The BE should do the behind the scenes talks with Maryland and Penn St, and keep their conference together with expansion.
If I was the BE Commish, I would follow JoPa's lead 20 years ago and form a quality Big East all-sports league.
Just imagine, kicking out all non-football playing schools like G-town & Setan Hall, letting them form their own all-sports league. Then the BE adds Penn State, Maryland (taking the ACC from 9 to 8), keeping Temple and adding Lo-ville.
Here is what it would like like.
Big East North
1) Penn State
2) UConn
3) BC
4) Syracuse
5) Pitt
6) Rutgers
Big East South
1) Temple
2) Lo'ville
3) Maryland
4) Miami
5) V-Tech
6) WVU
The MAC stays status-quo, which is not surprising.
Do you think Penn State would leave the Big 10?
Wow Vandelay,
I've always been a fan of proactive ideas, but this makes sense.
The biggest roadblock is losing historically good bball schools. G'town and St Johns were in the NIT finals, and G'town and Villanova have history.
Still, a Catholic bball conference (G'town, 'Nova, St. J, SHU, St. Joes, Xavier, St. Bonnie) would make sense.
Of course PSU was the problem child of this idea, b/c JoPa never wanted to play fair w/ Syracuse or Pitt.
Back to your idea: Would PSU leave the Big 10? For this conference, maybe. Especially since the N division is weak in fball right now. JoPa retires after a few N championships, and Syr gets better to balance out the league.
Anyway, this makes alot of sense... very clever.
<!--EDIT|DrTorch|May 9 2003, 01:16 PM-->
Vandelay, I usually have a great deal of respect for your opinions but this one is so completely far afield that it borders on silly. Do you folks have any real idea about the finances of college athletics? I mean really? Well, me neither. But, what I do know is that the Big East paid out about $4 million to schools who were members of the conference in both football and basketball. By contrast, the Big 10 paid out about $7 million per school and the ACC paid out about $8 million per school. I anxiously await someone's explanation as to why any school would choose to forego $3-4 million per year in revenue.
<a href='http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_online/news/2002/03/15/conference_reports/' target='_blank'>Revenue by Conference</a>
MAKO Wrote:Vandelay, I usually have a great deal of respect for your opinions but this one is so completely far afield that it borders on silly. Do you folks have any real idea about the finances of college athletics? I mean really? Well, me neither. But, what I do know is that the Big East paid out about $4 million to schools who were members of the conference in both football and basketball. By contrast, the Big 10 paid out about $7 million per school and the ACC paid out about $8 million per school. I anxiously await someone's explanation as to why any school would choose to forego $3-4 million per year in revenue.
<a href='http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_online/news/2002/03/15/conference_reports/' target='_blank'>Revenue by Conference</a>
Because an E Coast conference w/ Penn State would get a huge TV contract; much bigger than the Big East currently gets. And you add a very lucrative Big East conf. champ game. A PSU move would also drop the Big 10 TV deal.
PSU vs E Coast teams would also generate much greater stadium revenue than the conference currently receives. ( And possibly more than PSU vs Indiana or PSU vs Minnesota for comparison.)
Having the 2 previous NCAA tourney champs would this conference some clout in men's bball.
Ergo, PSU moving wouldn't be a forefeit of $7 million down to $4 million, it would probably be $7 million down to $6.5 million, w/ more potential to grow. And that's assuming the deal splits things evenly. Rutgers and Temple might be willing to take $5 million (still better than $4 million) so PSU gets $7 million.
What Vandelay needs to do is quit smoking that orange tinted weed.
:D
At this point, scenarios are like ******holes. Everybody has one.
But that has to be the most ridiculous one yet.
Sorry Vandelay, no points this round.
I'm really surprised he didn't have Toledo somewhere in there.
You know, the team he claims to be top25 and MAC champs every year. LOL
I'm just having a little fun messing with Vandelay.
Vandelay Wrote:If I was the BE Commish, I would follow JoPa's lead 20 years ago and form a quality Big East all-sports league.
I agree totally with your post. The current Big East never made sense to me, except as a basketball conference. It seems like a conference should be made of up similar sized schools with similar academic missions AND athletic programs. Geography is also important. All of the above creates rivalries and traditions.
Joe Pa was right 20 years ago. Penn State, Pitt, W. VA, Rutgers, BC, Army and Syracuse should be playing each other every year in an all-sports conference. The rivalries and traditions are already there. It's just too bad that the ecnomic realities of college sports in 2003 won't let that happen. :(
DrTorch Wrote:Of course PSU was the problem child of this idea, b/c JoPa never wanted to play fair w/ Syracuse or Pitt.
In defense of Paterno: My understanding (from many moons ago, so forgive me if my memory is slightly off) is that Penn State wanted a 10 year contract with Syracuse with a 6-4 home/away split, which initially seems unfair to Syracuse. However:
1. At the time, Penn State football essentially paid for the entire school's athletic program. Syracuse also had big-time basketball to generate substantial revenue. (I believe Penn State basketball was a member of the recently formed Atlantic 8 at the time.)
2. Penn State could fill up Beaver Stadium with or without Syracuse. i.e. Syracuse football needed Penn State on its schedule more than Penn State needed Syracuse on its schedule.
3. Syracuse had recently dropped Penn State from its basketball schedule.
Of course, all this would be resolved if they were in the same league and alternated home and away every year. But with the hand they were holding, its hard to blame Paterno for playing hardball in scheduling with other schools.
klingon288 Wrote:Of course, all this would be resolved if they were in the same league and alternated home and away every year. But with the hand they were holding, its hard to blame Paterno for playing hardball in scheduling with other schools.
That pretty much resonates w/ what I heard, and I understand Paterno's position. But, I think it was short-sighted. Sure, PSU was top-dog then, but what Paterno didn't account for was this: make your opponents better and you can still build off of them. You get stronger too.
As usual, pro-wrestling provides all the lessons in marketing that you'll ever need. The WWE never thrived when it was always Hulk Hogan w/ the title. The WWE was never stronger, and never had greater revenues and ratings than when there was a stable of top talent: The Rock, HHH, SCSA, UT... a fan never knew who might win the championship, and the anticipation (in this contrived, predetermined, "sports entertainment" business, no less) kept the interest high.
Sure PSU didn't need Syracuse, but if JoPa had been equitable (and McPherson had Syracuse winning again so it wasn't an unreasonable request) PSU may have gotten their league and a huge TV contract. 20 years later they've both carved out nice positions for themselves, but the question lingers: could they do significantly better? and how will college football (and sports) change if they do form a new league? (A 'Big East' league really sets the table for a playoffs w/ plenty of regional interest.)
<!--EDIT|DrTorch|May 12 2003, 07:16 AM-->
I think the horse is out of the barn as far as PSU is concerned. What upstart eastern league would be an improvement over the Big X for them?
Answer: none. That opportunity was 20-25 years ago.
axeme Wrote:I think the horse is out of the barn as far as PSU is concerned. What upstart eastern league would be an improvement over the Big X for them?
Answer: none. That opportunity was 20-25 years ago.
You're probably right, especially if the Big 10 gets a team like ND. Then PSU renews its rivalry w/ ND and the conference gets a championship game. (Missouri brings nothing to the table but travel expenses. I don't think they're being considered for anything by the Big 10.)
But, the post was what should the Big East do, and I agree that the strategy is sound. It may not work, but it is pro-active and has considerable merit.
It would be the BE's best option, as unlikely as it is to ever happen.
I don't see Missou in the Big 10. Haven't really seen any cogent arugument for it, really. Why would they want to leave the Big XII? Why does the Big X(I) need them? If they showed up in the B-10, it would seem it would have to be part of a greater shuffling of teams nationally to have it happen.
axeme Wrote:It would be the BE's best option, as unlikely as it is to ever happen.
I don't see Missou in the Big 10. Haven't really seen any cogent arugument for it, really. Why would they want to leave the Big XII? Why does the Big X(I) need them? If they showed up in the B-10, it would seem it would have to be part of a greater shuffling of teams nationally to have it happen.
The one reason for Missou to want the Big 10 is to upgrade its academics, and that is a primary reason of PennSt playing in the Big 10. The Big 10 has some kind of academic consortum to share graduate resources. Notre Dame faculity wanted the Big 10 for this very reason, but was blocked by the athletics department.
KC
I don't see the Big X wanting Missou by themselves.
They want ND, obviously, and if they can't get ND and want to go to 12, Pitt becomes an pretty good contender I think. Much more logical than Missou.
Well at least Mizzou has the AAU membership out of the way.