CSNbbs

Like I said over on the Big East forum...The Big East leadership will sit back and wait for the BIG BOYS to get all of their bowl tie ins....We will get the Pizza Bowl if we are lucky.

(07-06-2012 01:44 PM)cardshouse Wrote: [ -> ]Like I said over on the Big East forum...The Big East leadership will sit back and wait for the BIG BOYS to get all of their bowl tie ins....We will get the Pizza Bowl if we are lucky.

I don't think it's that you're just sitting back doing nothing, it's just there's nothing you can do. You can't make the big bowls contract with you, and honestly the spread out nature of the Big East isn't exactly a good thing when trying to lock your champ into one bowl. Those bowls want schools who are guaranteed to sell tickets, and that's a problem for the Big East. SDSU could probably draw well to the Fiesta Bowl, but probably wouldn't to the Orange Bowl. USF would draw well to the Orange, but probably not the Fiesta. I know I'm pointing out the extreme examples, but that's part of the problem with spreading yourself so thin, and having so few schools known for having traveling fan bases.

(07-06-2012 01:50 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-06-2012 01:44 PM)cardshouse Wrote: [ -> ]Like I said over on the Big East forum...The Big East leadership will sit back and wait for the BIG BOYS to get all of their bowl tie ins....We will get the Pizza Bowl if we are lucky.

I don't think it's that you're just sitting back doing nothing, it's just there's nothing you can do. You can't make the big bowls contract with you, and honestly the spread out nature of the Big East isn't exactly a good thing when trying to lock your champ into one bowl. Those bowls want schools who are guaranteed to sell tickets, and that's a problem for the Big East. SDSU could probably draw well to the Fiesta Bowl, but probably wouldn't to the Orange Bowl. USF would draw well to the Orange, but probably not the Fiesta. I know I'm pointing out the extreme examples, but that's part of the problem with spreading yourself so thin, and having so few schools known for having traveling fan bases.

Are you suggesting that if the Big East had done an expansion that respected geography rather than chasing BCS points and TV markets that they might have had a shot at working a deal to stay in the big boy club by aligning with the Orange or the soon to be vacant Sugar?

(07-06-2012 01:50 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-06-2012 01:44 PM)cardshouse Wrote: [ -> ]Like I said over on the Big East forum...The Big East leadership will sit back and wait for the BIG BOYS to get all of their bowl tie ins....We will get the Pizza Bowl if we are lucky.

I don't think it's that you're just sitting back doing nothing, it's just there's nothing you can do. You can't make the big bowls contract with you, and honestly the spread out nature of the Big East isn't exactly a good thing when trying to lock your champ into one bowl. Those bowls want schools who are guaranteed to sell tickets, and that's a problem for the Big East. SDSU could probably draw well to the Fiesta Bowl, but probably wouldn't to the Orange Bowl. USF would draw well to the Orange, but probably not the Fiesta. I know I'm pointing out the extreme examples, but that's part of the problem with spreading yourself so thin, and having so few schools known for having traveling fan bases.

And once again this falls back on our leadership for thinking we needed a conference spread across the USA. Because of 3-4 schools we went out to get, it hurts the majority....But I do see your points.

(07-06-2012 01:54 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-06-2012 01:50 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-06-2012 01:44 PM)cardshouse Wrote: [ -> ]Like I said over on the Big East forum...The Big East leadership will sit back and wait for the BIG BOYS to get all of their bowl tie ins....We will get the Pizza Bowl if we are lucky.

I don't think it's that you're just sitting back doing nothing, it's just there's nothing you can do. You can't make the big bowls contract with you, and honestly the spread out nature of the Big East isn't exactly a good thing when trying to lock your champ into one bowl. Those bowls want schools who are guaranteed to sell tickets, and that's a problem for the Big East. SDSU could probably draw well to the Fiesta Bowl, but probably wouldn't to the Orange Bowl. USF would draw well to the Orange, but probably not the Fiesta. I know I'm pointing out the extreme examples, but that's part of the problem with spreading yourself so thin, and having so few schools known for having traveling fan bases.

Are you suggesting that if the Big East had done an expansion that respected geography rather than chasing BCS points and TV markets that they might have had a shot at working a deal to stay in the big boy club by aligning with the Orange or the soon to be vacant Sugar?

Probably not, but I do believe they expanded based on what they system was and then the system changed. There problem always was going to be there are not enough teams with large fan bases who travel that aren't already in power conferences.

b0ndsj0ns, someone might even construe your statement to imply that if Boise had remained in the MWC that the league might have gone to the Fiesta and pointed out that they will be vacant on both sides and Boise State had an established history of selling all of its 17,500 ticket allotment, and might even further mention that while the administration at Hawaii did not think they could sell their 17,500 allotment to the Sugar and gave 4,000 of those tickets to Georgia and then quickly discovered the demand from fans was greater than the 13,500 they had (sold out in 2 days), and the school obtained another 1,500 that quickly sold out.

So it might have been that if Boise had stayed, they could have presented to the Fiesta that they had on three occasions demonstrated no difficulty in being able to sell 17,500 tickets and might have gotten a tie.

I have faith in this guy. He is a sly old dog. Just like at the last moment he was able to lend his support to help get the Boise State exit fees; uh, Boise State football team in the league, he is also going to surprise eveyone and pull a big bowl out of the hat.

(07-06-2012 02:03 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]b0ndsj0ns, someone might even construe your statement to imply that if Boise had remained in the MWC that the league might have gone to the Fiesta and pointed out that they will be vacant on both sides and Boise State had an established history of selling all of its 17,500 ticket allotment, and might even further mention that while the administration at Hawaii did not think they could sell their 17,500 allotment to the Sugar and gave 4,000 of those tickets to Georgia and then quickly discovered the demand from fans was greater than the 13,500 they had (sold out in 2 days), and the school obtained another 1,500 that quickly sold out.

So it might have been that if Boise had stayed, they could have presented to the Fiesta that they had on three occasions demonstrated no difficulty in being able to sell 17,500 tickets and might have gotten a tie.

I don't think I'm willing to go as far as you are. Now if the MWC had the lineup with Utah, BYU, TCU, and then added Hawaii, Fresno, and Boise to that group that probably would have been strong enough to get a contract spot in the fiesta. However that was never meant to be.

From the spin cycle....

(07-06-2012 02:02 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-06-2012 01:54 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-06-2012 01:50 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-06-2012 01:44 PM)cardshouse Wrote: [ -> ]Like I said over on the Big East forum...The Big East leadership will sit back and wait for the BIG BOYS to get all of their bowl tie ins....We will get the Pizza Bowl if we are lucky.

I don't think it's that you're just sitting back doing nothing, it's just there's nothing you can do. You can't make the big bowls contract with you, and honestly the spread out nature of the Big East isn't exactly a good thing when trying to lock your champ into one bowl. Those bowls want schools who are guaranteed to sell tickets, and that's a problem for the Big East. SDSU could probably draw well to the Fiesta Bowl, but probably wouldn't to the Orange Bowl. USF would draw well to the Orange, but probably not the Fiesta. I know I'm pointing out the extreme examples, but that's part of the problem with spreading yourself so thin, and having so few schools known for having traveling fan bases.

Are you suggesting that if the Big East had done an expansion that respected geography rather than chasing BCS points and TV markets that they might have had a shot at working a deal to stay in the big boy club by aligning with the Orange or the soon to be vacant Sugar?

Probably not, but I do believe they expanded based on what they system was and then the system changed. There problem always was going to be there are not enough teams with large fan bases who travel that aren't already in power conferences.

BINGO!

Quickest way to kill a conference is to make long-term decisions based on short-term conditions.

It's rank foolishness to try to shape a conference to adjust to things that are constantly in flux. I've used this line before and it is worth repeating. Take away all TV money and bowl money and the odds are that ten years later the Big 10, SEC, and Pac-12 look a lot like they look now. Odds are the ACC looks more like it did a few years ago and the Big XII core stays the same but probably without WVU.

The root core of those leagues is they are institutions that respect each other and WANT to compete against each other.

The key lesson of WAC16 is they failed to respect the fact that AFA, Colorado State, Wyoming, BYU and Utah wanted to play each other every year if they were going to be in the same league. That's why the five met at DIA to outline the Mountain West.

When you cobble up something to exploit today's conditions you run the risk that what you cook up no longer fits.

(07-06-2012 02:12 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-06-2012 02:03 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]b0ndsj0ns, someone might even construe your statement to imply that if Boise had remained in the MWC that the league might have gone to the Fiesta and pointed out that they will be vacant on both sides and Boise State had an established history of selling all of its 17,500 ticket allotment, and might even further mention that while the administration at Hawaii did not think they could sell their 17,500 allotment to the Sugar and gave 4,000 of those tickets to Georgia and then quickly discovered the demand from fans was greater than the 13,500 they had (sold out in 2 days), and the school obtained another 1,500 that quickly sold out.

So it might have been that if Boise had stayed, they could have presented to the Fiesta that they had on three occasions demonstrated no difficulty in being able to sell 17,500 tickets and might have gotten a tie.

I don't think I'm willing to go as far as you are. Now if the MWC had the lineup with Utah, BYU, TCU, and then added Hawaii, Fresno, and Boise to that group that probably would have been strong enough to get a contract spot in the fiesta. However that was never meant to be.

I'm not willing to go that far. That's why I prefaced it as I did.

If Boise and BYU had stayed, they might have been able to sit at the table in Phoenix and talk about it but they wouldn't be pulling the sort of money for the contract that the ACC will get from the Orange.

(07-06-2012 01:54 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-06-2012 01:50 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-06-2012 01:44 PM)cardshouse Wrote: [ -> ]Like I said over on the Big East forum...The Big East leadership will sit back and wait for the BIG BOYS to get all of their bowl tie ins....We will get the Pizza Bowl if we are lucky.

I don't think it's that you're just sitting back doing nothing, it's just there's nothing you can do. You can't make the big bowls contract with you, and honestly the spread out nature of the Big East isn't exactly a good thing when trying to lock your champ into one bowl. Those bowls want schools who are guaranteed to sell tickets, and that's a problem for the Big East. SDSU could probably draw well to the Fiesta Bowl, but probably wouldn't to the Orange Bowl. USF would draw well to the Orange, but probably not the Fiesta. I know I'm pointing out the extreme examples, but that's part of the problem with spreading yourself so thin, and having so few schools known for having traveling fan bases.

Are you suggesting that if the Big East had done an expansion that respected geography rather than chasing BCS points and TV markets that they might have had a shot at working a deal to stay in the big boy club by aligning with the Orange or the soon to be vacant Sugar?

The Big East was always the last team selected by the BCS bowl. In an open system that doesnt require a BCS bowl to commit to taking a Big East champ thier liklihood of holding onto a BCS tie-in was virtually zero.

The Big East did the right thing. They expanded based totally on maximizing TV revenue. That was a viable and acheivable goal. Any expansion designed to get a BCS bowl tie-in was bound to fall short unless it included the additions of Texas and Oklahoma to the Big East.

What I see as the likley solution to overcome the geographic Big East issue is for the conference to simply partner with a strong western bowl and a strong eastern bowl. Essentially, they would negotiate a tie in for the west when a western team wins the BE and one for the east when an eastern team wins the BE. When the BE winner is from the opposite coast, each bowl would have the option of the runner up from the BE championship game (who would be from their side of the nation) or an at large.

(07-06-2012 02:14 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-06-2012 02:02 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-06-2012 01:54 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-06-2012 01:50 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-06-2012 01:44 PM)cardshouse Wrote: [ -> ]Like I said over on the Big East forum...The Big East leadership will sit back and wait for the BIG BOYS to get all of their bowl tie ins....We will get the Pizza Bowl if we are lucky.

I don't think it's that you're just sitting back doing nothing, it's just there's nothing you can do. You can't make the big bowls contract with you, and honestly the spread out nature of the Big East isn't exactly a good thing when trying to lock your champ into one bowl. Those bowls want schools who are guaranteed to sell tickets, and that's a problem for the Big East. SDSU could probably draw well to the Fiesta Bowl, but probably wouldn't to the Orange Bowl. USF would draw well to the Orange, but probably not the Fiesta. I know I'm pointing out the extreme examples, but that's part of the problem with spreading yourself so thin, and having so few schools known for having traveling fan bases.

Are you suggesting that if the Big East had done an expansion that respected geography rather than chasing BCS points and TV markets that they might have had a shot at working a deal to stay in the big boy club by aligning with the Orange or the soon to be vacant Sugar?

Probably not, but I do believe they expanded based on what they system was and then the system changed. There problem always was going to be there are not enough teams with large fan bases who travel that aren't already in power conferences.

BINGO!

Quickest way to kill a conference is to make long-term decisions based on short-term conditions.

It's rank foolishness to try to shape a conference to adjust to things that are constantly in flux. I've used this line before and it is worth repeating. Take away all TV money and bowl money and the odds are that ten years later the Big 10, SEC, and Pac-12 look a lot like they look now. Odds are the ACC looks more like it did a few years ago and the Big XII core stays the same but probably without WVU.

The root core of those leagues is they are institutions that respect each other and WANT to compete against each other.

The key lesson of WAC16 is they failed to respect the fact that AFA, Colorado State, Wyoming, BYU and Utah wanted to play each other every year if they were going to be in the same league. That's why the five met at DIA to outline the Mountain West.

When you cobble up something to exploit today's conditions you run the risk that what you cook up no longer fits.

I agree completely, and anyone could have reasonably seen this would be a problem. The 4 schools they added in the east make sense long term, and are probably schools that would want to be together if money wasn't an issue.

(07-06-2012 02:20 PM)attackfrog Wrote: [ -> ]The Big East did the right thing. They expanded based totally on maximizing TV revenue. That was a viable and acheivable goal.

To be fair, that is yet to be proven. So far the Big East's perception is taking more and more hits with every story that's released. It will be interesting to see that TV deal when it's all said and done.

The Big East is not sitting back doing "nothing". Neither is there "nothing they can do"...well not until they get their TV contract figured out and that can't happen until November. TV will play a role in any bowl tie-in major or not.

(07-06-2012 02:25 PM)blunderbuss Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-06-2012 02:20 PM)attackfrog Wrote: [ -> ]The Big East did the right thing. They expanded based totally on maximizing TV revenue. That was a viable and acheivable goal.

To be fair, that is yet to be proven. So far the Big East's perception is taking more and more hits with every story that's released. It will be interesting to see that TV deal when it's all said and done.

That's because they're approaching negotiations. ESPN will destory the Big East from now until a new contract is signed to lower the Big East's value. Something else is in the works...and the Big East may be able to thank Notre Dame, when it all comes down to it. No, I'm not saying Notre Dame is joining the Big East. It's regarding other things.

(07-06-2012 02:25 PM)blunderbuss Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-06-2012 02:20 PM)attackfrog Wrote: [ -> ]The Big East did the right thing. They expanded based totally on maximizing TV revenue. That was a viable and acheivable goal.

To be fair, that is yet to be proven. So far the Big East's perception is taking more and more hits with every story that's released. It will be interesting to see that TV deal when it's all said and done.

It doesnt matter what the final number is. My point was that they executed the only strategy that was viable. They werent going to get a BCS tie-in. Whatever the final number is---it will be the maximium amont they could have received based upon the schools that were available for them to choose from at the time. They pretty much chose the schools that TV told them to.

(07-06-2012 01:54 PM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-06-2012 01:50 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-06-2012 01:44 PM)cardshouse Wrote: [ -> ]Like I said over on the Big East forum...The Big East leadership will sit back and wait for the BIG BOYS to get all of their bowl tie ins....We will get the Pizza Bowl if we are lucky.

I don't think it's that you're just sitting back doing nothing, it's just there's nothing you can do. You can't make the big bowls contract with you, and honestly the spread out nature of the Big East isn't exactly a good thing when trying to lock your champ into one bowl. Those bowls want schools who are guaranteed to sell tickets, and that's a problem for the Big East. SDSU could probably draw well to the Fiesta Bowl, but probably wouldn't to the Orange Bowl. USF would draw well to the Orange, but probably not the Fiesta. I know I'm pointing out the extreme examples, but that's part of the problem with spreading yourself so thin, and having so few schools known for having traveling fan bases.

Are you suggesting that if the Big East had done an expansion that respected geography rather than chasing BCS points and TV markets that they might have had a shot at working a deal to stay in the big boy club by aligning with the Orange or the soon to be vacant Sugar?

The bowl alliance/BCS status for the Big East was based on Miami being part of the Big East in the late 90s when the ideas were hatched, and Big East 2013 will have only Rutgers and Temple remaining from the 8 teams that made up BE football at the time the "AQ" labels were first handed out. So it's unlikely that any realistic people thought that the BE would be a top dog in the new order.

But they would have a better shot at a good bowl for the BE champ -- not the Orange or Sugar, perhaps, but bowls like the Gator and Outback -- if the bowls knew there was an 80-90% chance of getting a Big East champ within a reasonably-sized geographic area that is near the bowl game. They would still have that possibility with some bowls if Boise and SDSU were not in the mix.

(07-06-2012 02:30 PM)Goldenbuc Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-06-2012 02:25 PM)blunderbuss Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-06-2012 02:20 PM)attackfrog Wrote: [ -> ]The Big East did the right thing. They expanded based totally on maximizing TV revenue. That was a viable and acheivable goal.

To be fair, that is yet to be proven. So far the Big East's perception is taking more and more hits with every story that's released. It will be interesting to see that TV deal when it's all said and done.

That's because they're approaching negotiations. ESPN will destory the Big East from now until a new contract is signed to lower the Big East's value. Something else is in the works...and the Big East may be able to thank Notre Dame, when it all comes down to it. No, I'm not saying Notre Dame is joining the Big East. It's regarding other things.

Despite my utter hate of ESPN, I don't think things are nearly that nefarious. ESPN has a lot of content locked up already. Will SportsCenter focus on the leagues ESPN is tied to? Ask the NHL.

ESPN just doesn't have much incentive to pay big for the Big East except to keep content away from competitors.

If the Big East makes or exceeds its targets it will be driven by the need of Fox, NBCSports, and CBS College to get content.