(12-25-2014 11:07 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-25-2014 02:41 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(12-25-2014 02:23 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-25-2014 10:59 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-24-2014 07:20 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  IMHO, there is nothing wrong with a program focusing itself on basketball, if that is what they want to focus on. All that meant, though, is the other schools had to pursue their own self-interest and not be loyal to a conference that no longer makes sense for them.

This is what gets me about those "We should've been together"-type posts. Coulda, woulda, shoulda. I'm glad my school is in the Big Ten now.

Playing Penn State, Michigan, Ohio State >>>>> Playing SMU, Temple and USF

This. For the Big East to survive they would have needed a major bowl tie as well as a commitment from the fb schools to remain in the BE. But Miami's long term goal was always to get into the ACC. VT and Louisville also expressed a desire to get into a P5 conference. Adding PSU or FSU wouldn't have changed the desires of the Presidents that run these school to rub shoulders with what they consider to be their aspirational peers.

With PSU in the conference in the 90's there's a good chance that there never would have been a successful raid. In fact, there's a chance that the BIG EAST takes FSU, as was talked about after the first raid.

If Miami doesn't jump, the BIG EAST stays a power conference (especially if PSU is in it). Furthermore, there's a good chance that the BIG EAST and ACC end up joint owning the OB. The same is true if you trade PSU for ND.

ahhhh.. The big if. If Arizona and Arizona St wouldn't have left the WAC in 1978 the WAC would be a......if the SWC would've added OU and Nebraska in the 80's....you get my point

...the thread is about speculating what schools could have stabilized the BIG EAST. I'm not sure I follow your point. My interpretation of what you wrote is that I shouldn't speculate about what schools could have stabilized the BIG EAST, which, as noted earlier, is the entire point of the thread.

What if UMass did not turn down the Big East when it was forming. Then Seton Hall would not have been invited. Then you can go down a whole other tangent about the catholics being a minority and UMass could have chose 1A instead of 1AA football.

There are dozens of forks in the road in the history of the Big East. It's so hard to pick a certain point and say, 'If THIS would have happened, the Big East would have survived.'

(12-25-2014 11:39 PM)CoogNellie Wrote:  There are dozens of forks in the road in the history of the Big East. It's so hard to pick a certain point and say, 'If THIS would have happened, the Big East would have survived.'

I disagree. I agree that there are a dozen forks, but I see many of those as blown opportunities. There is no one way. I think that there were several ways. They just never happened.

People say oh if only Penn State would have come on board then the Big East would have been fine, but there is no guarantee that the Big 10 wouldn't have come calling anyways and that PSU wouldn't have just accepted anyways. Time frame may have been different but if ifs and buts were candies and nuts we'd all have a Merry Christmas.

(12-25-2014 11:02 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Anyway, the Big Ten really isn't a good historic fit for PSU. Given the chance to play a very hot Miami, a hot Syracuse (in a brand new stadium), WVU, and Pitt every year during a time when TV money wasn't that big of a deal, I doubt PSU would have had wandering eyes.

The PSU community would have driven then-President Jordan out of town on a rail if he pulled off the Big Ten move with Penn State in a conference with Pittsburgh and Syracuse. The faculty would have preferred the Big Ten, but they're as much in the stands on these subjects as alumni and fans.

Something tells me even with PSU in the Big East, schools peel off. Pitt had Big Ten aspirations. Certain Big East schools saw the conference as a northern arm of the ACC. Miami was obsessed with joining the ACC. VT wanted back with those guys, too. South Carolina found their way back to like-minded institutions, and FSU was not the kind of school to be getting in league with. Army and Navy...even if you have them for football, the topic of hybridization only grows louder. And who knows who never gets their way in.

Villanova...they're always part of this thing, though. Whether it was a school who didn't want PSU, or someone who fought off Temple-types, or only helped to destroy what remained of the conference...they were a linchpin.

(12-26-2014 12:01 AM)CoogNellie Wrote:  People say oh if only Penn State would have come on board then the Big East would have been fine, but there is no guarantee that the Big 10 wouldn't have come calling anyways and that PSU wouldn't have just accepted anyways. Time frame may have been different but if ifs and buts were candies and nuts we'd all have a Merry Christmas.

The Big Ten could call as much as they want but they couldn't have taken PSU. Times were different.

The big east was doomed when Texas agreed to stay in the b12. The only chance the big east had of surviving was Texas, tech, OSU and ok going to p12 and the leftovers merging with the big east. Once that fell through we were doomed.

Could of been the old 8 be schools plus TCU, Kansas, KSU, Baylor, isu and one more, ucf or temple prob. Mizzou was in the original plan but they would of gone to the sec

(12-27-2014 02:48 PM)BullsBEAST Wrote:  The big east was doomed when Texas agreed to stay in the b12. The only chance the big east had of surviving was Texas, tech, OSU and ok going to p12 and the leftovers merging with the big east. Once that fell through we were doomed.

Could of been the old 8 be schools plus TCU, Kansas, KSU, Baylor, isu and one more, ucf or temple prob. Mizzou was in the original plan but they would of gone to the sec

The Big East was doomed from the moment it was formed, because the Big East leadership was clueless about the recipe for long term success in college sports.

(12-23-2014 04:48 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(12-23-2014 04:43 PM)LUcanesfan Wrote:  You say Nova could have changed conference realignment? I'm thinking Penn State changed the dynamics of conference realignment. Everything went down hill for the BE when they denied PSU for not have a stellar b-ball program...

You know what's interesting though? Pitt was in the middle of both decisions. It is my understanding that they didn't want Nova because Nova didn't have a legit FBS stadium... I'm not too sure about how they felt about Penn State at the time of the vote. I cannot remember if they were for or against adding Penn State.

95% sure that they were against.

Pitt was not yet a member of the Big East when Penn State was turned down.

(12-23-2014 05:42 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  Villanova played Division I football until the program was dropped in April 1981. Maryland may have been Villanova’s largest rival from 1970 to 1980, with Maryland beating Villanova 8 out of 10 games. Villanova also played Boston College pretty regularly from 1970 to 1980. It’s amazing how the fortunes of those two Catholic schools have diverged since Villanova dropped football. Today Boston College has a substantially larger endowment and enrollment. I'm sure the success of Boston College's football program has contributed greatly to the school's financial success and popularity.

If you tell a teenager that he can spend four years of his life living a trolley ride away from Boston or four years of his life a train ride and connection away from Philadelphia, how many of those kids are going to pick Philadelphia?

Since 1981, Boston College has lost at least three games every year except 1984. That's hardly a rousing success.

Which of those factors do you think has played a bigger part in endowment and enrollment numbers?

I think the real screwup on the part all of the schools in the Northeast was that they failed to anticipate how important conference affiliations would later become.

There's no question in my mind at the schools like Pitt, Syracuse, West Virginia, Boston College and even Penn State would have all been better served if they had put aside their long-standing differences and formed an all sports conference.

Alas, that simply did not happen for a lot of reasons. I have my opinions about who is most to blame but the truth is there are no white knights in that story, just a lot of shortsighted, self-interested businessmen, none of whom trusted each other as far as they could throw them.

Now, Penn State plays in a league which is culturally centered in Chicago, West Virginia plays in the league that is culturally centered in Texas, and Pitt, Boston College and Syracuse each play in a league that is culturally centered in North Carolina. Also, after nearly a century of playing each other, except in one off home/home series or bowl game match ups, most of those teams no longer play each other regularly, which is ridiculous.

Not a single one of them is better off for having made the decisions they made in the late 70s and early 80s. Now, most of the teams involved in those decisions did ultimately land on their feet. However, you are always better off playing in your own region - as Texas and Oklahoma ultimately concluded when they were invited to join the PAC-10.

(12-28-2014 12:22 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I think the real screwup on the part all of the schools in the Northeast was that they failed to anticipate how important conference affiliations would later become.

There's no question in my mind at the schools like Pitt, Syracuse, West Virginia, Boston College and even Penn State would have all been better served if they had put aside their long-standing differences and formed an all sports conference.

Alas, that simply did not happen for a lot of reasons. I have my opinions about who is most to blame but the truth is there are no white knights in that story, just a lot of shortsighted, self-interested businessmen, none of whom trusted each other as far as they could throw them.

Now, Penn State plays in a league which is culturally centered in Chicago, West Virginia plays in the league that is culturally centered in Texas, and Pitt, Boston College and Syracuse each play in a league that is culturally centered in North Carolina. Not a single one of them is better off for having made the decisions they made in the late 70s and early 80s.

I really enjoy your insights on this subject. The Big East is as interesting as the SWC to me.

While we're at it... how about in the Big 8 era, when Arkansas begged to be let into the Big 8 to escape the SW Conf and Texas... the Big 8 said no... if they had said yes and gone to 9...

(12-27-2014 03:07 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The Big East was doomed from the moment it was formed, because the Big East leadership was clueless about the recipe for long term success in college sports.

That's not fair. The Big East was a perfect entity for its members when it was formed for the era in which it was formed. Seton Hall, St. Johns, Providence, UConn, Villanova, and Georgetown were never going to be football powerhouses but they all made a Final Four within a decade of the conference's founding.

I'm curious about what would have happened if the non-football schools refused to admit Miami, Virginia Tech, Rutgers, and West Virginia. The league may have split at that point, but the remaining non-football league would have been a much healthier conference than the hybrid that we have talked so much about.

(12-28-2014 09:51 AM)OneSockUp Wrote:  

(12-27-2014 03:07 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The Big East was doomed from the moment it was formed, because the Big East leadership was clueless about the recipe for long term success in college sports.

That's not fair. The Big East was a perfect entity for its members when it was formed for the era in which it was formed. Seton Hall, St. Johns, Providence, UConn, Villanova, and Georgetown were never going to be football powerhouses but they all made a Final Four within a decade of the conference's founding.

I'm curious about what would have happened if the non-football schools refused to admit Miami, Virginia Tech, Rutgers, and West Virginia. The league may have split at that point, but the remaining non-football league would have been a much healthier conference than the hybrid that we have talked so much about.

You're looking at the short term benefit for a few schools, while ignoring the long term aspect of the situation. Sure it helped a few schools for a short while. But those days are gone now, never to return. That tends to back up my statement. The Big East is now on the level of the Atlantic 10 without football.

The Big East was doomed from the start, since it was formed by short sighted people without a clue about the full spectrum of sports. All they knew was basketball, which by the time the Big East was formed had lost its place as the dominant college sport, both in viewers and financially. IMO it was equivalent to buying an Edsel when they came out. Only an idiot bought one.

(12-28-2014 12:53 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-28-2014 09:51 AM)OneSockUp Wrote:  

(12-27-2014 03:07 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The Big East was doomed from the moment it was formed, because the Big East leadership was clueless about the recipe for long term success in college sports.

That's not fair. The Big East was a perfect entity for its members when it was formed for the era in which it was formed. Seton Hall, St. Johns, Providence, UConn, Villanova, and Georgetown were never going to be football powerhouses but they all made a Final Four within a decade of the conference's founding.

I'm curious about what would have happened if the non-football schools refused to admit Miami, Virginia Tech, Rutgers, and West Virginia. The league may have split at that point, but the remaining non-football league would have been a much healthier conference than the hybrid that we have talked so much about.

You're looking at the short term benefit for a few schools, while ignoring the long term aspect of the situation. Sure it helped a few schools for a short while. But those days are gone now, never to return. That tends to back up my statement. The Big East is now on the level of the Atlantic 10 without football.

The Big East was doomed from the start, since it was formed by short sighted people without a clue about the full spectrum of sports. All they knew was basketball, which by the time the Big East was formed had lost its place as the dominant college sport, both in viewers and financially. IMO it was equivalent to buying an Edsel when they came out. Only an idiot bought one.

Yes, we basketball-centric schools were doomed from the start by clueless leadership to become the greatest basketball conference in the history of the sport.

(12-28-2014 04:06 PM)billyjack Wrote:  

(12-28-2014 12:53 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-28-2014 09:51 AM)OneSockUp Wrote:  

(12-27-2014 03:07 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The Big East was doomed from the moment it was formed, because the Big East leadership was clueless about the recipe for long term success in college sports.

That's not fair. The Big East was a perfect entity for its members when it was formed for the era in which it was formed. Seton Hall, St. Johns, Providence, UConn, Villanova, and Georgetown were never going to be football powerhouses but they all made a Final Four within a decade of the conference's founding.

I'm curious about what would have happened if the non-football schools refused to admit Miami, Virginia Tech, Rutgers, and West Virginia. The league may have split at that point, but the remaining non-football league would have been a much healthier conference than the hybrid that we have talked so much about.

You're looking at the short term benefit for a few schools, while ignoring the long term aspect of the situation. Sure it helped a few schools for a short while. But those days are gone now, never to return. That tends to back up my statement. The Big East is now on the level of the Atlantic 10 without football.

The Big East was doomed from the start, since it was formed by short sighted people without a clue about the full spectrum of sports. All they knew was basketball, which by the time the Big East was formed had lost its place as the dominant college sport, both in viewers and financially. IMO it was equivalent to buying an Edsel when they came out. Only an idiot bought one.

Yes, we basketball-centric schools were doomed from the start by clueless leadership to become the greatest basketball conference in the history of the sport.

Exactly. You will see the full result of that ignorant shortsightedness in the very near future.

The glory days for Providence and the other original Big East remnants are over. The fall has begun, and will only continue as the monetary differential widens.

For the record, mine was definitely not trolling and nor was it revisionism at all. You may not like what I have to say but that does not make me a troll.

I think people are missing the broader point here. I agree that schools like Pitt, West Virginia, Syracuse and Rutgers always knew that Villanova moving up was a distinct possibility for all of the reasons listed earlier in this thread.

However, by 2010, the college football climate had dramatically changed and had become much more predatory and cutthroat than it had been prior to that. Mike Tranghese referenced that sea change himself when responding to the 2003 defections of Miami and Virginia Tech to the ACC.

By 2010, I think the consensus was that Connecticut probably should not have moved up but that they had snuck in under the rail and it was their right to do so. However, I think the consensus was also that Villanova had missed its window of opportunity as the power pendulum had swayed heavily in the football schools' direction. The cold truth is that though schools like Georgetown and Providence helped found the league, and helped make it the very best college basketball league any of us has ever seen, by 2010 they were no longer equal partners, but rather junior partners to schools like West Virginia and Louisville. Many of the admin's and fans of those schools still refuse to admit that stone cold reality but it's completely undeniable.

That is what made the league unstable in the first place. The people who had long been calling all the shots were no longer the primary money producers. That never works.

That is why when word began to circulate that Villanova was being considered for the 10th and final spot, emotions grew very raw very quickly. However, that wasn't what ultimately broke open the dam. What broke the dam was that Villanova clearly had no plan to invest heavily in the sport like Connecticut had a decade before. I am not guessing here. I am telling you that was the dealbreaker, certainly for the University of Pittsburgh, and I would surmise many other members too.

Also, I do agree with Frank's assertion that Rutgers still would have left for the Big Ten and Pitt and Syracuse still would've left for the ACC, once those invites came. However, Paco is absolutely right in his claim that the battle over Villanova football's inclusion in the league is definitely what caused Pitt to actively seek conference affiliation elsewhere. Of that I have no doubt.

One final point that I would like to make. I also agree with the poster who earlier stated that he thought Villanova had intentionally screwed up it's move up to FBS football.

I could not agree more. I don't think Villanova wanted anything to do with playing FBS football and was only doing it to appease it's longtime friends and partners and to keep alive what had long since become a broken marriage.

I truly believe that with the notable exceptions of USF, Cincinnati and Connecticut, all of the schools involved are better off now than they were at the end of the Big East 2.0.

I still maintain that everyone would have been best served if the Catholic schools had stayed as one collective unit all along and the northeastern all sports playing schools had formed a league of their own in the early 80s. However, that is ultimately not what happened and there is no use crying over spilled milk.

Truthfully, though I knew that Pitt had to take the ACC's offer for survival purposes, I always felt lamentive and somewhat guilty about it... Until I watched the ESPN 30/30 "Requiem for the Big East."

Don't get me wrong, it is my firm belief that no school let down the Big East more than the University of Pittsburgh. The Big East was grandfathered into the BCS because of schools like Pitt, which had been great in the past on a national level. 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. Even Syracuse had a great run there in the middle of the Big East football league. Pitt did not have such a run as members of the Big East football conference and that badly hurt the league's credibility as a big-time college football conference.

However, upon seeing that film, and getting a real behind the scenes look at how the league's key decision-makers saw college athletics and the teams within the Big East, that is when I became convinced that we were absolutely best served doing what we finally did.

Those guys were definitely everything I had feared. Like many other great organizations before them, the Big East had become backwards looking and instead of trying to figure out how to compete under the new paradigm, they seemed more interested in trying to re-create the circumstances that allowed them to compete in the 1980s and 90s.

Rather than taking their natural resources and running with them, they seemed more intent on making sure that the success of schools like Louisville and Cincinnati would not hinder "the original members."

That film made it clear that those schools always considered themselves "the core" of the league and always saw everyone other than the original members as interlopers and a means to an end. We had been members of that league since 1982 and it was made clear in that film that even as recently as 2013, we were never seen as one of the gang. That was very disappointing and reason enough to bid them adieu without any guilt whatsoever.