(11-14-2013 09:33 AM)mwp1023 Wrote:  Until Navy is firmly in the AAC, we will not add a non-football member.

Navy bails and stays indy, then we go after an all sports school. You add VCU or WSU now and the above happens, we are stuck with 13 and starting to play the numbers game.

I can agree with this.

(11-14-2013 03:13 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  [quote='ncbeta' pid='10003058' dateline='1384414825']
A couple things to the people talking about ECU...

To sit there and act like we are some subpar team who only got in because everyone else got in ahead of us is BS. The criteria for expansion under marinatto was markets. That's what they wanted. Urban schools in big markets. ECU isn't an urban school in a big market... hence why we got picked behind the big market schools. We could make an argument for why we should be picked over schools that got in ahead of us, or why we shouldn't.... it's really all a matter of what they were looking for. Do you consider UL, UConn, WVU to be vastly inferior to Pitt? By that logic Pitt is way better than UL and the ACC had to become desperate to take Louisville.......I think UL, Uconn and WVU would all have been better adds for the record. I also don't hold anything against the guys who got here before us. It is what it is.


VT and WVU wanted the Pirates in the conference. Heck, WVU has even pitched ECU to the B12. I've also heard that the C7 saw ECU as inferior in hoops and perception (which we were in hoops... but a decent football team could've gone a long way to help out the conference), did not want to travel to Greenville to play basketball and stuck their noses up at us. Some of the schools that now play big boy ball wanted the Pirates, and (according to many on this board, may or may not be my opinion) the C7 will fade into irrelevance......

Marinatto did not set the agenda. No commissioner does. If the primary criterion under Marinatto was markets, it's because that's the way the membership wanted it. He was not acting as a lone agent. It was the other football schools who endorsed that approach and eschewed ECU in the process.

ECU was in the unfortunate position of being the 5th school in a market of 10 million to be aspiring to BCS status. The market is overcrowded. California has 4 times the population and doesn't have 5 BCS programs. Florida has double the population and doesn't have 5 BCS programs. Texas has 2 1/2 times the population and just added their 5th BCS program. Five such programs in North Carolina has never made any sense. State with similar populations like Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, and Virginia all have one or two programs, not 4 or 5. The fact that there are so many programs competing within the same market probably has a lot to do with why no school in North Carolina has ever carved out a niche for itself as a big time football program that consistently wins on a high level.

Your comparison with UConn and West Virginia completely ignores the fact that both are flagship programs which dominate their states with no other college or pro competition in state. Each of their markets is the entire state.

The entire 2nd half of your post makes little or no sense in light of the first half. If it was all about markets, then it has nothing to do with the C7. It has to do with markets. That paragraph sounds like sour grapes and scapegoating. Your claim that ECU's football program would have helped the conference makes absolutely no sense in light of the evidence. It wouldn't have kept anyone from leaving. Do you really think that ECU's presence would have kept West Virginia from fleeing to the Big 12? And ECU proved to be no help in getting a lucrative TV contract. That contract stinks.

Your parting shot at the C7 only reveals your bitterness. There is absolutely no evidence that the C7 in the new big East will fade from relevance. All signs point in just the opposite direction:

1. They are now funded better than ever with their new TV contract.
2. Their recruiting for 2014 has been better than it has been in years and is currently ranked in the top 2 or 3 of all conferences.
3. After little success in getting teams to the Final Four in the '90's, there has been a resurgence of basketball only schools to the Final Four in the one-and-done era with conditions primed for such schools to continue to succeed at the highest levels of tournament competition.
4. The C7 has only strengthened their position by adding 3 top tier programs. Word is that they will expand further within the next few years. When they do so, they will have their pick of the strongest basketball first programs out

(11-14-2013 02:03 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(11-13-2013 09:35 PM)ShoreBuc Wrote:  

(11-13-2013 07:16 PM)vabearcat Wrote:  Sorry, ECU. We've been down the road of basketball only schools. It doesn't work.

Nobody knows better than ECU the impact of Basketball only schools on the old Big East and its impact on ECU membership over the years. I know it might help the AAC from a competitive stand point but the sting still lingers for this ECU fan and to the idea of Basketball only schools I would have to vote Hell F$c! No

No, I have no idea what the impact of basketball schools was on ECU. Why don't you educate us?

I don't know why ECU would have beef with any of the C7.

As for Tulane, I do remember a specific C7 school going out of their way to publicly attack Tulane (and their athletic program).

By the way, I think VCU would be a great add. It's a good school, a great market, and a solid basketball program. The AAC would give VCU a bigger platform, and VCU would give the AAC an additional tournament team and a presence in a rather powerful market area.

For the record, I would be in favor of adding one non-football program (like VCU) to balance out things after Navy officially comes on board, not that my opinion means anything.

(11-14-2013 12:24 AM)Bleeds_Purple Wrote:  There is a big difference between having one basketball only school and seven basketball only schools.

Even past that, the only reason the non-football schools were a "problem" was because the seven of them had one goal and one agenda on most topics (Notre Dame was independent), while the 8 football plying schools often had 3-4 goals/agendas on the same topic. Thus it appeared as though the C7 and/or ND were impeding or blocking progress, and were often even blamed as such, but it was only because they had their own house in order, and the other side did not. In fact, it could well be argued that without the C7 and ND, the Big East would have been MORE dysfunctional.

(11-14-2013 02:40 AM)ncbeta Wrote:  VT and WVU wanted the Pirates in the conference. Heck, WVU has even pitched ECU to the B12. I've also heard that the C7 saw ECU as inferior in hoops and perception (which we were in hoops... but a decent football team could've gone a long way to help out the conference

Maybe, but that still leaves six other football schools who must have said no. Yet you are blaming the C7/ND for it. That was our point. For the record, Notre Dame was a big opponent I do know, as were Syracuse, Rutgers, Louisville, and Pittsburgh. As far as I can tell, and this would have been back in 2002 or prior, Virginia Tech made no real motion to have ECU added. So anyway of the six football teams who left the conference to go elsewhere since 2004, five voted against them. But adding ECU would have saved the BE? And it's all the C7's fault? And that is why they look at or chose ALL of those other teams first?

Schools are normally going to give support to like minded and similar schools. The Big East was mostly in large cities in the North. Is it any surprise that the schools that gave support to ECU were in smaller markets and were some of the more southern teams in the conference?

Every conference tries to set their identity and go after schools that match that identity when they lose someone. ECU didn't match that identity, so it is what it is. The fact is that ECU competed with many BE schools in football (not so much in basketball).

ECU played WVU 14 times while they were in the Big East (7 times before the Big East)
VT 7 times (5 times before the Big East)
Syracuse 8 times (2 times before Big East)
Miami 3 times (8 times before Big East)
Pitt 2 times (2 times before Big East)
Temple 2 times (9 times before Big East)

Of those schools WVU, VT, Pitt (state-related) and Temple are public universities. Miami is a private school that has aligned itself more with public schools than private schools in athletics.

Right or wrong, I don't think it is a surprise that ECU fans blame the private schools for keeping us out. Each of the public schools may or may not have backed our inclusion but they were good scheduling partners in the 80s and 90s. VT and WVU continue to be scheduling partners.

Every time realignment in the BE/AAC happened it was the schools that would have been our biggest proponents that were leaving. Of the former BE programs that ECU "grew up with", only Temple remains in the AAC and we haven't played them since 1995. I can't say who from the original football playing members of the Big East would have gone to bat for us but I can pretty much guarantee that non of the non-football members had any interest in us.

I don't hold a grudge against the BE/AAC for not inviting us. Conferences can invite whoever they please that fits their identity. To think it says anything about ECU other than we aren't in a large market/big city is wrong though IMO. The only team on that list taken ahead of us that is in a similar circumstance is Boise State.

I'm still not in favor of having service academies in the conference. I'd rather have 12 team all sports league. I really think Navy has a low ceiling and don't think kids who want to make it to the NFL are generally too likely to attend the Naval Academy.

(11-13-2013 08:50 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(11-13-2013 07:10 PM)spreadandshred Wrote:  to offset Navy in basketball. Has that been batted around by the conference executives since then or is mostly fan talk? I'm all for it fyi.

why? Because they beat Virginia??? LOL big whoop. I know they are ranked but so what.

... Really? I don't think anyone is saying add this team b/c they beat Virginia. They are saying add VCU and WSU b/c they have had more success over the past 4 years than 95% of the AAC, including Cincy and Memphis. Both of these teams would come in and be in the top half of the standings of this conerence 9 out of 10 years.

(11-13-2013 07:10 PM)spreadandshred Wrote:  to offset Navy in basketball. Has that been batted around by the conference executives since then or is mostly fan talk? I'm all for it fyi.

Confused....

Offset Navy basketball?

There is nothing to "offset" as Navy Basketball (nor any of their other Olympic Sports) are ever joining AAC...just Navy football.

11 team hoops conf is just fine.

(11-14-2013 10:52 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(11-13-2013 07:10 PM)spreadandshred Wrote:  to offset Navy in basketball. Has that been batted around by the conference executives since then or is mostly fan talk? I'm all for it fyi.

Confused....

Offset Navy basketball?

There is nothing to "offset" as Navy Basketball (nor any of their other Olympic Sports) are ever joining AAC...just Navy football.

11 team hoops conf is just fine.

not trying to speak for the poster, but I believe he was saying to offset Navy Basketball not coming to the AAC. In other words, keeping the number of football members equal to the number of basketball members.

UMass already has wins over BC and LSU in hoops so far on the season. I don't know if they are supposed to be any good or not, but they would certainly be a solid hoops addition. I want them for all sports though and feel that it would not be fair to them to invite them for hoops and not football. The American could help them grow the program with the exposure and potential rivalries with UConn and Temple. We are going to have some half empty stadiums in this league anyway...

I don't think they could even add them for hoops and not football unless they were dropping back down or going indy. Even if the NCAA rules don't prevent them from it (there has been speculation as to if that is a rule or not) the MAC would drop them pretty quickly in that scenario.

Call me crazy, but Navy does nothing for me. UMass as an all sports member would make me feel better about rivalries in this conference.

As an on-field team, opinions can vary. I would point out that Navy has been far more successful vs. BCS competition than any remaining AAC school BY FAR over the past decade. But outside of that, the best value they bring is keeping some semblance of geographical integrity to the original home of the predecessor conference. UMASS does that to an extent, but they do not excel in basketball (they have an unearned reputation based on two seasons in the mid 90's, one of which does not exist anymore) and an atrocious football team. I would say that Buffalo has a far better current and future value than UMASS, and they are geographically closer to more current teams.

(11-14-2013 12:06 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  As an on-field team, opinions can vary. I would point out that Navy has been far more successful vs. BCS competition than any remaining AAC school BY FAR over the past decade. But outside of that, the best value they bring is keeping some semblance of geographical integrity to the original home of the predecessor conference. UMASS does that to an extent, but they do not excel in basketball (they have an unearned reputation based on two seasons in the mid 90's, one of which does not exist anymore) and an atrocious football team. I would say that Buffalo has a far better current and future value than UMASS, and they are geographically closer to more current teams.

I think Buffalo has some value. I think from a CT perspective, UMass would be a better add but wouldn't care too much either way. Both are large state flagship schools with potential. I think that UMass has much more potential of capturing fan interest throughout their state than Buffalo has in NY though. UMass played BC a few days ago at the TD Garden in Boston, by most accounts UMass fans outnumbered BC's by at least 4 to 1...

(11-14-2013 02:03 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(11-13-2013 09:35 PM)ShoreBuc Wrote:  

(11-13-2013 07:16 PM)vabearcat Wrote:  Sorry, ECU. We've been down the road of basketball only schools. It doesn't work.

Nobody knows better than ECU the impact of Basketball only schools on the old Big East and its impact on ECU membership over the years. I know it might help the AAC from a competitive stand point but the sting still lingers for this ECU fan and to the idea of Basketball only schools I would have to vote Hell F$c! No

No, I have no idea what the impact of basketball schools was on ECU. Why don't you educate us?

It was always a combination of factors that kept ECU out of the Big East but the BB only schools were never big proponents of ECU. I have had this discussion with our former AD Dave Hart and Terry Holland. Few fans on these boards know how close ECU came to being admitted into the Big East in the original addition of Football schools/all sports schools. It came down to ECU,VT and Temple with all the other additions being no brainers. VT was a little bit of a roll of the dice as a smaller school in the middle of no where with little FB success or BB success in their history. Temple had a few good years of Football here or there but were on a pretty horrible run while ECU was coming off a Top 10 finish and a Top 25 finish just 8yrs before that Top 10 finish. Bottom line is we did not make the final cut and the Big East Commissioner at the time personally called Dave Hart to let him know the bad news and tell him how close it was at the time. That initial set up of the Big East was ECU's only legitimate shot at ever getting into the Big East.
The subsequent expansions cycles lined up with everything wrong for ECU once TV markets became a center piece of expansion and inside politics of the C7 schools dealing with the all sports schools and voicing their opinions on who was added and who was not. I actually understood the logic of the C7 schools not wanting ECU and the schools that did want us did not have enough influence to get us over the top. It also did not help that the ECU Athletic Department was a train wreck during the expansion cycle that brought in all the CUSA schools, Louisville included. The last expansion cycle got even more complicated with the Big East looking West and trying to keep Boise St, coupled with the C7 not wanting the league drained off all of its Basketball powers with no new quality Basketball schools coming in. There was never any great conspiracy to keep ECU out, just an honest difference of opinions between the hybrid model schools that made up the Big East.

These threads always ramp up during basketball season. They will be unbearable by March. If UMass even makes the NIT, the groundswell on here from some people will be deafening.

And then from April through October, nobody will give it a second thought. Which explains why it's a terrible idea.

(11-14-2013 12:34 PM)OUGwave Wrote:  These threads always ramp up during basketball season. They will be unbearable by March. If UMass even makes the NIT, the groundswell on here from some people will be deafening.

And then from April through October, nobody will give it a second thought. Which explains why it's a terrible idea.

I'm OK with sticking at 12 for football and 11 for hoops. I don't think we need partial hoops members though. I do feel that if we do invite any more full members, that UMass should be one of them. I don't see what Southern Miss or UTep or whoever else has been suggested would be any better. I think that UMass could become more popular in Mass than BC given the correct situation. BC is not popular. Mass as a state, could be in play for the AAC. I don't think there are many other states wtih P5 members where that would be the case.

Horrible basketball & small market was what kept ECU out of the Big East. It's as simple as that. I'm sure a mix of non-FB and football members were against us.

(11-14-2013 12:43 PM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  BC is not popular. Mass as a state, could be in play for the AAC. I don't think there are many other states wtih P5 members where that would be the case.

UMass is a case where the name does not help. We can say Boston College is not as popular, but UMass has never eve been half as popular as BC even in basketball, and draw about 1/8 the fans in football. People say that VCU or Wichita are flash in the pan, but neglect that UMass was the very definition of flash in the pan back in the 90's.

Personally when you have reached the end of the list of candidates who have produced on the field, you should start looking for teams geographically friendly to the rest of the league. While UMASS does fit that to an extent, they are only close to UConn and Army (if I include other potential candidates). On the flipside, schools like Arkansas State, Army, Buffalo, Charlotte, Georgia State, Ohio, Old Dominion, Richmond, Saint Louis, Southern Miss, and Virginia Commonwealth are the teams that help connect the current AAC teams with each other in a geographical sense. If further expansion is needed, without a football team that pushes it's way to the top, those are the best places to start.

With one football-only member, and a non-football member close to the same geographical region, who has a good recent past in the sport with a final fours and multiple 20+ win seasons, and has been in a conference with current members (was in the Metro with Louisville, Tulane, South Florida, Southern Miss, Virginia Tech, and Charlotte), VCU would be the first one I would look at. And with Saint Louis meeting many of these criteria, and having shared a conference with Memphis, Cincinnati, Tulane, Houston, South Florida, and East Carolina) another one worth considering.