(06-15-2015 01:04 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(06-15-2015 12:50 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-15-2015 08:58 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-15-2015 08:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-15-2015 08:28 AM)TerryD Wrote:  ND had no formal scheduling requirement with the Big East.

Exactly. IIRC, Notre Dame did have some kind of informal "well, we'll try to squeeze a couple Big East teams on to our schedule" thing with the Big East. That might be how the 2009 UConn and 2011 USF games came about.

But nothing like the ACC deal.

Notre Dame informally agreed to schedule 3 BE teams a year. The ACC made sure it was all formalized.

That's because ND never once honored their pledge to play THREE Big East teams each year.

ND verbally said three BE teams a year. BE schools interpreted that as every school, home/home. ND said "no, that is YOUR interpretation, not ours".

ND tried to schedule home/pro stadium deals with Rutgers and UConn. Both said no, which was their right.

ND played Pitt every year plus occasionally a few others, but it was all informal.

That's pure unadulterated BS, Terry. ND wanted to pick and choose who they played, and where they played them. That was not what was agreed to, and Notre Dame reneged on their promise.

There was no confusion on either side. Notre Dame promised something they had no intention of honoring. It's that simple.

(06-15-2015 01:08 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-15-2015 12:50 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-15-2015 08:58 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-15-2015 08:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-15-2015 08:28 AM)TerryD Wrote:  ND had no formal scheduling requirement with the Big East.

Exactly. IIRC, Notre Dame did have some kind of informal "well, we'll try to squeeze a couple Big East teams on to our schedule" thing with the Big East. That might be how the 2009 UConn and 2011 USF games came about.

But nothing like the ACC deal.

Notre Dame informally agreed to schedule 3 BE teams a year. The ACC made sure it was all formalized.

That's because ND never once honored their pledge to play THREE Big East teams each year.

This is the point that I was going to post. The BE took ND for its word. Its word is about as valuable as a kleenex, which is why the ACC locked ND down into a deal that they have no choice but to honor.

There were no details to this "verbal pledge". BE school thought it meant one thing. ND in no way meant it to mean what others thought it meant.

No meeting of the minds there.

(06-15-2015 01:21 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-15-2015 01:04 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(06-15-2015 12:50 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-15-2015 08:58 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-15-2015 08:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Exactly. IIRC, Notre Dame did have some kind of informal "well, we'll try to squeeze a couple Big East teams on to our schedule" thing with the Big East. That might be how the 2009 UConn and 2011 USF games came about.

But nothing like the ACC deal.

Notre Dame informally agreed to schedule 3 BE teams a year. The ACC made sure it was all formalized.

That's because ND never once honored their pledge to play THREE Big East teams each year.

ND verbally said three BE teams a year. BE schools interpreted that as every school, home/home. ND said "no, that is YOUR interpretation, not ours".

ND tried to schedule home/pro stadium deals with Rutgers and UConn. Both said no, which was their right.

ND played Pitt every year plus occasionally a few others, but it was all informal.

That's pure unadulterated BS, Terry. ND wanted to pick and choose who they played, and where they played them. That was not what was agreed to, and Notre Dame reneged on their promise.

There was no confusion on either side. Notre Dame promised something they had no intention of honoring. It's that simple.

Bull. There was no complete deal to honor. ND did want to pick and choose from the beginning.

There were no details to this verbal "pledge" that ND told the BE Commissioner when all hell was breaking loose in 2003-04.

Show a link that spelled out the terms that both sides agreed to. There are none.

Of course, this is all moot and ancient history anyway.

The ACC/ND deal is much more detailed, in writing and formally agreed to by both sides from the beginning.

(06-15-2015 01:27 PM)TerryD Wrote:  ND did want to pick and choose from the beginning.

Which is why I never wanted anything to do with Notre Dame in the first place. Their entry into the Big East hastened its demise IMO, since now everybody was paying attention to ND's interests, instead of the interests of full conference members. The conference gave more credence to a partial member than they did to their full members, and the Irish weren't even willing to put their ONLY big name product on the line. Irish basketball was insignificant compared to their football program, and they weren't willing to commit to help the conference they wanted to join, but was always on the verge of collapse.

The Irish were a wedge, prying at the foundation of the Big East, and the wedge finally served its purpose. The foundation cracked, and the conference crumbled.

Don't talk to me about Irish dreams, desires, and wishes. I've had 'em up to here.
[extending arm above head as far as I can reach, and I've got pretty long arms]

(06-15-2015 01:38 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-15-2015 01:27 PM)TerryD Wrote:  ND did want to pick and choose from the beginning.

Which is why I never wanted anything to do with Notre Dame in the first place. Their entry into the Big East hastened its demise IMO, since now everybody was paying attention to ND's interests, instead of the interests of full conference members. The conference gave more credence to a partial member than they did to their full members, and the Irish weren't even willing to put their ONLY big name product on the line. Irish basketball was insignificant compared to their football program, and they weren't willing to commit to help the conference they wanted to join, but was always on the verge of collapse.

The Irish were a wedge, prying at the foundation of the Big East, and the wedge finally served its purpose. The foundation cracked, and the conference crumbled.

Don't talk to me about Irish dreams, desires, and wishes. I've had 'em up to here.
[extending arm above head as far as I can reach, and I've got pretty long arms]

The Big East was always doomed, Bit, no matter what.

It had no blue blood anchor schools and was always easy pickings to be torn apart by CR.

ND really had little or nothing to do with it.

It was Dead Man Walking Confetence no matter what.

(06-15-2015 01:38 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-15-2015 01:27 PM)TerryD Wrote:  ND did want to pick and choose from the beginning.

Which is why I never wanted anything to do with Notre Dame in the first place. Their entry into the Big East hastened its demise IMO, since now everybody was paying attention to ND's interests, instead of the interests of full conference members. The conference gave more credence to a partial member than they did to their full members, and the Irish weren't even willing to put their ONLY big name product on the line. Irish basketball was insignificant compared to their football program, and they weren't willing to commit to help the conference they wanted to join, but was always on the verge of collapse.

The Irish were a wedge, prying at the foundation of the Big East, and the wedge finally served its purpose. The foundation cracked, and the conference crumbled.

Don't talk to me about Irish dreams, desires, and wishes. I've had 'em up to here.
[extending arm above head as far as I can reach, and I've got pretty long arms]

The Big East was always doomed, Bit, no matter what.

Penn State wasn't going to join. ND was never going to join for football. That was always a losing proposition for them. They weren't going to ride in and "save" a conference that couldn't make it on their own.

Without such anchor schools, its demise was inevitable, even if all football schools worked together (which they did not).

It had no blue blood anchor schools and was always easy pickings to be torn apart by CR.

ND really had little or nothing to do with it.

It was Dead Man Walking Conference.

(06-15-2015 01:38 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-15-2015 01:27 PM)TerryD Wrote:  ND did want to pick and choose from the beginning.

Which is why I never wanted anything to do with Notre Dame in the first place. Their entry into the Big East hastened its demise IMO, since now everybody was paying attention to ND's interests, instead of the interests of full conference members. The conference gave more credence to a partial member than they did to their full members, and the Irish weren't even willing to put their ONLY big name product on the line. Irish basketball was insignificant compared to their football program, and they weren't willing to commit to help the conference they wanted to join, but was always on the verge of collapse.

The Irish were a wedge, prying at the foundation of the Big East, and the wedge finally served its purpose. The foundation cracked, and the conference crumbled.

Don't talk to me about Irish dreams, desires, and wishes. I've had 'em up to here.
[extending arm above head as far as I can reach, and I've got pretty long arms]

Are you saying that Notre Dame killed the Big EAST?? Really.... WOW...I would worry about adding 2 BIG12 members and what tht does to the 27M that the 10 schools get at the moment.... and try and figure out how to keep the BIG 12 alive...As they will have to get a better TV deal if they refuse to add BYU...

Enjoy the 27M while you can

(06-15-2015 02:16 PM)TerryD Wrote:  The Big East was always doomed, Bit, no matter what.

On that we'll agree. But the problem was the failure to step up big when the football side of the conference first formed. All schools should have committed to an all sports conference at that time, rather than trying to construct an all-sports conference on a shaky foundation. But BC, Pitt, and Syracuse weren't willing to make that commitment, preferring to favor basketball interests at the expense of football interests.

The ACC did the same thing over the years, which is why I want no part of it.

The Big East would have still been destroyed even if all football schools marched in lockstep.

There simply was not enough TV value there to survive as an ongoing entity.

(06-15-2015 01:27 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(06-15-2015 01:21 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-15-2015 01:04 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(06-15-2015 12:50 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-15-2015 08:58 AM)bullet Wrote:  Notre Dame informally agreed to schedule 3 BE teams a year. The ACC made sure it was all formalized.

That's because ND never once honored their pledge to play THREE Big East teams each year.

ND verbally said three BE teams a year. BE schools interpreted that as every school, home/home. ND said "no, that is YOUR interpretation, not ours".

ND tried to schedule home/pro stadium deals with Rutgers and UConn. Both said no, which was their right.

ND played Pitt every year plus occasionally a few others, but it was all informal.

That's pure unadulterated BS, Terry. ND wanted to pick and choose who they played, and where they played them. That was not what was agreed to, and Notre Dame reneged on their promise.

There was no confusion on either side. Notre Dame promised something they had no intention of honoring. It's that simple.

Bull. There was no complete deal to honor. ND did want to pick and choose from the beginning.

There were no details to this verbal "pledge" that ND told the BE Commissioner when all hell was breaking loose in 2003-04.

Show a link that spelled out the terms that both sides agreed to. There are none.

Of course, this is all moot and ancient history anyway.

The ACC/ND deal is much more detailed, in writing and formally agreed to by both sides from the beginning.

http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribun...ney-p.html
These schedules represent a combination of a commitment to the BIG EAST Conference (ideally, three games per year, 2011-2016), as well as our own financial and competitive interest in playing seven home games (every year from 2009 on). This latest look includes the addition of a 12th game for most seasons (that began in 2006), based on NCAA legislation that was approved in April 2005

OTOH-http://ndsmcobserver.com/2008/04/football-analysis-schedule-in-shambles-not-quite/

(06-15-2015 09:32 PM)TerryD Wrote:  The Big East would have still been destroyed even if all football schools marched in lockstep.

There simply was not enough TV value there to survive as an ongoing entity.

What if the Big East had accepted ESPN's early 2011 offer, worth about $14m per school, same as the ACC was getting?

And then aggressively have courted BC and Maryland to join?

I don't think BC or Maryland would have been interested but if the Big East had accepted the deal I've got to think that things would look different today.

Would ND still have joined the ACC?
Would the Big 12 have added Houston and BYU instead of TCU/WVU?
Would TCU and Boise still join the BE like they planned to?

Things could have been much different if that had happened.

Still ripped apart, I believe. No real anchor schools to make it a stable Power conference.

I think that by then, Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers, were headed out the door.

I doubt there would have been much attraction for Maryland and BC to join.

Just my take.

The Old Big East and the New ACC will fall apart. Most of the ACC schools were concentrated on basketball or Lacrosse. Duke is one of the guilty parties. That is why Duke is so bad in getting crowds to go to the games. That is why I think they should be booted and join the Big East. No matter if they win now, they are not gaining traction. Wake Forest is in the same boat. Now, both football and basketball stinks.

(06-16-2015 09:27 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Still ripped apart, I believe. No real anchor schools to make it a stable Power conference.

I think that by then, Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers, were headed out the door.

I doubt there would have been much attraction for Maryland and BC to join.

Just my take.

I think your take is very likely correct, but IMO that deal was a chance for the Big East to remain together and a power conference. It probably wouldn't have worked, but it could have.

The ACC has made some errors the past decade or so, but one Big Thing it correctly realized was that the Big East as a football Power was incompatible with the growth and aspirations of the ACC in that domain. Thus, from 2003 onwards the ACC tried its best to kill the Big East as a football power. It failed in 2003, but the Big East didn't learn the lesson and naively believed that the ACC bore it no fundamental ill-will.

Big East strategy from 2003 onwards should have been about how to kill the ACC before it kills us, but it wasn't, and when the ACC struck a second time, it hit the mark and killed it.

(06-16-2015 10:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-16-2015 09:27 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Still ripped apart, I believe. No real anchor schools to make it a stable Power conference.

I think that by then, Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers, were headed out the door.

I doubt there would have been much attraction for Maryland and BC to join.

Just my take.

I think your take is very likely correct, but IMO that deal was a chance for the Big East to remain together and a power conference. It probably wouldn't have worked, but it could have.

The ACC has made some errors the past decade or so, but one Big Thing it correctly realized was that the Big East as a football Power was incompatible with the growth and aspirations of the ACC in that domain. Thus, from 2003 onwards the ACC tried its best to kill the Big East as a football power. It failed in 2003, but the Big East didn't learn the lesson and naively believed that the ACC bore it no fundamental ill-will.

Big East strategy from 2003 onwards should have been about how to kill the ACC before it kills us, but it wasn't, and when the ACC struck a second time, it hit the mark and killed it.

I think that the best course would have been a merger around 2004-05 or so of the Big East football schools and the ACC.

(06-16-2015 10:04 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(06-16-2015 10:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-16-2015 09:27 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Still ripped apart, I believe. No real anchor schools to make it a stable Power conference.

I think that by then, Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers, were headed out the door.

I doubt there would have been much attraction for Maryland and BC to join.

Just my take.

I think your take is very likely correct, but IMO that deal was a chance for the Big East to remain together and a power conference. It probably wouldn't have worked, but it could have.

The ACC has made some errors the past decade or so, but one Big Thing it correctly realized was that the Big East as a football Power was incompatible with the growth and aspirations of the ACC in that domain. Thus, from 2003 onwards the ACC tried its best to kill the Big East as a football power. It failed in 2003, but the Big East didn't learn the lesson and naively believed that the ACC bore it no fundamental ill-will.

Big East strategy from 2003 onwards should have been about how to kill the ACC before it kills us, but it wasn't, and when the ACC struck a second time, it hit the mark and killed it.

I think that the best course would have been a merger around 2004-05 or so of the Big East football schools and the ACC.

Yes, if in addition to VT, BC, and Miami they had also added Pitt, Syracuse, and WVU, and Rutgers, that would have killed the Big East and created a stable power football conference.

Frankly, a conference with that lineup would be a better overall football conference in terms of market potential than what the ACC has now.

When you look back it's pretty easy to see how successful the BE could have been. back to back NC's in BB
(UConn/Louisville) along with WVU and Louisville in FB. Thinking back watching WVU beat the snot out of Clemson, Louisville beat Florida as well as 2 BB NC's It's pretty safe to say they would be taken seriously at this point. That's not even counting UCF beating Baylor either. They should have accepted that deal.

(06-16-2015 09:27 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Still ripped apart, I believe. No real anchor schools to make it a stable Power conference.

I think that by then, Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers, were headed out the door.

I doubt there would have been much attraction for Maryland and BC to join.

Just my take.

You're right there. If all the football schools had banded together from the start, the problems with instability wouldn't have been such an issue. But certain schools valued their basketball connections more. And basketball interests crippled football interests from the very beginning. It kept the football side small, with mostly partial memberships, to ensure football didn't gain too much power in the conference, and to keep those they considered undesirable at arms length.

It could have been so much more. But nobody was willing to commit. The football schools even had a get out of jail free card they didn't use.

(06-16-2015 10:04 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(06-16-2015 10:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-16-2015 09:27 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Still ripped apart, I believe. No real anchor schools to make it a stable Power conference.

I think that by then, Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers, were headed out the door.

I doubt there would have been much attraction for Maryland and BC to join.

Just my take.

I think your take is very likely correct, but IMO that deal was a chance for the Big East to remain together and a power conference. It probably wouldn't have worked, but it could have.

The ACC has made some errors the past decade or so, but one Big Thing it correctly realized was that the Big East as a football Power was incompatible with the growth and aspirations of the ACC in that domain. Thus, from 2003 onwards the ACC tried its best to kill the Big East as a football power. It failed in 2003, but the Big East didn't learn the lesson and naively believed that the ACC bore it no fundamental ill-will.

Big East strategy from 2003 onwards should have been about how to kill the ACC before it kills us, but it wasn't, and when the ACC struck a second time, it hit the mark and killed it.

I think that the best course would have been a merger around 2004-05 or so of the Big East football schools and the ACC.

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2003-05...r-swofford