Anyone who would have advocated such a thing (join for football in gratitude for a basketball home) at ND would have been immediately strung up or run out on a rail.TerryD.

Wow!

(01-04-2015 12:01 PM)UpStreamRedTeam Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 09:56 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 05:17 PM)UpStreamRedTeam Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 05:05 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 12:15 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Good comments from several people here. I think it was inevitable that the independents BC, Syracuse, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Va Tech, Ga Tech, Florida State and Miami were all going to end up in (a) power conference(s).

I also agree that had some form of EAC been formed early enough, and had it included Penn State, Notre Dame and Florida State, that would have killed the ACC as a football conference.

There was exactly ZERO chance of that. ND had no interest in such a thing at all.

No one is saying that ND would have joined the Big East. My original point was that Notre Dame is the only team that COULD have saved the Big East. It would have involved Notre Dame taking a good deal but not the best deal they could have received. The only way Notre Dame is ever joining a conference is if no one would accept them into league, unless it was for all sports. The Big East and the A10 would both bend over backwards to take Notre Dame, so there is, as you say, zero chance of Notre Dame having to join a conference for football.

I understood your scenario. My question is what reason would ND have had to give away or lessen an advantageous position to help "save" the Big East in the first place?

It looks like in retrospect most people agree that the Big East wasn't really worth "saving" and was really a "dead man walking" anyway. Most old BE schools have found more advantageous homes themselves.


1) Why would ND have considered joining a football conference in the 1995-2010 time frame and

2) If it did, why would it have picked the Big East instead of, say, the ACC?

1) The only reason would be out of a sense of gratitude for the Big East providing a place for Notre Dame's other sports a place where they could thrive. I think you have to admit that Notre Dame's Olympic sports did very well for themselves during their time in the Big East.

2) Before the first ACC raid the Big East was better in football and basketball.

For hopefully the last time, my only point was that Notre Dame COULD have saved the Big East, not that they would have or should have.

(12-29-2014 12:21 PM)EerMeNow Wrote:  

(12-28-2014 08:53 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  However, the hard truth is that during most of its time in the Big East, Pitt football was an also-ran while historically inferior schools like West Virginia, Louisville, Connecticut and Cincinnati all carried the mail.

Classic! Let's see what the Pittsburgh media says about this historically "superior" program:


"Pitt’s main problem, however, is delusion. Not understanding the limitations.

Pitt doesn’t understand its history, either.

Unless you go back to the dark ages, Pitt had one brief period of legit success. It started when Johnny Majors arrived in 1973 and ended when Jackie Sherrill left following the 1981 season. Besides that, Pitt has been mostly rotten.

When delusional Pitt boosters and fans talk about recapturing the glory days, they’re talking about that nine-year period. The blink of an eye."


http://www.timesonline.com/columnists/sp...c2f8a.html



I have enjoyed reading this thread, otherwise. Great perspectives in here, including your own.

not even close
Help me out here. What is West Virginia's all-time record versus Pitt? That seems like a fair way to settle this issue, right? It must at least be close, right? It's not like either team is 20+ games under .500 in that series, are they?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backyard_Brawl

(01-04-2015 11:46 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(12-29-2014 12:21 PM)EerMeNow Wrote:  

(12-28-2014 08:53 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  However, the hard truth is that during most of its time in the Big East, Pitt football was an also-ran while historically inferior schools like West Virginia, Louisville, Connecticut and Cincinnati all carried the mail.

Classic! Let's see what the Pittsburgh media says about this historically "superior" program:


"Pitt’s main problem, however, is delusion. Not understanding the limitations.

Pitt doesn’t understand its history, either.

Unless you go back to the dark ages, Pitt had one brief period of legit success. It started when Johnny Majors arrived in 1973 and ended when Jackie Sherrill left following the 1981 season. Besides that, Pitt has been mostly rotten.

When delusional Pitt boosters and fans talk about recapturing the glory days, they’re talking about that nine-year period. The blink of an eye."


http://www.timesonline.com/columnists/sp...c2f8a.html



I have enjoyed reading this thread, otherwise. Great perspectives in here, including your own.

not even close
Help me out here. What is West Virginia's all-time record versus Pitt? That seems like a fair way to settle this issue, right? It must at least be close, right? It's not like either team is 20+ games under .500 in that series, are they?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backyard_Brawl

If it were only so simple. Pitt leads the series 40-61-3. It is not a stretch to draw your conclusion from that record. But, let's look behind the numbers.


From 1895 - 1946, Pitt DOMINATED the WVU series: 30 - 8 - 1. This is even more impressive when considering that 5 of WVU's 8 wins came between 1895 - 1903. Interestingly, only 10 of those 39 games was not played in Pittsburgh (maybe our fans were too rough in those days too ).



From 1947 - 1967 (the year of Super Bowl 1), Pitt's record vs. WVU was 12 - 9.



From 1968 - Present, Pitt's record vs. WVU was 19 - 23 - 2.



From 1983 - Present, Pitt's record vs. WVU was 9 - 18 - 2.



My reading of this suggests that unless you want to cling onto the magical years leading up to the Truman administration (WVU went on a 7 game stretch without even scoring starting in 1904), the conclusion of WVU as an inferior program is, um, debatable? But, I refer to the the article that I originally posted.