CSNbbs

Why is the Big East talking about a football-only invite for TCU? For the life of me, I can't see why we would want to have members who aren't in our conference for all sports that they offer (other than ND).

It seems to me like it would fracture the Big East brand. When people think Syracuse, they think Big East. When they think Marquette, they think Big East. Do we really want people who think of a Big East football member, and think Missouri Valley or Sun Belt for other sports? That would seem to do the exact opposite of our goal of raising the conference up a level.

It is simply short-sighted thinking. The conference is fractured enough, why would leadership continue to compound that issue, it makes no sense...

Its a fight for control of the league, every Big East expansion move except the post ACC raid move has seemingly been a battle with the schools that don't play IA football

Jackson

I think it is also a battle with teams that do play football. They are not all on the same page.

Jackson, you just hit the nail on the head. It is a fight for control of The BEast. And we are now deciding whether basketball or football is important. Frankly, I'd rather split and avoid the politics involved with this hybrid monstrosity. Either that, or go with the huge conference format crazed came up with. Anything less is chickensh!t...

Clearly it's a split with the basketball schools, but why do you think they want it that way? As someone who's also a Notre Dame fan (which I am - my high school's fight song was even the ND Victory March), I realize that my conference is important. Conference strength, and conference unity are important.

I get that TCU's basketball is a little bit below par for the Big East? But historically, they're no worse than Rutgers or USF. And, unlike the other schools we're considering, their non-revenue sports are solid. Their baseball is actually very good.

Do you think that the bball only schools more concerned about travel costs? Or watering down the competition in basketball? Or going to 17 teams? Or is there something else that I'm missing?

(11-09-2010 05:48 AM)Jackson1011 Wrote: [ -> ]Its a fight for control of the league, every Big East expansion move except the post ACC raid move has seemingly been a battle with the schools that don't play IA football

I'm not convinced that it is just the hoops schools anymore. This is speculation on my part, but I feel that if the football schools stood shoulder to shoulder in complete solidarity on the issue of an all-sports invite, that the hoops programs would have to consent. I would argue that outside of G'town and Nova, it is the football schools that bring the conference most of its visibility. Without football, the hoops schools would quickly sink from elite to the A-10 level (a good hoops conference but without a ton of visibility).

So if push came to shove, I think the football schools could force the issue. I just don't think that there is total solidarity on the part of the football schools past the idea that they would like to expand. Most of us think TCU is a slam dunk for an all-sports invite but not every Big East president may see it that way (e.g. some may be completely opposed to expanding in hoops while others may favor a different school for an all-sports invite more). If there is any chinks in the football schools cohesion, I think getting an all-sports invite out with be hard.

I agree, if the 8 FB schools unanimously insisted on an all-sports invite for TCU (or TCU and UCF) they could make it happen. But maybe some of them think the hoops league is big enough already; we know that Syracuse's former AD thought that 16 was way too many.

(11-09-2010 11:50 AM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]I agree, if the 8 FB schools unanimously insisted on an all-sports invite for TCU (or TCU and UCF) they could make it happen. But maybe some of them think the hoops league is big enough already; we know that Syracuse's former AD thought that 16 was way too many.

It really is pretty scroogie when you think about it. I want you to give me a double meat cheese Whopper... but only interested in paying you for a Junior Whopper. I want MY cake... but I want to eat it too. That's just not going to fly for a school with TCU's athletics/high academic standards/extremely high graduating%. If the BE powers chose to think like some of the fringe element on this board that BE may be willing to look at at TCU as a 3rd tier state school with a good football program(not talking about any C-USA schools) and expect to get a serious ear..?.. I don't know about that. Being on the fence myself, I would like to see the full invite and watch how it plays out... facinating times! Either way, TCU will be fine where they are at and BE has some other nice choices to pick from.

I hope The BEast football schools grow a pair and y'all get an all-sports invite, Toad. Partial invites are part of the reason The BEast has always had a bad reputation...

good heavens...invite UCF and TCU and let's get this thing going......heck throw in ECU and Houston i don't care

Houston worries me. Are they program on the rise or is it just Sumlin. I think he is destined for a bigger school and it is just a matter of time. There are already mentions of his name with Colorado job. With that said, if a school wants to break into the recruiting of Texas, it has a far better chance if there are two schools in the conference. More games in the state for parents to watch. My vote, based on the names being thrown around, would be for TCU, UCF, ECU and Villanova/Houston if growing by four. Houston due to market and being in texas. Neither of those two wow me, but not sure of any of the others. If there was some way to pull BC back or one of the B12 left overs, but i doubt any of those scenarios would happen.

(11-09-2010 06:32 PM)Slypenny Wrote: [ -> ]Houston worries me. Are they program on the rise or is it just Sumlin. I think he is destined for a bigger school and it is just a matter of time. There are already mentions of his name with Colorado job. With that said, if a school wants to break into the recruiting of Texas, it has a far better chance if there are two schools in the conference. More games in the state for parents to watch. My vote, based on the names being thrown around, would be for TCU, UCF, ECU and Villanova/Houston if growing by four. Houston due to market and being in texas. Neither of those two wow me, but not sure of any of the others. If there was some way to pull BC back or one of the B12 left overs, but i doubt any of those scenarios would happen.

I'm not sold on Houston either. TCU has been playing at a high level for a decade now. Houston has been a bowl team for half a decade but it's primarily offense and no defense every season for them, and unlike TCU I think they would get beat down physically their first few years in a BCS league. Not to mention they could revert back even in CUSA without a solid coaching hire when (not if) Sumlin leaves.

If you draw 24k with a winning team, what happens when they aren't scoring 40 a game?

(11-09-2010 06:49 PM)CollegeCard Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-09-2010 06:32 PM)Slypenny Wrote: [ -> ]Houston worries me. Are they program on the rise or is it just Sumlin. I think he is destined for a bigger school and it is just a matter of time. There are already mentions of his name with Colorado job. With that said, if a school wants to break into the recruiting of Texas, it has a far better chance if there are two schools in the conference. More games in the state for parents to watch. My vote, based on the names being thrown around, would be for TCU, UCF, ECU and Villanova/Houston if growing by four. Houston due to market and being in texas. Neither of those two wow me, but not sure of any of the others. If there was some way to pull BC back or one of the B12 left overs, but i doubt any of those scenarios would happen.

I'm not sold on Houston either. TCU has been playing at a high level for a decade now. Houston has been a bowl team for half a decade but it's primarily offense and no defense every season for them, and unlike TCU I think they would get beat down physically their first few years in a BCS league. Not to mention they could revert back even in CUSA without a solid coaching hire when (not if) Sumlin leaves.

If you draw 24k with a winning team, what happens when they aren't scoring 40 a game?

Agreed Houston has just as many warts as UCF and ECU. All three better than Temple/Nova but after TCU it is a crapshoot.

I liken ECU to VT when they were invited to the BE back in the early 90s for football only, Houston to Cincy and UCF to USF when the Bearcats and Bulls both entered the league back in 2005.

Cheers,
Neil

I think that is a good analogy Neil though I think that UCF is much further along the USF was especially when it comes to facilities and having a history in D-1a, it may not be the greatest but there's a stigma that comes with moving up to D-1a.

(11-09-2010 07:04 PM)omnicarrier Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-09-2010 06:49 PM)CollegeCard Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-09-2010 06:32 PM)Slypenny Wrote: [ -> ]Houston worries me. Are they program on the rise or is it just Sumlin. I think he is destined for a bigger school and it is just a matter of time. There are already mentions of his name with Colorado job. With that said, if a school wants to break into the recruiting of Texas, it has a far better chance if there are two schools in the conference. More games in the state for parents to watch. My vote, based on the names being thrown around, would be for TCU, UCF, ECU and Villanova/Houston if growing by four. Houston due to market and being in texas. Neither of those two wow me, but not sure of any of the others. If there was some way to pull BC back or one of the B12 left overs, but i doubt any of those scenarios would happen.

I'm not sold on Houston either. TCU has been playing at a high level for a decade now. Houston has been a bowl team for half a decade but it's primarily offense and no defense every season for them, and unlike TCU I think they would get beat down physically their first few years in a BCS league. Not to mention they could revert back even in CUSA without a solid coaching hire when (not if) Sumlin leaves.

If you draw 24k with a winning team, what happens when they aren't scoring 40 a game?

Agreed Houston has just as many warts as UCF and ECU. All three better than Temple/Nova but after TCU it is a crapshoot.

I liken ECU to VT when they were invited to the BE back in the early 90s for football only, Houston to Cincy and UCF to USF when the Bearcats and Bulls both entered the league back in 2005.

Cheers,
Neil

TCU is undoubtedly the best choice for the BE among available candidates. If the league misses the opportunity to snag them..it will be a shame.

I think you are correct in your comparison of VT and ECU. I remember clearly the history of the VT invite. I also clearly remember that the 2 programs were pretty much on even terms when it happened. I remember beating them in Blackburg and the VT fans were calling for Beamers job. All that changed very quickly with the invite. I see no reason that ECU would not experience a similar boost in recruiting,financial backing and fan support if that happened to ECU. I do not think it will...but..It would be great for our program.

(11-09-2010 07:26 PM)CatsClaw Wrote: [ -> ]I think that is a good analogy Neil though I think that UCF is much further along the USF was especially when it comes to facilities and having a history in D-1a, it may not be the greatest but there's a stigma that comes with moving up to D-1a.

Good pt.

When USF was invited to join the Big East back in summer/fall 2003...USF hadn't even played in their first bowl game (and didn't till they joined the Big East), they didn't even have their Athletic Training Center open yet...and had zero improvements in their then 34 yr old basketball arena.

In 2004, year before USF entered the Big East, USF averaged just 3,560 in student attendance for football that year.

Turn to 2010...and with the benefit of BCS $$$$ through the years, USF is changing...as they are currently building a brand new baseball stadium, new softball stadium, new soccer stadium and a new basketball practice facility.

UCF didn't have much to show back in summer/fall 2003...but since then, UCF has:

1) Built the only 120 yd Indoor Collegiate Indoor Football Practice Facility in Florida

2) Built a 45,300 seat on-campus football stadium

3) Built a brand new 10,000 seat on-campus arena, complete with club seats and suites

4) Built brand new Men's & Women's basketball practice facility

5) Built a new softball stadium and more (new golf facility, new crew facility and other projects...with a new soccer/track stadium being built this winter/spring).

Heck...only 2 buildings below even existed back in the Fall of 2003...as the baseball complex and the old small arena (horizontal small building between new arena and parking garage) were around the last time the Big East went shopping for an expansion team.



USF has turned out to be a pretty good addition for the Big East...and seeing how UCF is in a much stronger position today compared to where USF (and obviously UCF) was in 2003...UCF should (no guarantee on any team) be a good addition to the Big East as well.

You guys are overlooking the greatness that is BUFFALO. They are the answer to the BE needs and prayers. With them BE captures the NE marketplace and will rocket to higher and higher standings. :)

(11-09-2010 07:26 PM)CatsClaw Wrote: [ -> ]I think that is a good analogy Neil though I think that UCF is much further along the USF was especially when it comes to facilities and having a history in D-1a, it may not be the greatest but there's a stigma that comes with moving up to D-1a.

Agreed about the facilities. But I'm one of those that think facilities are overrated in that you definitely don't want them to be "bad" but if they are super-spectacular that doesn't mean a program is going to be a success either. Besides, once in the club, better facilities will come eventually.

ECU probably has the "worse" facilities of this small group - UCF, ECU, and UH - but the product on the field has been better, imho.

My comparison was more along the lines of product on the field and fan support and in that instance yes, UCF is better than USF was back in 2003 but then so is ECU better than VT back back in 89 and 90 and UH is better than UC back in 2003.

Heck, even in terms of the slam dunk candidates - TCU now is better than UL was back in 2003.

But that is as it should be. In 2003 we had to make our decisions in a hurry whereas since that time, we've been able to wait to see how things developed. Which I think only helps the league and puts it in a position to get it "right" if the bb side has truly seen the light so to speak.

Cheers,
Neil

(11-10-2010 06:40 AM)KnightLight Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-09-2010 07:26 PM)CatsClaw Wrote: [ -> ]I think that is a good analogy Neil though I think that UCF is much further along the USF was especially when it comes to facilities and having a history in D-1a, it may not be the greatest but there's a stigma that comes with moving up to D-1a.

In 2004, year before USF entered the Big East, USF averaged just 3,560 in student attendance for football that year.

I think you may be missing a zero there as in 30,560 which was quite impressive for being in D1-A for 4 years at that point in time.

Good luck to UCF the rest of the season. And I know you won't believe this but I am still hoping the bb schools have seen the light and the football side eventually gets to 12 with UCF one of those 4 additions.

I just don't see them as the clear-cut #10 choice, myself. I'd put them on equal footing with UH for 11 and 12. My #10 probably won't make it though.

Cheers,
Neil