, this sense of arrogance is what rubs people the wrong way... because (with all due respect to my fellow Big East Bulls) you are a USF fan/alum.

Of all the silly ideas that bounce around this board these days, probably the silliest is the idea that because USF is not Alabama or USC, that this somehow makes my points less valid.

To prove how silly that is, just pretend I am not a fan of USF. Pretend I am a Notre Dame or Texas fan, and read my posts about the wisdom of adding schools like Memphis, SMU, Boise, and Temple (terrible moves all, IMO) again. See?

Really, the dumbest possible response to my argument that, e.g., Temple will take far more than they contribute is to say that "USF doesn't contribute either". That is entirely irrelevant, because when adding a new member, what determines whether it is a good move or not is the marginal value added by that prospective new member. Not what any current member is or isn't contributing.

(03-09-2012 06:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-09-2012 05:53 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(03-09-2012 05:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  (in a nutshell, I think our recent moves, excepting inviting UCF, are uniformly bad)

See, this sense of arrogance is what rubs people the wrong way... because (with all due respect to my fellow Big East Bulls) you are a USF fan/alum.

Of all the silly ideas that bounce around this board these days, probably the silliest is the idea that because USF is not Alabama or USC, that this somehow makes my points less valid.

To prove how silly that is, just pretend I am not a fan of USF. Pretend I am a Notre Dame or Texas fan, and read my posts about the wisdom of adding schools like Memphis, SMU, Boise, and Temple (terrible moves all, IMO) again. See?

Really, the dumbest possible response to my argument that, e.g., Temple will take far more than they contribute is to say that "USF doesn't contribute either". That is entirely irrelevant, because when adding a new member, what determines whether it is a good move or not is the marginal value added by that prospective new member. Not what any current member is or isn't contributing.

You hate our schools, we get it, moving along.

(03-09-2012 05:53 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(03-09-2012 05:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  (in a nutshell, I think our recent moves, excepting inviting UCF, are uniformly bad)

See, this sense of arrogance is what rubs people the wrong way... because (with all due respect to my fellow Big East Bulls) you are a USF fan/alum.

USF football was just a decade removed from working out of trailers when they were invited.

OTOH, programs like Memphis, Temple, Houston, Navy, Boise State, SMU, etc, contribute to the cache of this conference. These programs bring BCS bowl trophies, Heisman trophies (4 of them), Final Four banners...

Temple was Big East when the BCS was formed. Tell me how they aren't worthy now that they've restored their football program and have won another regular season basketball title.

If I was asking this of an Alabama fan, I might understand where he was coming from. I wouldn't agree with it but I'd recognize his bias. However, you are reppin USF...

BEH, remember that after the ACC Raid I, the Big East did let out what they expected from prospective schools to be considered. They specifically identified to some schools of that particular school's needs. I am not trying to flame anyone's school, just bringing back a little history. Only UCF took it to heart and did everything asked of by the Big East.

For the record, I think the Big East has done the best they can and I like several of the adds. I am glad that several of the teams finally belong to an AQ conference where they should have been all along.

(03-09-2012 06:17 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(03-09-2012 05:53 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(03-09-2012 05:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  (in a nutshell, I think our recent moves, excepting inviting UCF, are uniformly bad)

See, this sense of arrogance is what rubs people the wrong way... because (with all due respect to my fellow Big East Bulls) you are a USF fan/alum.

USF football was just a decade removed from working out of trailers when they were invited.

OTOH, programs like Memphis, Temple, Houston, Navy, Boise State, SMU, etc, contribute to the cache of this conference. These programs bring BCS bowl trophies, Heisman trophies (4 of them), Final Four banners...

Temple was Big East when the BCS was formed. Tell me how they aren't worthy now that they've restored their football program and have won another regular season basketball title.

If I was asking this of an Alabama fan, I might understand where he was coming from. I wouldn't agree with it but I'd recognize his bias. However, you are reppin USF...

BEH, remember that after the ACC Raid I, the Big East did let out what they expected from prospective schools to be considered. They specifically identified to some schools of that particular school's needs. I am not trying to flame anyone's school, just bringing back a little history. Only UCF took it to heart and did everything asked of by the Big East.

For the record, I think the Big East has done the best they can and I like several of the adds. I am glad that several of the teams finally belong to an AQ conference where they should have been all along.

Not true at all, not even close. Memphis has improved everything across the board, the only place it hasn't shown has been on the football field. Our Olympic athletics are better, our facilities are a lot better, our academics are improved, we've done a lot and even hired the former Big East commish to make sure we were doing it right. Memphis has poured in millions (with more to come) and have done everything the Big East has asked of us.

(03-09-2012 06:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Of all the silly ideas that bounce around this board these days, probably the silliest is the idea that because USF is not Alabama or USC, that this somehow makes my points less valid.

To prove how silly that is, just pretend I am not a fan of USF. Pretend I am a Notre Dame or Texas fan, and read my posts about the wisdom of adding schools like Memphis, SMU, Boise, and Temple (terrible moves all, IMO) again. See?

No, quo, it's not silly for precisely that reason.

Your whole premise is based on valuing these additions based on a point in their history when they were receiving non-BCS paychecks to run their programs. You fail to take into account that their future success isn't limited any more by those disparities.

It's not hard to pretend that you are a Texas fan because you are very much against the idea of a program bettering their position. You hold on to this old school philosophy of 'acceptability of brand' and fail to see that brand awareness is an economic issue tied to conference affiliation (i.e. television contracts).

In this old school versus new school argument, you don't even stop and consider that Temple University was an original part of that establishment and USF was NOT. If every conference would have dropped the hammer on their underachieving football members, like the BE did with Temple, DUKE would be a mid major too.

As I said, the cache of traditon these programs bring SPEAKS HIGHLY of their future contribution. There are a great many BCS programs that don't have the illustrious histories of Houston, NAVY, SMU, TEMPLE, Boise State, MEMPHIS.. and even UCF or SDSU.

I challenge you to do some research for once and read about the success that Houston football and basketball has had. They've had Hall of Fame coaches in both sports (although Guy V deserves the Naismith Hall of Fame honor as well). Tell me how they don't deserve a spot at the table, when there are plenty of mediocre schools that I wont name who have been eating high on the hog for years.

If you don't think that athletic success will repeat itself, than you are much more ignorant than you let on.

Why are you guys ganging up on poor Quo so much?

(03-09-2012 06:26 PM)Lord2FLI Wrote:  

(03-09-2012 06:17 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(03-09-2012 05:53 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(03-09-2012 05:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  (in a nutshell, I think our recent moves, excepting inviting UCF, are uniformly bad)

See, this sense of arrogance is what rubs people the wrong way... because (with all due respect to my fellow Big East Bulls) you are a USF fan/alum.

USF football was just a decade removed from working out of trailers when they were invited.

OTOH, programs like Memphis, Temple, Houston, Navy, Boise State, SMU, etc, contribute to the cache of this conference. These programs bring BCS bowl trophies, Heisman trophies (4 of them), Final Four banners...

Temple was Big East when the BCS was formed. Tell me how they aren't worthy now that they've restored their football program and have won another regular season basketball title.

If I was asking this of an Alabama fan, I might understand where he was coming from. I wouldn't agree with it but I'd recognize his bias. However, you are reppin USF...

BEH, remember that after the ACC Raid I, the Big East did let out what they expected from prospective schools to be considered. They specifically identified to some schools of that particular school's needs. I am not trying to flame anyone's school, just bringing back a little history. Only UCF took it to heart and did everything asked of by the Big East.

For the record, I think the Big East has done the best they can and I like several of the adds. I am glad that several of the teams finally belong to an AQ conference where they should have been all along.

Not true at all, not even close. Memphis has improved everything across the board, the only place it hasn't shown has been on the football field. Our Olympic athletics are better, our facilities are a lot better, our academics are improved, we've done a lot and even hired the former Big East commish to make sure we were doing it right. Memphis has poured in millions (with more to come) and have done everything the Big East has asked of us.

So we agree that Memphis had not completed everything the Big East demanded. I wanted Memphis (and ECU) in the Big East after ACC Raid I, so I have followed their progress. Over the past few years, UCF was clearly on the Big East radar, but Memphis was informed they had work to do.

(03-09-2012 06:40 PM)CD11 Wrote:  Why are you guys ganging up on poor Quo so much?

It's just so much fun.

Truth be told, I have a lot of respect for Georgetown T-shirt fans.

I may wonder about quo's motives at times (because some of his arguments transcend rationality) but I do enjoy the contradictions in his logic. It's like looking at a colorful rock.

(03-09-2012 06:49 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(03-09-2012 06:26 PM)Lord2FLI Wrote:  

(03-09-2012 06:17 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(03-09-2012 05:53 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(03-09-2012 05:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  (in a nutshell, I think our recent moves, excepting inviting UCF, are uniformly bad)

See, this sense of arrogance is what rubs people the wrong way... because (with all due respect to my fellow Big East Bulls) you are a USF fan/alum.

USF football was just a decade removed from working out of trailers when they were invited.

OTOH, programs like Memphis, Temple, Houston, Navy, Boise State, SMU, etc, contribute to the cache of this conference. These programs bring BCS bowl trophies, Heisman trophies (4 of them), Final Four banners...

Temple was Big East when the BCS was formed. Tell me how they aren't worthy now that they've restored their football program and have won another regular season basketball title.

If I was asking this of an Alabama fan, I might understand where he was coming from. I wouldn't agree with it but I'd recognize his bias. However, you are reppin USF...

BEH, remember that after the ACC Raid I, the Big East did let out what they expected from prospective schools to be considered. They specifically identified to some schools of that particular school's needs. I am not trying to flame anyone's school, just bringing back a little history. Only UCF took it to heart and did everything asked of by the Big East.

For the record, I think the Big East has done the best they can and I like several of the adds. I am glad that several of the teams finally belong to an AQ conference where they should have been all along.

Not true at all, not even close. Memphis has improved everything across the board, the only place it hasn't shown has been on the football field. Our Olympic athletics are better, our facilities are a lot better, our academics are improved, we've done a lot and even hired the former Big East commish to make sure we were doing it right. Memphis has poured in millions (with more to come) and have done everything the Big East has asked of us.

So we agree that Memphis had not completed everything the Big East demanded. I wanted Memphis (and ECU) in the Big East after ACC Raid I, so I have followed their progress. Over the past few years, UCF was clearly on the Big East radar, but Memphis was informed they had work to do.

I'm by no means an expert on the matter, so please take what I say with a grain of salt. I do know Memphis was either outright told, or given the impression that football was only an aspect of getting in and it was not considered a critical need. The school set out in that direction and we followed the outline as instructed/advised. It wasn't until two years ago that folks decided football wasn't just important, it was critical and at that point we had made one too many mistakes with football. I'm by no means happy with Tiger football, and if you speak to me in person it's a subject I try to avoid because it's embarrassing, a Southern school that can't play football is just..................ugh.

At any rate, I took issue with your statement that only UCF took things to heart because they weren't alone. Other than a turd football program, Memphis has made great strides in everything that has been asked of them and it's a disservice to ignore all of the 100 or so things that have been done right and put everyone down for the one that was not.

I'm just excited to see all the new schools mix it up with the traditional BE schools. 2013 can't get here fast enough.

(03-09-2012 06:13 PM)Lord2FLI Wrote:  

(03-09-2012 06:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-09-2012 05:53 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(03-09-2012 05:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  (in a nutshell, I think our recent moves, excepting inviting UCF, are uniformly bad)

See, this sense of arrogance is what rubs people the wrong way... because (with all due respect to my fellow Big East Bulls) you are a USF fan/alum.

Of all the silly ideas that bounce around this board these days, probably the silliest is the idea that because USF is not Alabama or USC, that this somehow makes my points less valid.

To prove how silly that is, just pretend I am not a fan of USF. Pretend I am a Notre Dame or Texas fan, and read my posts about the wisdom of adding schools like Memphis, SMU, Boise, and Temple (terrible moves all, IMO) again. See?

Really, the dumbest possible response to my argument that, e.g., Temple will take far more than they contribute is to say that "USF doesn't contribute either". That is entirely irrelevant, because when adding a new member, what determines whether it is a good move or not is the marginal value added by that prospective new member. Not what any current member is or isn't contributing.

You hate our schools, we get it, moving along.

I think Memphis is a fine school. Just a bad addition for the Big East.

(03-09-2012 07:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-09-2012 06:13 PM)Lord2FLI Wrote:  

(03-09-2012 06:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-09-2012 05:53 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(03-09-2012 05:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  (in a nutshell, I think our recent moves, excepting inviting UCF, are uniformly bad)

See, this sense of arrogance is what rubs people the wrong way... because (with all due respect to my fellow Big East Bulls) you are a USF fan/alum.

Of all the silly ideas that bounce around this board these days, probably the silliest is the idea that because USF is not Alabama or USC, that this somehow makes my points less valid.

To prove how silly that is, just pretend I am not a fan of USF. Pretend I am a Notre Dame or Texas fan, and read my posts about the wisdom of adding schools like Memphis, SMU, Boise, and Temple (terrible moves all, IMO) again. See?

Really, the dumbest possible response to my argument that, e.g., Temple will take far more than they contribute is to say that "USF doesn't contribute either". That is entirely irrelevant, because when adding a new member, what determines whether it is a good move or not is the marginal value added by that prospective new member. Not what any current member is or isn't contributing.

You hate our schools, we get it, moving along.

I think Memphis is a fine school. Just a bad addition for the Big East.

You hate Memphis, we get it.

i want to know who the heck keep giving the Wet Blanket rep points?!?!?!?!?

(03-09-2012 06:40 PM)CD11 Wrote:  Why are you guys ganging up on poor Quo so much?

I guess it would be quid pro Quo

Just trying to figure out how Memphis is not a good pick. They are a metro city with good basketball, just about like every other BE team. Memphis should have been in long before USF if anything. I can't wait for the Memphis vs USF games...Send shivers down the Bulls spines.

(03-09-2012 07:17 PM)Lord2FLI Wrote:  

(03-09-2012 06:49 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(03-09-2012 06:26 PM)Lord2FLI Wrote:  

(03-09-2012 06:17 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(03-09-2012 05:53 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  See, this sense of arrogance is what rubs people the wrong way... because (with all due respect to my fellow Big East Bulls) you are a USF fan/alum.

USF football was just a decade removed from working out of trailers when they were invited.

OTOH, programs like Memphis, Temple, Houston, Navy, Boise State, SMU, etc, contribute to the cache of this conference. These programs bring BCS bowl trophies, Heisman trophies (4 of them), Final Four banners...

Temple was Big East when the BCS was formed. Tell me how they aren't worthy now that they've restored their football program and have won another regular season basketball title.

If I was asking this of an Alabama fan, I might understand where he was coming from. I wouldn't agree with it but I'd recognize his bias. However, you are reppin USF...

BEH, remember that after the ACC Raid I, the Big East did let out what they expected from prospective schools to be considered. They specifically identified to some schools of that particular school's needs. I am not trying to flame anyone's school, just bringing back a little history. Only UCF took it to heart and did everything asked of by the Big East.

For the record, I think the Big East has done the best they can and I like several of the adds. I am glad that several of the teams finally belong to an AQ conference where they should have been all along.

Not true at all, not even close. Memphis has improved everything across the board, the only place it hasn't shown has been on the football field. Our Olympic athletics are better, our facilities are a lot better, our academics are improved, we've done a lot and even hired the former Big East commish to make sure we were doing it right. Memphis has poured in millions (with more to come) and have done everything the Big East has asked of us.

So we agree that Memphis had not completed everything the Big East demanded. I wanted Memphis (and ECU) in the Big East after ACC Raid I, so I have followed their progress. Over the past few years, UCF was clearly on the Big East radar, but Memphis was informed they had work to do.

I'm by no means an expert on the matter, so please take what I say with a grain of salt. I do know Memphis was either outright told, or given the impression that football was only an aspect of getting in and it was not considered a critical need. The school set out in that direction and we followed the outline as instructed/advised. It wasn't until two years ago that folks decided football wasn't just important, it was critical and at that point we had made one too many mistakes with football. I'm by no means happy with Tiger football, and if you speak to me in person it's a subject I try to avoid because it's embarrassing, a Southern school that can't play football is just..................ugh.

At any rate, I took issue with your statement that only UCF took things to heart because they weren't alone. Other than a turd football program, Memphis has made great strides in everything that has been asked of them and it's a disservice to ignore all of the 100 or so things that have been done right and put everyone down for the one that was not.

As previously stated, I wanted Memphis in after ACC Raid I. I am a fan and did not get my wish. The Big East decided Memphis did not meet the criteria they desired.

I will concede your point on "took it to heart" as Memphis did move forward and even accomplished most of the criteria. However, until the Big East lost teams, they refused to consider Memphis because Memphis had not attained what they wanted, which is the point I was trying to make. Only UCF had completed the "checklist" (for lack of a better word). I wanted Memphis in all along. I've followed Louisville and Cincy for a couple decades and appreciate their "love to hate each other" relationship, and their hoops.

As to Memphis' recent football performance, I can relate, we had Greg Robinson (a.k.a. on other boards as "He who shall not be named").

Now that you are in the Big East, I wish you the best (except when playing a few schools I like).

(03-09-2012 08:43 PM)cardshouse Wrote:  Just trying to figure out how Memphis is not a good pick. They are a metro city with good basketball, just about like every other BE team. Memphis should have been in long before USF if anything. I can't wait for the Memphis vs USF games...Send shivers down the Bulls spines.

Memphis is a very good basketball school but we will live or die with football, and their football is BAD, and buried deep in SEC territory, has little chance of getting better.

Plus, i care about our conference's culture, and memphis has a deep south sports culture alien to that of the traditional big east.

(03-09-2012 06:31 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(03-09-2012 06:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Of all the silly ideas that bounce around this board these days, probably the silliest is the idea that because USF is not Alabama or USC, that this somehow makes my points less valid.

To prove how silly that is, just pretend I am not a fan of USF. Pretend I am a Notre Dame or Texas fan, and read my posts about the wisdom of adding schools like Memphis, SMU, Boise, and Temple (terrible moves all, IMO) again. See?

No, quo, it's not silly for precisely that reason.

Your whole premise is based on valuing these additions based on a point in their history when they were receiving non-BCS paychecks to run their programs. You fail to take into account that their future success isn't limited any more by those disparities.

It's not hard to pretend that you are a Texas fan because you are very much against the idea of a program bettering their position. You hold on to this old school philosophy of 'acceptability of brand' and fail to see that brand awareness is an economic issue tied to conference affiliation (i.e. television contracts).

In this old school versus new school argument, you don't even stop and consider that Temple University was an original part of that establishment and USF was NOT. If every conference would have dropped the hammer on their underachieving football members, like the BE did with Temple, DUKE would be a mid major too.

As I said, the cache of traditon these programs bring SPEAKS HIGHLY of their future contribution. There are a great many BCS programs that don't have the illustrious histories of Houston, NAVY, SMU, TEMPLE, Boise State, MEMPHIS.. and even UCF or SDSU.

I challenge you to do some research for once and read about the success that Houston football and basketball has had. They've had Hall of Fame coaches in both sports (although Guy V deserves the Naismith Hall of Fame honor as well). Tell me how they don't deserve a spot at the table, when there are plenty of mediocre schools that I wont name who have been eating high on the hog for years.

If you don't think that athletic success will repeat itself, than you are much more ignorant than you let on.

Homer, if you are going to claim i am guilty of logical contradictions, you should back it up with something far stronger than this.

I see little reasonto think schools like houston, memphis, and smu, and temple will get better thanks to a BCS check. For one thing, i think AQ is going away, at least for the Big East. For another, these schools are buried deep in the domains of more powerful conferences, competing against bigger schools making much more money.

No, IMO they are much more likely to be 'taker' mouths to feed at the table than contributing members. And their fans seem to be disengenuous in their rah rah big east spirit, because what they are really happy about is a seat at the BCS table, not big east table.

Next time, lets see you demonstrate a better understanding of college football reality, eh?

To no one is particular: I think declarative statements while sharing your opinion is a pain. I think that using "I think" in front of opinions will go a long way.

By the way, does anyone else think that ACC Jay Bilas doesn't want to be at the MSG tonite? Someone needs to wake him up, he's sounds like he's talking in a library. Man, I can't wait for NBC Sports... the announcer right now on the BC-UMass hockey game on Nbc is fantastic... like a Gary Thorne type. The BC rink looks empty though... is gene difillipo killing Bc hockey enthusiasm too?

One more thing, espn 2 in Greensboro is dullsville. EDIT: Atlanta, not Greensboro... zzzzz