(09-24-2013 11:31 AM)orangefan Wrote:  If the divide allows FBS schools to offer stipends, then the Big East and any other nonfootball conferences willing to offer stipends and comply with whatever other obligations are imposed (aside from having an FBS football team), need to be allowed in. I could imagine that requirements for an increased minimum number of sports sponsored and scholarships funded be applied to nonfootball schools in FBS to bring these conferences closer to parity.

I could easily see that. Probably would be the minimum number of sports and schollies funded like you said. And stipends.

I think both the A10 and the BE will allow stipends and be included in the new division. I know the A10 has already voted to add stipends

I know that none of you are going to like this opinion, but...

...why don't the Big East and the American sit down over some cocktails and stop in-fighting?

There is ZERO benefit to Marquette and Tulane taking potshots at each other in the media. There is ZERO benefit to the POLITICAL battle (on-court battles are a GOOD thing) between Temple and Villanova. Ditto for everyone else as well.

Both leagues are in a tenuous position - and ill-afford any image attacks from peer schools (institutionally speaking, of course).

Apparently alumni/fans of AAC schools are supposed to pan fry "C7" institutions at every given moment - but I'm not buying into that sentiment. I'm more interested as to how the AAC is going to separate from the other all-sports leagues currently viewed as being "inferior" to the AAC. I'm also more interested as to how Tulane is going to close the gap on the weaker P5 schools (there are only 2-3 that Tulane can beat right now).

To be honest, I'd like to see Tulane play a few of these Big East schools in non-conference play - they're all better matchups than the crap we normally play these days. If I were Tulane (20-15, RPI 130-160), I'd rather play Providence (RPI about 90), Seton Hall (110), and DePaul (160) than a few SWAC schools (240+).

The failure of the Big East doesn't help the AAC. The failure of the AAC doesn't help the Big East.

(09-24-2013 11:49 AM)bostonspider Wrote:  I think both the A10 and the BE will allow stipends and be included in the new division. I know the A10 has already voted to add stipends

I think the thing won't just be stipends. Probably minimum schollie levels and quite possibly minimum sports requirements. To make it where not every conference can do it.

(09-24-2013 11:30 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(09-24-2013 10:05 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-24-2013 09:58 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-24-2013 09:42 AM)stever20 Wrote:  I think the recruiting advantages would be a lot different. I mean, let's take Marquette. How many kids would go there, when Wisconsin could offer a $2,000 stpiend? Definitely none of the top 100 players. Right now, the Big East in the ESPN 100 has 11 recruits for the '14 season. BYU, Gonzaga and VCU have recruits as well in the top 100. How many of those stay with those schools if the FBS schools can offer $$$? Not many I'd guess.

I think the stipend is a disadvantage, but it's not outcome determinative. The power 5 conferences already have a massive structural advantage in terms of recruiting for basketball (not just football), so the stipend (or lack thereof) is just one other item to manage if you're a non-Division 4 school. The Wisconsins of the world already have massive advantages against the Marquettes of the world. Losing a recruiting battle against a Big Ten or ACC school isn't likely going to be because of the stipend itself. Now, it's an entirely different matter if Marquette starts losing recruiting battles to G5 schools simply because of the stipend. That's the scenario that would certainly be troublesome, but I think that's less likely to occur at least in the case of the Big East because of the TV contract money and exposure.

So you think that the Big East would keep all 11 recruits? I just don't see that. Not being able to give a stipend would be devastating.

Also- recruits don't see the TV contract money. But- the exposure- esp with the AAC's new deal- clearly rivals what the Big East got. And, they're on ESPN some.

What are you talking about Stever? ESPNU and CBSSN is the same as almost every game on FS1?

Temple next season:
ESPN/ESPN2: 6-7
ESPNU: 6-7
ESPNews: 7
CBSSN: 5

That count doesn't include the AAC tournament which will also be on ESPN networks.

Villanova next season:
FS1: 20
FS2: 1
FSN: 1

Doesn't count BE tournament which will also be on FS1

(09-24-2013 09:09 AM)4x4hokies Wrote:  When did the Big East make an enemy out of the ACC?

They didn't. This thread is nonsense.

(09-24-2013 11:30 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  What are you talking about Stever? ESPNU and CBSSN is the same as almost every game on FS1?

AAC games by network


Big East games by Network:


First, let me say count me as stunned at how many games the Big East has on FS1 I thought it would be a far closer to even split with FS 2. But essentially they are about the same in terms of exposure as we speak. However as the number of homes who get for FS1 go up, so will the exposure opportunities. If it gets up to 90 million subscribers then the number goes up to 82.3 million per game. If they get up to 95 million then it becomes 86.8 million. If they get up to ESPN levels (99 million) then the average audience per game will be an unprecedented 89.9 million households. The numbers for FS 2 are mostly irrelevant since the most games you can have on there is 20 in a given year.

That said, it will take a while before the ratings of FS1 reach even the levels of ESPNU and ESPN News, much less ESPN and ESPN2. So

(09-24-2013 09:36 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Even if the answer is yes, does it matter? There's no proposal or desire to separate out the NCAA Tournament at all (which, for whatever, doesn't seem to be clear to everyone even though it has been repeated in virtually every story about Division 4). The main disadvantage that the Big East (or any other basketball conference that's not in Division 4) would possibly be in recruiting with respect to stipends. That might have an impact, but it's still nowhere near the same issue as football.

EDIT: Looks like Attackcoog had the exact same thought that I did.

Well doesn't Section A call for a full FBS division? The only concern was if there was enough teams to hold championships. However, I think a few more schools get added for the final realignment giving 145 schools enough to have a FBS championship for all other sports.

Even if they do Section B and have D1/FBS tourney, how long do you think it will last? The pressure and gaps between the FBS and rest of D1 will eventually warrant a full split.

(09-24-2013 11:57 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-24-2013 11:49 AM)bostonspider Wrote:  I think both the A10 and the BE will allow stipends and be included in the new division. I know the A10 has already voted to add stipends

I think the thing won't just be stipends. Probably minimum schollie levels and quite possibly minimum sports requirements. To make it where not every conference can do it.

It's more definitely about more than stipends..

In the 2004-05 there were four proposals that would have increased the maximum number of scholarships for selected women’s sports. The changes would have bumped scholarships from 12 to 14 for gymnastics; from 13 to 14 for volleyball; from 18 to 20 for cross country/track and field, and from 12 to 14 for soccer.

That would have allowed each school to put seven more women on athletic scholarship and all were in the non revenue areas. At the time a majority of FBS conferences voted in support of scholarship increases for all four sports and the majority of FCS/NoFB conferences opposed. It was defeated later that year.

This grievance is listed in the document.

Just to add perspective to this:

(09-24-2013 12:01 PM)SouthPhillyFall Wrote:  Temple next season:
Villanova next season:

To put that in perspective, in terms of potential exposure:



Again as FS1 goes up this could change, but right now the exposure is very similar.

yep. Also, wouldn't be shocked to see CBSSN start getting more viewers as now they have a lot more games than they had before.

They could, but while they have more actual live games, for the most part they are second and third tier games. I can see more people adding the channel, i..e adding the "sports pack" as more fans will need it to see their teams, but I don't see the channel itself getting bumped up a tier. I am thinking Fox Sports 1 gets moved from expanded basic to true basic in a lot of areas in a short matter of time.

heres why i say the ACC doesnt like the BE

1. they have former BE schools. ive heard the argument that theres no beef between the former & the current BE schools.....i totally disagree with that.

the BE had its issues. there was always a mentality that the BB schools held the FB schools back, or kept the BE from forming into a better FB conference. then theres the whole "special treatment" that certain schools got. and those issues go all the way back to the BE rejecting psu, not closing the outlier gap with miami, the conf HQ being in provy, & provy having every conference commish. the BE had some great FB programs, a lot of which tanked after the formation of the BE. so yeah i dont think its unreasonable to suggest that there is some resentment among former BE schools now with the ACC.

2. the ACC has always been the top BB league. and for a while the BE threatened that and was as good. they were like the two biggest kids on the block. im sure the ACC hated the BE for not only dethroning them but for promoting such a different style of BB with their rougher style of play. the BE was a new league which gave birth to 3 new power programs in SU, uconn, & gtown. i dont see this as the ACC hating on the BE because they were good, but because of the way they rose to power and that they became a conference of equal strength. its kind of like why oregon gets so much hate in the football world.

3. the MSG tourny- the AAC has it....the ACC wants it

nuff said????

(09-24-2013 01:33 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  They could, but while they have more actual live games, for the most part they are second and third tier games. I can see more people adding the channel, i..e adding the "sports pack" as more fans will need it to see their teams, but I don't see the channel itself getting bumped up a tier. I am thinking Fox Sports 1 gets moved from expanded basic to true basic in a lot of areas in a short matter of time.

I think FS1 needs more stuff to get moved quite frankly. I mean right now it's UFC/Boxing a lot of the time(not sure how well that'll play long term).

(09-24-2013 01:39 PM)john01992 Wrote:  heres why i say the ACC doesnt like the BE

1. they have former BE schools. ive heard the argument that theres no beef between the former & the current BE schools.....i totally disagree with that.

the BE had its issues. there was always a mentality that the BB schools held the FB schools back, or kept the BE from forming into a better FB conference. then theres the whole "special treatment" that certain schools got. and those issues go all the way back to the BE rejecting psu, not closing the outlier gap with miami, the conf HQ being in provy, & provy having every conference commish. the BE had some great FB programs, a lot of which tanked after the formation of the BE. so yeah i dont think its unreasonable to suggest that there is some resentment among former BE schools now with the ACC.

2. the ACC has always been the top BB league. and for a while the BE threatened that and was as good. they were like the two biggest kids on the block. im sure the ACC hated the BE for not only dethroning them but for promoting such a different style of BB with their rougher style of play. the BE was a new league which gave birth to 3 new power programs in SU, uconn, & gtown. i dont see this as the ACC hating on the BE because they were good, but because of the way they rose to power and that they became a conference of equal strength. its kind of like why oregon gets so much hate in the football world.

3. the MSG tourny- the AAC has it....the ACC wants it

nuff said????

The ACC does not care about the Big East. If they wanted to destroy it they could have invited Gtown when they were asking for an invite.

(09-24-2013 01:39 PM)john01992 Wrote:  nuff said????

Every time you post, you show more and more that you have no clue at all, not even a little bit, of what you speak of.

(09-24-2013 01:41 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-24-2013 01:33 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I am thinking Fox Sports 1 gets moved from expanded basic to true basic in a lot of areas in a short matter of time.

I think FS1 needs more stuff to get moved quite frankly. I mean right now it's UFC/Boxing a lot of the time(not sure how well that'll play long term).

They have Big XII and PAC 12 football, and now Big East and PAC 12 basketball. What is on Fox Sports 1 now, at least during football season, rivals ESPN2 and then some. We'll have to see how basketball plays out. Granted the ratings are not there yet, so we have a ways to go.
They also will be moving MLB games there as well, along with a few other things. But the big one will be if they score the Big ten, which I think they will get, in whole or split with ESPN. There is also the NBA package coming due. Win either of those, and they will get basic cable everywhere. Win both? They get a raise in the process.

(09-24-2013 11:50 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  I know that none of you are going to like this opinion, but...

...why don't the Big East and the American sit down over some cocktails and stop in-fighting?

There is ZERO benefit to Marquette and Tulane taking potshots at each other in the media. There is ZERO benefit to the POLITICAL battle (on-court battles are a GOOD thing) between Temple and Villanova. Ditto for everyone else as well.

Both leagues are in a tenuous position - and ill-afford any image attacks from peer schools (institutionally speaking, of course).

Apparently alumni/fans of AAC schools are supposed to pan fry "C7" institutions at every given moment - but I'm not buying into that sentiment. I'm more interested as to how the AAC is going to separate from the other all-sports leagues currently viewed as being "inferior" to the AAC. I'm also more interested as to how Tulane is going to close the gap on the weaker P5 schools (there are only 2-3 that Tulane can beat right now).

To be honest, I'd like to see Tulane play a few of these Big East schools in non-conference play - they're all better matchups than the crap we normally play these days. If I were Tulane (20-15, RPI 130-160), I'd rather play Providence (RPI about 90), Seton Hall (110), and DePaul (160) than a few SWAC schools (240+).

The failure of the Big East doesn't help the AAC. The failure of the AAC doesn't help the Big East.

Why should there be bad blood? It was a quick, apparently amicable split. Only 4 members of the AAC ever played with the Big East schools. And Temple only joined when they were leaving and played football with the schools who joined the ACC, Big 12 and Big 10. Cincinnati and USF are probably glad they got 8 years with the BE schools. UConn is the only one who was with them for any length of time. The latter 3 came out with a lot of exit fees.

(09-24-2013 01:42 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  

(09-24-2013 01:39 PM)john01992 Wrote:  heres why i say the ACC doesnt like the BE

1. they have former BE schools. ive heard the argument that theres no beef between the former & the current BE schools.....i totally disagree with that.

the BE had its issues. there was always a mentality that the BB schools held the FB schools back, or kept the BE from forming into a better FB conference. then theres the whole "special treatment" that certain schools got. and those issues go all the way back to the BE rejecting psu, not closing the outlier gap with miami, the conf HQ being in provy, & provy having every conference commish. the BE had some great FB programs, a lot of which tanked after the formation of the BE. so yeah i dont think its unreasonable to suggest that there is some resentment among former BE schools now with the ACC.

2. the ACC has always been the top BB league. and for a while the BE threatened that and was as good. they were like the two biggest kids on the block. im sure the ACC hated the BE for not only dethroning them but for promoting such a different style of BB with their rougher style of play. the BE was a new league which gave birth to 3 new power programs in SU, uconn, & gtown. i dont see this as the ACC hating on the BE because they were good, but because of the way they rose to power and that they became a conference of equal strength. its kind of like why oregon gets so much hate in the football world.

3. the MSG tourny- the AAC has it....the ACC wants it

nuff said????

The ACC does not care about the Big East. If they wanted to destroy it they could have invited Gtown when they were asking for an invite.

no.....the ACC doesnt want to destroy the BE

the ACC only poached 7 BE schools....gimmie a break

(09-24-2013 01:44 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(09-24-2013 01:39 PM)john01992 Wrote:  nuff said????

Every time you post, you show more and more that you have no clue at all, not even a little bit, of what you speak of.

and you wipe the floor with stupidity