(05-19-2013 09:32 PM)Chris02M Wrote:  losing notre dame is more about brand vs actual on field results

Can't really whitewash the fact that the nnnBE lost the #1 Catholic University in the United States...

(05-19-2013 10:30 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 09:25 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 08:53 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 07:42 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 07:29 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Yeah except we don't have to support FB. If it was just about BBall our expenses are very similar.

I'm willing to be convinced. Some of the coaches such as Brad Stevens at Butler (a nnnBE school) and Shaka Smart at VCU (not yet one) seem determined to stay at these non P5 conference programs.

How would you say the bb practice facilities, arenas, locker rooms, etc. at the nnnBE institutions compare?

Do you feel that the recruiting for Georgetown, St. John's, Villanova, Marquette, DePaul, etc. will remain as high as it's been without having the Louisvilles, Syracuses, UConns, Pitts and NDs regularly on the schedule?

Cheers,
Neil

Losing Syracuse, UConn & Notre Dame are killer for those programs...the nnnBE will be a solid league but long term it going to be hard for them to keep up with schools in the P5...

Losing Notre dame was not THAT big a deal. They never even made a conference final.

But they filled your arenas more than Seton Hall, DePaul, and Providence did and more than Butler, Creighton and Xavier are likely to. But I'm sure the latter three will do well at Marquette and DePaul.

I'm still interested in seeing who the final two additions will be. Somehow I don't think they will be northeastern programs.

Cheers,
Neil

Saint Louis & Dayton don't scream Northeast.

(05-19-2013 10:30 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 09:25 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 08:53 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 07:42 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 07:29 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Yeah except we don't have to support FB. If it was just about BBall our expenses are very similar.

I'm willing to be convinced. Some of the coaches such as Brad Stevens at Butler (a nnnBE school) and Shaka Smart at VCU (not yet one) seem determined to stay at these non P5 conference programs.

How would you say the bb practice facilities, arenas, locker rooms, etc. at the nnnBE institutions compare?

Do you feel that the recruiting for Georgetown, St. John's, Villanova, Marquette, DePaul, etc. will remain as high as it's been without having the Louisvilles, Syracuses, UConns, Pitts and NDs regularly on the schedule?

Cheers,
Neil

Losing Syracuse, UConn & Notre Dame are killer for those programs...the nnnBE will be a solid league but long term it going to be hard for them to keep up with schools in the P5...

Losing Notre dame was not THAT big a deal. They never even made a conference final.

But they filled your arenas more than Seton Hall, DePaul, and Providence did and more than Butler, Creighton and Xavier are likely to. But I'm sure the latter three will do well at Marquette and DePaul.

I'm still interested in seeing who the final two additions will be. Somehow I don't think they will be northeastern programs.

Cheers,
Neil

Notre Dame doesn't have the broad fan base that their FB team has. We never got a huge turn out at MSG for ND games.

(05-19-2013 11:10 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 10:30 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 09:25 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 08:53 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 07:42 PM)omniorange Wrote:  I'm willing to be convinced. Some of the coaches such as Brad Stevens at Butler (a nnnBE school) and Shaka Smart at VCU (not yet one) seem determined to stay at these non P5 conference programs.

How would you say the bb practice facilities, arenas, locker rooms, etc. at the nnnBE institutions compare?

Do you feel that the recruiting for Georgetown, St. John's, Villanova, Marquette, DePaul, etc. will remain as high as it's been without having the Louisvilles, Syracuses, UConns, Pitts and NDs regularly on the schedule?

Cheers,
Neil

Losing Syracuse, UConn & Notre Dame are killer for those programs...the nnnBE will be a solid league but long term it going to be hard for them to keep up with schools in the P5...

Losing Notre dame was not THAT big a deal. They never even made a conference final.

But they filled your arenas more than Seton Hall, DePaul, and Providence did and more than Butler, Creighton and Xavier are likely to. But I'm sure the latter three will do well at Marquette and DePaul.

I'm still interested in seeing who the final two additions will be. Somehow I don't think they will be northeastern programs.

Cheers,
Neil

Notre Dame doesn't have the broad fan base that their FB team has. We never got a huge turn out at MSG for ND games.

True they draw between 8 and 11K, but the fact you play them regularly at MSG instead of Carnesca Arena like Providence and DePaul should give you an indication of where they stand in terms of your new conference - behind Georgetown, Villanova and Marquette, but slightly above Seton Hall (a game which struggles to get 8K crowds at MSG despite both programs supposedly being NYC teams) and well above Providence and DePaul.

Do you think Creighton, Xavier, and Butler will exceed ND's draw at MSG?

I have my doubts there.

Cheers,
Neil

(05-20-2013 07:32 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 11:10 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 10:30 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 09:25 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 08:53 PM)Maize Wrote:  Losing Syracuse, UConn & Notre Dame are killer for those programs...the nnnBE will be a solid league but long term it going to be hard for them to keep up with schools in the P5...

Losing Notre dame was not THAT big a deal. They never even made a conference final.

But they filled your arenas more than Seton Hall, DePaul, and Providence did and more than Butler, Creighton and Xavier are likely to. But I'm sure the latter three will do well at Marquette and DePaul.

I'm still interested in seeing who the final two additions will be. Somehow I don't think they will be northeastern programs.

Cheers,
Neil

Notre Dame doesn't have the broad fan base that their FB team has. We never got a huge turn out at MSG for ND games.

True they draw between 8 and 11K, but the fact you play them regularly at MSG instead of Carnesca Arena like Providence and DePaul should give you an indication of where they stand in terms of your new conference - behind Georgetown, Villanova and Marquette, but slightly above Seton Hall (a game which struggles to get 8K crowds at MSG despite both programs supposedly being NYC teams) and well above Providence and DePaul.

Do you think Creighton, Xavier, and Butler will exceed ND's draw at MSG?

I have my doubts there.

Cheers,
Neil

All of this stuff has to do with the ACC getting MSG in what way?

No one has yet to answer my question on this matter.

There was a 3 month window where MSG could have walked away from the Big East legally and signed the ACC. Yet, MSG (nor Barclays) submitted a bid for the ACC and in fact MSG just two months ago signed up with the Big East for another 13 years. If MSG wanted the ACC why didn't they walk away from the Big East when they could have done so legally?

Personally. I think Miami and the American Airlines arena would make a fantastic location for the ACC championship Tournament. Nice weather and lots to do between games. Just an idea.

(05-20-2013 11:37 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Personally. I think Miami and the American Airlines arena would make a fantastic location for the ACC championship Tournament. Nice weather and lots to do between games. Just an idea.

I agree, no offense to Greensboro, but you need a sight where people who don't live there would want to go to and is a conference town. The folks up north would love to head to south beach at the end of a looooong winter and the city would love the boost in tourism (not that it needs it).

(05-20-2013 11:33 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 07:32 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 11:10 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 10:30 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 09:25 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Losing Notre dame was not THAT big a deal. They never even made a conference final.

But they filled your arenas more than Seton Hall, DePaul, and Providence did and more than Butler, Creighton and Xavier are likely to. But I'm sure the latter three will do well at Marquette and DePaul.

I'm still interested in seeing who the final two additions will be. Somehow I don't think they will be northeastern programs.

Cheers,
Neil

Notre Dame doesn't have the broad fan base that their FB team has. We never got a huge turn out at MSG for ND games.

True they draw between 8 and 11K, but the fact you play them regularly at MSG instead of Carnesca Arena like Providence and DePaul should give you an indication of where they stand in terms of your new conference - behind Georgetown, Villanova and Marquette, but slightly above Seton Hall (a game which struggles to get 8K crowds at MSG despite both programs supposedly being NYC teams) and well above Providence and DePaul.

Do you think Creighton, Xavier, and Butler will exceed ND's draw at MSG?

I have my doubts there.

Cheers,
Neil

All of this stuff has to do with the ACC getting MSG in what way?

No one has yet to answer my question on this matter.

There was a 3 month window where MSG could have walked away from the Big East legally and signed the ACC. Yet, MSG (nor Barclays) submitted a bid for the ACC and in fact MSG just two months ago signed up with the Big East for another 13 years. If MSG wanted the ACC why didn't they walk away from the Big East when they could have done so legally?

Okay, now you want to go back to the original premise of the thread instead of these offshoots that you helped create.

The answer is simple from my perspective, MSG doesn't want to be part of a "stinkin' rotation". Said with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

IF MSG thought it had a chance to be the permanent location of the ACC tourney during that three month window they never would have signed with the nnnBE.

Since the ACC is unlikely to make MSG the "permanent location" for their tourney despite the obvious reasons as to why they should, this thread itself is an exercise in futility.

Cheers,
Neil

(05-20-2013 02:34 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 11:33 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 07:32 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 11:10 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 10:30 PM)omniorange Wrote:  But they filled your arenas more than Seton Hall, DePaul, and Providence did and more than Butler, Creighton and Xavier are likely to. But I'm sure the latter three will do well at Marquette and DePaul.

I'm still interested in seeing who the final two additions will be. Somehow I don't think they will be northeastern programs.

Cheers,
Neil

Notre Dame doesn't have the broad fan base that their FB team has. We never got a huge turn out at MSG for ND games.

True they draw between 8 and 11K, but the fact you play them regularly at MSG instead of Carnesca Arena like Providence and DePaul should give you an indication of where they stand in terms of your new conference - behind Georgetown, Villanova and Marquette, but slightly above Seton Hall (a game which struggles to get 8K crowds at MSG despite both programs supposedly being NYC teams) and well above Providence and DePaul.

Do you think Creighton, Xavier, and Butler will exceed ND's draw at MSG?

I have my doubts there.

Cheers,
Neil

All of this stuff has to do with the ACC getting MSG in what way?

No one has yet to answer my question on this matter.

There was a 3 month window where MSG could have walked away from the Big East legally and signed the ACC. Yet, MSG (nor Barclays) submitted a bid for the ACC and in fact MSG just two months ago signed up with the Big East for another 13 years. If MSG wanted the ACC why didn't they walk away from the Big East when they could have done so legally?

Okay, now you want to go back to the original premise of the thread instead of these offshoots that you helped create.

The answer is simple from my perspective, MSG doesn't want to be part of a "stinkin' rotation". Said with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

IF MSG thought it had a chance to be the permanent location of the ACC tourney during that three month window they never would have signed with the nnnBE.

Since the ACC is unlikely to make MSG the "permanent location" for their tourney despite the obvious reasons as to why they should, this thread itself is an exercise in futility.

Cheers,
Neil

Yup, it was all me, I should have never responded to the ACC fans posting things like the how the Big East is a mid-major, they don't have enough fans, they can't possibly recruit now and that they have already lost MSG.

Then explain to me why Barclays didn't submit a bid? They should have no issue with having the ACC tournament every once in a while.

(05-20-2013 11:33 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 07:32 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 11:10 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 10:30 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 09:25 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Losing Notre dame was not THAT big a deal. They never even made a conference final.

But they filled your arenas more than Seton Hall, DePaul, and Providence did and more than Butler, Creighton and Xavier are likely to. But I'm sure the latter three will do well at Marquette and DePaul.

I'm still interested in seeing who the final two additions will be. Somehow I don't think they will be northeastern programs.

Cheers,
Neil

Notre Dame doesn't have the broad fan base that their FB team has. We never got a huge turn out at MSG for ND games.

True they draw between 8 and 11K, but the fact you play them regularly at MSG instead of Carnesca Arena like Providence and DePaul should give you an indication of where they stand in terms of your new conference - behind Georgetown, Villanova and Marquette, but slightly above Seton Hall (a game which struggles to get 8K crowds at MSG despite both programs supposedly being NYC teams) and well above Providence and DePaul.

Do you think Creighton, Xavier, and Butler will exceed ND's draw at MSG?

I have my doubts there.

Cheers,
Neil

All of this stuff has to do with the ACC getting MSG in what way?

No one has yet to answer my question on this matter.

There was a 3 month window where MSG could have walked away from the Big East legally and signed the ACC. Yet, MSG (nor Barclays) submitted a bid for the ACC and in fact MSG just two months ago signed up with the Big East for another 13 years. If MSG wanted the ACC why didn't they walk away from the Big East when they could have done so legally?

acc wasn't willing to commit to the 5 straight years msg wanted . IF the acc is to have there tournament in nyc its going to be add msg not Barclays.

(05-20-2013 03:01 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 02:34 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 11:33 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 07:32 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 11:10 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Notre Dame doesn't have the broad fan base that their FB team has. We never got a huge turn out at MSG for ND games.

True they draw between 8 and 11K, but the fact you play them regularly at MSG instead of Carnesca Arena like Providence and DePaul should give you an indication of where they stand in terms of your new conference - behind Georgetown, Villanova and Marquette, but slightly above Seton Hall (a game which struggles to get 8K crowds at MSG despite both programs supposedly being NYC teams) and well above Providence and DePaul.

Do you think Creighton, Xavier, and Butler will exceed ND's draw at MSG?

I have my doubts there.

Cheers,
Neil

All of this stuff has to do with the ACC getting MSG in what way?

No one has yet to answer my question on this matter.

There was a 3 month window where MSG could have walked away from the Big East legally and signed the ACC. Yet, MSG (nor Barclays) submitted a bid for the ACC and in fact MSG just two months ago signed up with the Big East for another 13 years. If MSG wanted the ACC why didn't they walk away from the Big East when they could have done so legally?

Okay, now you want to go back to the original premise of the thread instead of these offshoots that you helped create.

The answer is simple from my perspective, MSG doesn't want to be part of a "stinkin' rotation". Said with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

IF MSG thought it had a chance to be the permanent location of the ACC tourney during that three month window they never would have signed with the nnnBE.

Since the ACC is unlikely to make MSG the "permanent location" for their tourney despite the obvious reasons as to why they should, this thread itself is an exercise in futility.

Cheers,
Neil

Yup, it was all me, I should have never responded to the ACC fans posting things like the how the Big East is a mid-major, they don't have enough fans, they can't possibly recruit now and that they have already lost MSG.

Then explain to me why Barclays didn't submit a bid? They should have no issue with having the ACC tournament every once in a while.

I said helped create not the sole poster responsible for them.

But the two posts by you that began the trend of the offshoots were this in post #12

"It makes the Big East look second rate and since they will now be a big part of FS1's college BBall coverage it serves a very big purpose of putting down ESPN's competition. It is the continuation of the slander that ESPN has been doing for almost a decade now at this point."

Made in response to an ACC fan wanting to know why ESPN would make this story up.

And this in post #17

"Making the Big East have it's tournament the same time as the mid-majors is tearing up the contract."

In response to another ACC fan who indicated that MSG usually has out clauses in their contracts.

So, imho, you yourself initiated the comparisons you later received and then complained about taking the intent of the OP off-track.

Now, you are not solely responsible, but you were a major contributor to this thread turning into a discussion of the virtues of the nnnBE vs the ACC.

Cheers,
Neil

(05-20-2013 03:25 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 03:01 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 02:34 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 11:33 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 07:32 AM)omniorange Wrote:  True they draw between 8 and 11K, but the fact you play them regularly at MSG instead of Carnesca Arena like Providence and DePaul should give you an indication of where they stand in terms of your new conference - behind Georgetown, Villanova and Marquette, but slightly above Seton Hall (a game which struggles to get 8K crowds at MSG despite both programs supposedly being NYC teams) and well above Providence and DePaul.

Do you think Creighton, Xavier, and Butler will exceed ND's draw at MSG?

I have my doubts there.

Cheers,
Neil

All of this stuff has to do with the ACC getting MSG in what way?

No one has yet to answer my question on this matter.

There was a 3 month window where MSG could have walked away from the Big East legally and signed the ACC. Yet, MSG (nor Barclays) submitted a bid for the ACC and in fact MSG just two months ago signed up with the Big East for another 13 years. If MSG wanted the ACC why didn't they walk away from the Big East when they could have done so legally?

Okay, now you want to go back to the original premise of the thread instead of these offshoots that you helped create.

The answer is simple from my perspective, MSG doesn't want to be part of a "stinkin' rotation". Said with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

IF MSG thought it had a chance to be the permanent location of the ACC tourney during that three month window they never would have signed with the nnnBE.

Since the ACC is unlikely to make MSG the "permanent location" for their tourney despite the obvious reasons as to why they should, this thread itself is an exercise in futility.

Cheers,
Neil

Yup, it was all me, I should have never responded to the ACC fans posting things like the how the Big East is a mid-major, they don't have enough fans, they can't possibly recruit now and that they have already lost MSG.

Then explain to me why Barclays didn't submit a bid? They should have no issue with having the ACC tournament every once in a while.

I said helped create not the sole poster responsible for them.

But the two posts by you that began the trend of the offshoots were this in post #12

"It makes the Big East look second rate and since they will now be a big part of FS1's college BBall coverage it serves a very big purpose of putting down ESPN's competition. It is the continuation of the slander that ESPN has been doing for almost a decade now at this point."

Made in response to an ACC fan wanting to know why ESPN would make this story up.

And this in post #17

"Making the Big East have it's tournament the same time as the mid-majors is tearing up the contract."

In response to another ACC fan who indicated that MSG usually has out clauses in their contracts.

So, imho, you yourself initiated the comparisons you later received and then complained about taking the intent of the OP off-track.

Now, you are not solely responsible, but you were a major contributor to this thread turning into a discussion of the virtues of the nnnBE vs the ACC.

Cheers,
Neil

1. The distrust of ESPN by the Big East should not be a mystery to a Cuse fan.

2. That was in regard to the posters who were already talking about things as if the Big East had already not met those standards. That had pretty much everything to do with a discussion board on that topic. If MSG tried to force the Big East out of the dates in the contract, that would indeed be a breach of contract.

(05-20-2013 03:15 PM)Chris02M Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 11:33 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 07:32 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 11:10 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 10:30 PM)omniorange Wrote:  But they filled your arenas more than Seton Hall, DePaul, and Providence did and more than Butler, Creighton and Xavier are likely to. But I'm sure the latter three will do well at Marquette and DePaul.

I'm still interested in seeing who the final two additions will be. Somehow I don't think they will be northeastern programs.

Cheers,
Neil

Notre Dame doesn't have the broad fan base that their FB team has. We never got a huge turn out at MSG for ND games.

True they draw between 8 and 11K, but the fact you play them regularly at MSG instead of Carnesca Arena like Providence and DePaul should give you an indication of where they stand in terms of your new conference - behind Georgetown, Villanova and Marquette, but slightly above Seton Hall (a game which struggles to get 8K crowds at MSG despite both programs supposedly being NYC teams) and well above Providence and DePaul.

Do you think Creighton, Xavier, and Butler will exceed ND's draw at MSG?

I have my doubts there.

Cheers,
Neil

All of this stuff has to do with the ACC getting MSG in what way?

No one has yet to answer my question on this matter.

There was a 3 month window where MSG could have walked away from the Big East legally and signed the ACC. Yet, MSG (nor Barclays) submitted a bid for the ACC and in fact MSG just two months ago signed up with the Big East for another 13 years. If MSG wanted the ACC why didn't they walk away from the Big East when they could have done so legally?

acc wasn't willing to commit to the 5 straight years msg wanted . IF the acc is to have there tournament in nyc its going to be add msg not Barclays.

So that led to Barclays to not even submit a bid? Lots of places submit and they all know only one will be picked for a certain year.

(05-20-2013 04:29 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 03:25 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 03:01 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 02:34 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 11:33 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  All of this stuff has to do with the ACC getting MSG in what way?

No one has yet to answer my question on this matter.

There was a 3 month window where MSG could have walked away from the Big East legally and signed the ACC. Yet, MSG (nor Barclays) submitted a bid for the ACC and in fact MSG just two months ago signed up with the Big East for another 13 years. If MSG wanted the ACC why didn't they walk away from the Big East when they could have done so legally?

Okay, now you want to go back to the original premise of the thread instead of these offshoots that you helped create.

The answer is simple from my perspective, MSG doesn't want to be part of a "stinkin' rotation". Said with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

IF MSG thought it had a chance to be the permanent location of the ACC tourney during that three month window they never would have signed with the nnnBE.

Since the ACC is unlikely to make MSG the "permanent location" for their tourney despite the obvious reasons as to why they should, this thread itself is an exercise in futility.

Cheers,
Neil

Yup, it was all me, I should have never responded to the ACC fans posting things like the how the Big East is a mid-major, they don't have enough fans, they can't possibly recruit now and that they have already lost MSG.

Then explain to me why Barclays didn't submit a bid? They should have no issue with having the ACC tournament every once in a while.

I said helped create not the sole poster responsible for them.

But the two posts by you that began the trend of the offshoots were this in post #12

"It makes the Big East look second rate and since they will now be a big part of FS1's college BBall coverage it serves a very big purpose of putting down ESPN's competition. It is the continuation of the slander that ESPN has been doing for almost a decade now at this point."

Made in response to an ACC fan wanting to know why ESPN would make this story up.

And this in post #17

"Making the Big East have it's tournament the same time as the mid-majors is tearing up the contract."

In response to another ACC fan who indicated that MSG usually has out clauses in their contracts.

So, imho, you yourself initiated the comparisons you later received and then complained about taking the intent of the OP off-track.

Now, you are not solely responsible, but you were a major contributor to this thread turning into a discussion of the virtues of the nnnBE vs the ACC.

Cheers,
Neil

1. The distrust of ESPN by the Big East should not be a mystery to a Cuse fan.

2. That was in regard to the posters who were already talking about things as if the Big East had already not met those standards. That had pretty much everything to do with a discussion board on that topic. If MSG tried to force the Big East out of the dates in the contract, that would indeed be a breach of contract.

I have no problem with your distrust of ESPN. I presented the quote simply to show you got defensive believing that ESPN deliberately leaked that story to make the nnnBE look "second-rate"

As for your second post, it was not in direct response to the only poster who mentioned the benchmarks prior to your response and that particular poster (moo) has chosen not to identify any affiliation to any school or conference.

Again, you brought the topic into discussion. Are you solely responsible for it continuing, of course not. I'm continuing it now, but mostly now for you to take ownership of the huge part you played in this going off-track in directions you say you didn't want it to go.

Cheers,
Neil

(05-20-2013 11:33 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 07:32 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 11:10 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 10:30 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 09:25 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Losing Notre dame was not THAT big a deal. They never even made a conference final.

But they filled your arenas more than Seton Hall, DePaul, and Providence did and more than Butler, Creighton and Xavier are likely to. But I'm sure the latter three will do well at Marquette and DePaul.

I'm still interested in seeing who the final two additions will be. Somehow I don't think they will be northeastern programs.

Cheers,
Neil

Notre Dame doesn't have the broad fan base that their FB team has. We never got a huge turn out at MSG for ND games.

True they draw between 8 and 11K, but the fact you play them regularly at MSG instead of Carnesca Arena like Providence and DePaul should give you an indication of where they stand in terms of your new conference - behind Georgetown, Villanova and Marquette, but slightly above Seton Hall (a game which struggles to get 8K crowds at MSG despite both programs supposedly being NYC teams) and well above Providence and DePaul.

Do you think Creighton, Xavier, and Butler will exceed ND's draw at MSG?

I have my doubts there.

Cheers,
Neil

All of this stuff has to do with the ACC getting MSG in what way?

No one has yet to answer my question on this matter.

There was a 3 month window where MSG could have walked away from the Big East legally and signed the ACC. Yet, MSG (nor Barclays) submitted a bid for the ACC and in fact MSG just two months ago signed up with the Big East for another 13 years. If MSG wanted the ACC why didn't they walk away from the Big East when they could have done so legally?

http://www.wralsportsfan.com/swofford-af.../12465819/

No longer simply internet rumors as the ACC commish did not deny interest in the future.

(05-21-2013 06:03 AM)ECUgradstudent Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 11:33 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(05-20-2013 07:32 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 11:10 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 10:30 PM)omniorange Wrote:  But they filled your arenas more than Seton Hall, DePaul, and Providence did and more than Butler, Creighton and Xavier are likely to. But I'm sure the latter three will do well at Marquette and DePaul.

I'm still interested in seeing who the final two additions will be. Somehow I don't think they will be northeastern programs.

Cheers,
Neil

Notre Dame doesn't have the broad fan base that their FB team has. We never got a huge turn out at MSG for ND games.

True they draw between 8 and 11K, but the fact you play them regularly at MSG instead of Carnesca Arena like Providence and DePaul should give you an indication of where they stand in terms of your new conference - behind Georgetown, Villanova and Marquette, but slightly above Seton Hall (a game which struggles to get 8K crowds at MSG despite both programs supposedly being NYC teams) and well above Providence and DePaul.

Do you think Creighton, Xavier, and Butler will exceed ND's draw at MSG?

I have my doubts there.

Cheers,
Neil

All of this stuff has to do with the ACC getting MSG in what way?

No one has yet to answer my question on this matter.

There was a 3 month window where MSG could have walked away from the Big East legally and signed the ACC. Yet, MSG (nor Barclays) submitted a bid for the ACC and in fact MSG just two months ago signed up with the Big East for another 13 years. If MSG wanted the ACC why didn't they walk away from the Big East when they could have done so legally?

http://www.wralsportsfan.com/swofford-af.../12465819/

No longer simply internet rumors as the ACC commish did not deny interest in the future.

He can say whatever he wants, doesn't mean it's going to happen. Oh no, a NC TV station said it, it must be true!

(05-19-2013 08:53 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 07:42 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 07:29 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 04:17 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 04:15 PM)omniorange Wrote:  The new Big East (C7) will be fine in basketball for the next decade or so. Challenging for the third or fourth best league overall most every year in that time frame and maybe once challenging to be the 1 or 2.

But overtime, imho, it will fall back to the point where challenging for third or fourth will be its highwater mark and most times will be the 6th or 7th best league.

Cheers,
Neil

Exactly...it a $$$$ issue and the P5 leagues have that advantage...it goes to paying coaches and the arms race in facilities.

Yeah except we don't have to support FB. If it was just about BBall our expenses are very similar.

I'm willing to be convinced. Some of the coaches such as Brad Stevens at Butler (a nnnBE school) and Shaka Smart at VCU (not yet one) seem determined to stay at these non P5 conference programs.

How would you say the bb practice facilities, arenas, locker rooms, etc. at the nnnBE institutions compare?

Do you feel that the recruiting for Georgetown, St. John's, Villanova, Marquette, DePaul, etc. will remain as high as it's been without having the Louisvilles, Syracuses, UConns, Pitts and NDs regularly on the schedule?

Cheers,
Neil

Losing Syracuse, UConn & Notre Dame are killer for those programs...the nnnBE will be a solid league but long term it going to be hard for them to keep up with schools in the P5...

Those same programs built the original Big East without Notre Dame and when UConn was a non-factor. Those schools are certainly big losses at this point, but going forward, the prospects are certainly very bright for the new league to create a new identity around a core group of highly successful programs and the full group all having great histories with great interest in basketball without the distractions of football.

The real issue that will determine the fate of this league is winning. If they win games, place multiple teams in the top 25, and challenge for championships, everything else will take care of itself.

Lets put this nonsense to bed, shall we?

"Reports that the Garden can get out of its deal with the Big East are somewhat misleading. Only if the new Big East loses enough key members to make the league no longer is viable can the Garden terminate the contract."

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/college/m...MeuSlgBwnI

that article does so though that acc can play there if they adjust there date for conference tournament

Summary:
ACC would have to hold their tourney in MSG the weekend before.
The Big East gets championship week.