(12-17-2012 07:34 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Here is another nice read on it by Marc Daniels, the voice of UCF.


http://thebeatofsports.com/why-big-east-...t-for-all/

Yep, lays out a pretty solid plan, forget Navy, they don't want all sports and with that aren't what we need. Build a western division of 8 schools to go with the 8 in the east. Play a divisional setup for football and basketball, for basketball play everyone in your division twice, play 4 single games 2 home, 2 away for 18 total conference games. If you lose MSG, no biggy, get UNLV and you can host the tourny in Memphis, Las Vegas, Houston, Dallas Orlando, etc.

(12-17-2012 07:47 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 07:45 PM)lollaperuna Wrote:  I don't think that is a misprint. The loss of the C7 has caused this board to knee jerk reaction thinking that we need to bolster basketball by adding the likes of UNLV and New Mexico. Both are toxic in football and would be foolish moves.

The article also confirms my feelings that a national all sport conference just isn't possible.

The BE had 8 allsports members for a long time... What's wrong with 8 in the west and 8 in the east making a 16 team allsports conference? Basically two mini conferences that share scheduling and a CCG? I thought it could work...

There simply isn't enough quality football to justify expanding to 16 all sports and splitting the money pie.

Are we the new Big East and the C7 the Old?

We cannot take everything that Jerseyguy has said to be gospel truth. I suspect that if Boise State and other western teams wanted their basketball in the new league, it would happen. The point is, is that there seems to be a plan that is workable. How about the EAST-WEST 16 for a new name?

(12-17-2012 07:49 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 07:34 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Here is another nice read on it by Marc Daniels, the voice of UCF.


http://thebeatofsports.com/why-big-east-...t-for-all/

Yep, lays out a pretty solid plan, forget Navy, they don't want all sports and with that aren't what we need. Build a western division of 8 schools to go with the 8 in the east. Play a divisional setup for football and basketball, for basketball play everyone in your division twice, play 4 single games 2 home, 2 away for 18 total conference games. If you lose MSG, no biggy, get UNLV and you can host the tourny in Memphis, Las Vegas, Houston, Dallas Orlando, etc.

Yor are focused on the wrong sport.

(12-17-2012 07:52 PM)lollaperuna Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 07:47 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 07:45 PM)lollaperuna Wrote:  I don't think that is a misprint. The loss of the C7 has caused this board to knee jerk reaction thinking that we need to bolster basketball by adding the likes of UNLV and New Mexico. Both are toxic in football and would be foolish moves.

The article also confirms my feelings that a national all sport conference just isn't possible.

The BE had 8 allsports members for a long time... What's wrong with 8 in the west and 8 in the east making a 16 team allsports conference? Basically two mini conferences that share scheduling and a CCG? I thought it could work...

There simply isn't enough quality football to justify expanding to 16 all sports and splitting the money pie.

Maybe... depends on who we could get. Any of BYU, AFA and Fresno would be fine in FB. I'm not sure we could get them to join though...

(12-17-2012 07:55 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 07:52 PM)lollaperuna Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 07:47 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 07:45 PM)lollaperuna Wrote:  I don't think that is a misprint. The loss of the C7 has caused this board to knee jerk reaction thinking that we need to bolster basketball by adding the likes of UNLV and New Mexico. Both are toxic in football and would be foolish moves.

The article also confirms my feelings that a national all sport conference just isn't possible.

The BE had 8 allsports members for a long time... What's wrong with 8 in the west and 8 in the east making a 16 team allsports conference? Basically two mini conferences that share scheduling and a CCG? I thought it could work...

There simply isn't enough quality football to justify expanding to 16 all sports and splitting the money pie.

Maybe... depends on who we could get. Any of BYU, AFA and Fresno would be fine in FB. I'm not sure we could get them to join though...

I think that is the 3 that are being targeted for football. I was talking about all sports.

(12-17-2012 07:34 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Here is another nice read on it by Marc Daniels, the voice of UCF.


http://thebeatofsports.com/why-big-east-...t-for-all/

Lol. I love this guy. I literally feel like he read about a dozon of my recent posts and built on that. This is exactly what we need to do. I hope this is the plan and not those timid little half measures Blaudschun is discussing. Frankly, if we do this plan, Navy will join and we can grab the olympic UMass programs or some other A-10 school to fill Navys non-football slot in the east.

He also puts Nevada ahead of UNLV. That would seem to be a minority position.

Lollaperuna is right. Boise's capacity to go all sports is a revenue killer. It's too far.

And it's not necessary at all. Additionally, those that want a large conference are conveniently overlooking the fact that you'd be splitting all your money with football programs that couldn't contribute for a decade. Why do it?

Btw - it's amazing how one intelligent person with a positive perspective can settle the nerves. Too damn bad the entire media conglomerate is possessed with the need to toxify everything.

Kudos to the radio guy for his analysis.

By paring all this conference down to the core its allowed some people to come out of the shadows and actually advocate something positive.

(12-17-2012 07:47 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 07:45 PM)lollaperuna Wrote:  I don't think that is a misprint. The loss of the C7 has caused this board to knee jerk reaction thinking that we need to bolster basketball by adding the likes of UNLV and New Mexico. Both are toxic in football and would be foolish moves.

The article also confirms my feelings that a national all sport conference just isn't possible.

The BE had 8 allsports members for a long time... What's wrong with 8 in the west and 8 in the east making a 16 team allsports conference? Basically two mini conferences that share scheduling and a CCG? I thought it could work...

DING DING DING. Ride the all-sports wave!

(12-17-2012 07:52 PM)lollaperuna Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 07:47 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 07:45 PM)lollaperuna Wrote:  I don't think that is a misprint. The loss of the C7 has caused this board to knee jerk reaction thinking that we need to bolster basketball by adding the likes of UNLV and New Mexico. Both are toxic in football and would be foolish moves.

The article also confirms my feelings that a national all sport conference just isn't possible.

The BE had 8 allsports members for a long time... What's wrong with 8 in the west and 8 in the east making a 16 team allsports conference? Basically two mini conferences that share scheduling and a CCG? I thought it could work...

There simply isn't enough quality football to justify expanding to 16 all sports and splitting the money pie.

You go to 16 to add a little quality basketball to bolster the loss of the Catholic schools.

If one of the first moves is to add ECU as a basketball member to go along with Tulane, how is this a good plan for the long haul? Two basketball members that draw poorly, have no basketball fan base and suck NCAA tournament revenue from UCONN, Cincy, Memphis and Temple. Horrible idea. Would rather add VCU and George Mason as basketball members. ECU and Tulane have never been competitive in basketball and they won't be in whatever new conference configuration Aresco dreams up.

(12-17-2012 07:53 PM)baruna falls Wrote:  We cannot take everything that Jerseyguy has said to be gospel truth. I suspect that if Boise State and other western teams wanted their basketball in the new league, it would happen. The point is, is that there seems to be a plan that is workable. How about the EAST-WEST 16 for a new name?

This! Check his twitter going way back... If those aren't trial balloons, he is flat out wrong most of the time..

(12-17-2012 07:47 PM)Bull Wrote:  The BE had 8 allsports members for a long time... What's wrong with 8 in the west and 8 in the east making a 16 team allsports conference? Basically two mini conferences that share scheduling and a CCG? I thought it could work...

As a fan, I want all sports.
But I can see the presidents wanting otherwise, particularly in Texas, La and Tenn (3 of the 4 would go west): longer travel times, higher costs, loss of eastern front.

(12-17-2012 08:08 PM)vabearcat Wrote:  Tulane have never been competitive in basketball and they won't

That's not true. We haven't been competitive recently, but we were competitive in C-USA (when cincy was there) and the Metro.
It is important to get more teams up to spiff, I agree.

(12-17-2012 07:33 PM)FULL_MONTY Wrote:  2. Give East Carolina full membership (the original deal was football only) which would give the new league an Eastern group of Cincinnati, UConn, South Florida, Temple, East Carolina, Central Florida, Tulane and in 2015 Navy.

Form a western group which would include Memphis, Houston, SMU, Boise State, San Diego State and either Air Force, BYU, Nevada or Fresno. The capacity to expand to as many as 16 teams remains on the board, although the plan now is go into increments as teams change, going from 12 teams next season to 14, 15 or 16 teams in the following seasons.

Does this mean an all sports league or not? Confused on the wording.

No. Keep reading the western schools will be football only which means your permanently in the Big West. Doubt Fresno comes under that model. Maybe you get AF or Reno.

If you look at the footprint of the MWC right now... Our theoretical 8 team 'western half' for allsports is pretty close to it. Only BSU would stretch it just a bit to the north, not bad at all. It most definitely could work. Remember, for olympic sports the east and west would not have to cross much, as we all agree the travel starts to be an issue. A few cross trips is fine though, just to spice things up. Everyone is doing that now, OOC.

Don't mean to beat a dead horse... we'll see if it happens someday.

(12-17-2012 08:08 PM)vabearcat Wrote:  If one of the first moves is to add ECU as a basketball member to go along with Tulane, how is this a good plan for the long haul? Two basketball members that draw poorly, have no basketball fan base and suck NCAA tournament revenue from UCONN, Cincy, Memphis and Temple. Horrible idea. Would rather add VCU and George Mason as basketball members. ECU and Tulane have never been competitive in basketball and they won't be in whatever new conference configuration Aresco dreams up.

Hey! Great idea! Then we can have a bunch of Basketball schools in a conference with some football only schools and some all sports schools, wait....

This would be the best scenario. We don't need a cross country all-sports conference, it simply isn't feasible. 4 football only's (Boise, San Diego, 2 more west) and 10 all-sports in the way to go.

Also, as I've said time and time again, the "Big East" name will go to the basketball schools, where it belongs.