You sound like an a-hole so I will just be blunt.

If you think you are a big deal in Philly (or anywhere else), YOU are clueless.

You act like a big shot. How many teams except Temple have been asked to LEAVE a conference?

You think you can beat Villanova? Try beating Fordham first.

Use JV all you like, you and UMass can sit around you're own little circle jerk acting like something you're not, a major college football team.

Give it up. Temple is as JV as it gets.

The last 3 games, we have beaten Nova 114-41 so yeah, I think we can beat them. If we're JV, what is William & Mary?

You are an "FBS" program fan bragging about victories over FCS programs.

W&M, Villanova, Delaware, Fordham, etc don't pretend to be something they're not - all who have recent and/or numerous wins at Temple.

Sadly, Temple does and you actually believe it.

You beat us in 1998 and Delaware beat us last in 1985. Is that recently? Since we're so bad, why are those programs not playing FBS football?

I'm not sure what we're pretending to be. We have to have one of the most grounded fanbases in the country.

(01-01-2015 12:17 PM)Sitting bull Wrote:  

(12-30-2014 12:41 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(12-29-2014 06:54 AM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  Whether or not Penn State joined the Big East or not would not change history. Every President of a University wants to build a legacy. Brice Jordan wanted his to be getting into the Big 10. That was going to happen even if Penn State had joined the Big East. The academic and athletic prestige of the Big 10 trumped all else.

You know, I would have loved to have seen how it would have panned out if PSU got the votes. Would Bryce have backed off and moved on elsewhere? Go rogue and pull them out of the BE and into the B10? Do one of the Big East schools go to the Big Ten, or does the Big Ten look to the Big 8? Is there any growth at all, and we see some stability that forces conferences like the Big Ten and PAC to come down from their pedestals and work with the others to iron out a playoff system?

The PSU-Big Ten move definitely shaped how things are today. How could expanding the conference eastward by one state do that? Cultural shifting. Athletic shifting. The end of round-robin and yearly traditions on both sides. It all changed after this one, and it made the absurd completely possible, if not necessary.

Quote:UCONN and Villanova would have never, ever, ever been a consideration for this eastern conference. The only reason UCONN even has a Div1 FB program is due to the ineptitude of the BE FB conference.

Had VU actually wanted to upgrade or was run by competent administrators, VU could have helped pave the way for more programs to explore FBS as FCS wallows in obscurity. We could have seen a chance for something more regional, too, instead of these massive conferences, the AAC, of which, almost wound up going coast to coast.

Villanova could not afford this. They already had to ditch the program in the 80s due to the cost. Smaller universities don't have the money (maybe better accounting staffs) than these foolish moves by so many other universities (Hello, UMass!)

FCS doesn't operate in obscurity, the bowels of FBS do. I for one know Nova had a good team and went to the playoffs as do many in the football world. I couldn't tell you anything about what kind of season Temple had - or even what conference they play in now.

FCS also gets to play their games on weekends instead of those ridiculous Tuesday night games on ESPN. Now that's obscurity.

I'm located in SEPA, and it takes some work to find Villanova games around here. Only the home ones could be on, and honestly, I have a far easier time finding Lehigh and Lafayette games, as the local Fox and Comcast stations cover any number of different programs, including other CAA teams, Penn, and other FBS spillover.

Trust me, Villanova can run a FBS football program. Just because the township won't let them have a top-level sports arena, the money's there. The problem is all the leadership. They utterly refuse to let basketball play second to anything there. The current AD is an extension of the Order, and if he waffles on football or fails to promote the sport while basketball is plastered everywhere, that's because of the view from the top. But, just because they could doesn't mean they should. And by the looks at leadership, they are choosing wisely, even if putting money on basketball to keep their name relevant isn't.

I'd feel bad for a guy like Coach Talley, because it seems like the school gave him the green light to say they were going FBS a few years ago. Then, VU presented that comedy they called a plan. The guy lost a lot of his verbals, and not only did he go silent on the subject, he wasn't always at certain events, and even the AD refused the answer questions on the matter. He should have told Villanova to take a hike after that and cashed in on some deserved retirement. I guess that's what being a good guy is like, though...he's doing what he's doing for a reason, even if so many can't understand why he continues to at a place that clearly didn't have his back when it should have. They certainly won't honor his legacy there...the ball isn't the same shape as the one they worship there.

Maybe one answer is that FCS provides an answer for schools like Villanova.

FBS isn't for everybody. It takes a lot of money to truly compete and the stakes are growing higher each year. If you are on the bottom end (MAC, Sunbelt, CUSA, etc), you have to almost prostitute the program to subsist - moving games off campus (UMass, PLC even discussed as a "solution" for Villanova), playing games on weeknights for needed cash flow and joining conferences that are spread across the country with few if any rivalries. All just to be FBS.

You also endanger a winning tradition/program into something that becomes the butt of jokes (Idaho, UMass). I think this is one of the reasons Montana and Delaware have spurned any moves up. Why not compete for a national championship and keep some pride in the program rather than throw it aside to be in the Sun Belt or some other conference?

I watched W&M get reclassified just as Villanova later re emerged from a previous life, going down to 1-AA as they called it then. Neither school has the fan base to really compete in FBS to start with (the real FBS, not those at the low end drawing 10-20,000 as "FBS" teams). Over time, it has been a positive, not a negative. Both schools have a winning tradition now, are upgrading facilities (W&M now updating and expanding their on campus stadium) and play in leagues that make geographic sense and have opponents of interest.

We just watched one FBS school, UAB, give it up. Some blamed Alabama - the problem though was support. They drew crowds that were FCS level trying to support an FBS program. The Richmond VA paper earlier this year wrote an article about JMU's flirtation with FBS as a "fools errand" for many of the same reasons mentioned above.

I don't doubt any of the politics you mention but if I was running Villanova, I certainly wouldn't want my name tied to rolling the dice as Villanova was discussing on football. It sounded like a disaster waiting to happen and unlike some State schools, you just can't pass the cost off to the taxpayer. When your solution includes playing games at an off campus soccer stadium and depending on your opponents to fill it (or that suddenly the casual fan was going to now be energized to see Nova play Rutgers instead of Delaware), you are taking a huge risk for minimal payback.

(01-01-2015 11:12 PM)Sitting bull Wrote:  You also endanger a winning tradition/program into something that becomes the butt of jokes (Idaho, UMass). I think this is one of the reasons Montana and Delaware have spurned any moves up. Why not compete for a national championship and keep some pride in the program rather than throw it aside to be in the Sun Belt or some other conference?

I don't doubt any of the politics you mention but if I was running Villanova, I certainly wouldn't want my name tied to rolling the dice as Villanova was discussing on football. It sounded like a disaster waiting to happen and unlike some State schools, you just can't pass the cost off to the taxpayer. When your solution includes playing games at an off campus soccer stadium and depending on your opponents to fill it (or that suddenly the casual fan was going to now be energized to see Nova play Rutgers instead of Delaware), you are taking a huge risk for minimal payback.

There's a lot of speculation that Villanova and William & Mary are just waiting for something to happen either in the CAA or the lifting of the Patriot's academic qualifiers to leave it and join PL. CAA is definitely not in the greatest place, and I think, for a conference that's probably one of, if not the best FCS conference, shows the kind of instability and cause for concern at that level. It has little giants and successful small programs, but it's as much a leap-pad as anywhere else sub-P5, further inhibited by minimal media exposure.

And it's not like even the Patriot is that much better a landing spot. Even with the Ivy League rub, the schools needed to offer scholarships to their athletes, and enough so that certain schools would remain in the conference. Not forgetting that the conference felt it needed the likes of Loyola and Boston to "enhance" its athletics.

I don't know what Villanova should have done about football. It isn't even like the soccer stadium was their best option. It sort of emerged as the logical "right fit," because it was in the same county, had the venue really anxious for that tenant, and fit the bill for overall size (it would have had to expand from its current capacity, though). The Linc was off the table, Franklin Field, which was probably the actual best option, brought with it the stigma of being another school's stadium, so it was chucked, and CB Park was just ludicrous. There were plenty of ways to turn down the offer if the school really wasn't interested...they messed up even doing that.

(01-02-2015 10:24 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 11:12 PM)Sitting bull Wrote:  You also endanger a winning tradition/program into something that becomes the butt of jokes (Idaho, UMass). I think this is one of the reasons Montana and Delaware have spurned any moves up. Why not compete for a national championship and keep some pride in the program rather than throw it aside to be in the Sun Belt or some other conference?

I don't doubt any of the politics you mention but if I was running Villanova, I certainly wouldn't want my name tied to rolling the dice as Villanova was discussing on football. It sounded like a disaster waiting to happen and unlike some State schools, you just can't pass the cost off to the taxpayer. When your solution includes playing games at an off campus soccer stadium and depending on your opponents to fill it (or that suddenly the casual fan was going to now be energized to see Nova play Rutgers instead of Delaware), you are taking a huge risk for minimal payback.

There's a lot of speculation that Villanova and William & Mary are just waiting for something to happen either in the CAA or the lifting of the Patriot's academic qualifiers to leave it and join PL. CAA is definitely not in the greatest place, and I think, for a conference that's probably one of, if not the best FCS conference, shows the kind of instability and cause for concern at that level. It has little giants and successful small programs, but it's as much a leap-pad as anywhere else sub-P5, further inhibited by minimal media exposure.

And it's not like even the Patriot is that much better a landing spot. Even with the Ivy League rub, the schools needed to offer scholarships to their athletes, and enough so that certain schools would remain in the conference. Not forgetting that the conference felt it needed the likes of Loyola and Boston to "enhance" its athletics.

I don't know what Villanova should have done about football. It isn't even like the soccer stadium was their best option. It sort of emerged as the logical "right fit," because it was in the same county, had the venue really anxious for that tenant, and fit the bill for overall size (it would have had to expand from its current capacity, though). The Linc was off the table, Franklin Field, which was probably the actual best option, brought with it the stigma of being another school's stadium, so it was chucked, and CB Park was just ludicrous. There were plenty of ways to turn down the offer if the school really wasn't interested...they messed up even doing that.

Cant speak for Villanova, but W&M is very happy with the CAA (in fact, has worked hard with Delaware on the league's development). It has evolved into the top if not one of the top 3 leagues in FCS. It has a stable group of schools and geographic concentration, Maine to the Carolinas, a smaller but similar footprint with the ACC.

The Patriot is a nice league as well though has some limitations - some now being loosened. While you can certainly argue that Villanova and W&M would consider the Patriot as a fall back, that would have to involve a doomsday with the current CAA which is not happening now or in the future. For either to move to the Patriot would be like asking someone from the ACC to move over to CUSA.

Given a possible realignment that separates the P5, it is entirely possible that the low end of FBS and the upper tier of FCS (CAA, Missouri Valley, Big Sky) join together in a new style of FCS. That possibility is one separation point, CAA and Patriot.

(01-01-2015 11:12 PM)Sitting bull Wrote:  Maybe one answer is that FCS provides an answer for schools like Villanova.

FBS isn't for everybody. It takes a lot of money to truly compete and the stakes are growing higher each year. If you are on the bottom end (MAC, Sunbelt, CUSA, etc), you have to almost prostitute the program to subsist - moving games off campus (UMass, PLC even discussed as a "solution" for Villanova), playing games on weeknights for needed cash flow and joining conferences that are spread across the country with few if any rivalries. All just to be FBS.

You also endanger a winning tradition/program into something that becomes the butt of jokes (Idaho, UMass). I think this is one of the reasons Montana and Delaware have spurned any moves up. Why not compete for a national championship and keep some pride in the program rather than throw it aside to be in the Sun Belt or some other conference?

I watched W&M get reclassified just as Villanova later re emerged from a previous life, going down to 1-AA as they called it then. Neither school has the fan base to really compete in FBS to start with (the real FBS, not those at the low end drawing 10-20,000 as "FBS" teams). Over time, it has been a positive, not a negative. Both schools have a winning tradition now, are upgrading facilities (W&M now updating and expanding their on campus stadium) and play in leagues that make geographic sense and have opponents of interest.

We just watched one FBS school, UAB, give it up. Some blamed Alabama - the problem though was support. They drew crowds that were FCS level trying to support an FBS program. The Richmond VA paper earlier this year wrote an article about JMU's flirtation with FBS as a "fools errand" for many of the same reasons mentioned above.

I don't doubt any of the politics you mention but if I was running Villanova, I certainly wouldn't want my name tied to rolling the dice as Villanova was discussing on football. It sounded like a disaster waiting to happen and unlike some State schools, you just can't pass the cost off to the taxpayer. When your solution includes playing games at an off campus soccer stadium and depending on your opponents to fill it (or that suddenly the casual fan was going to now be energized to see Nova play Rutgers instead of Delaware), you are taking a huge risk for minimal payback.

Sitting Bull, your smart people over W&M. FCS does not have the average revenue stream of 18.6 Million of CFP to each of the G5 conferences. FCS is in trouble and as the P5 have separated, the G5 will start separating after stipends.

For your comments about UMass and the butt jokes and playing at Gillette. There is pain in moving up and like any good organization we make changes. Molnar was fired and Whipple was hired. Don't you'll see any more jokes. A lot depends on Fro staying health, but would expect use to be bowling next year.

Regarding Gillette, McGuirk was built in 1965 and the press box was not FBS ready. We were forced to play at Gillette. In the final two years of the contract, we will be playing a majority of games on campus.

(01-03-2015 12:01 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 11:12 PM)Sitting bull Wrote:  Maybe one answer is that FCS provides an answer for schools like Villanova.

FBS isn't for everybody. It takes a lot of money to truly compete and the stakes are growing higher each year. If you are on the bottom end (MAC, Sunbelt, CUSA, etc), you have to almost prostitute the program to subsist - moving games off campus (UMass, PLC even discussed as a "solution" for Villanova), playing games on weeknights for needed cash flow and joining conferences that are spread across the country with few if any rivalries. All just to be FBS.

You also endanger a winning tradition/program into something that becomes the butt of jokes (Idaho, UMass). I think this is one of the reasons Montana and Delaware have spurned any moves up. Why not compete for a national championship and keep some pride in the program rather than throw it aside to be in the Sun Belt or some other conference?

I watched W&M get reclassified just as Villanova later re emerged from a previous life, going down to 1-AA as they called it then. Neither school has the fan base to really compete in FBS to start with (the real FBS, not those at the low end drawing 10-20,000 as "FBS" teams). Over time, it has been a positive, not a negative. Both schools have a winning tradition now, are upgrading facilities (W&M now updating and expanding their on campus stadium) and play in leagues that make geographic sense and have opponents of interest.

We just watched one FBS school, UAB, give it up. Some blamed Alabama - the problem though was support. They drew crowds that were FCS level trying to support an FBS program. The Richmond VA paper earlier this year wrote an article about JMU's flirtation with FBS as a "fools errand" for many of the same reasons mentioned above.

I don't doubt any of the politics you mention but if I was running Villanova, I certainly wouldn't want my name tied to rolling the dice as Villanova was discussing on football. It sounded like a disaster waiting to happen and unlike some State schools, you just can't pass the cost off to the taxpayer. When your solution includes playing games at an off campus soccer stadium and depending on your opponents to fill it (or that suddenly the casual fan was going to now be energized to see Nova play Rutgers instead of Delaware), you are taking a huge risk for minimal payback.

Sitting Bull, your smart people over W&M. FCS does not have the average revenue stream of 18.6 Million of CFP to each of the G5 conferences. FCS is in trouble and as the P5 have separated, the G5 will start separating after stipends.

For your comments about UMass and the butt jokes and playing at Gillette. There is pain in moving up and like any good organization we make changes. Molnar was fired and Whipple was hired. Don't you'll see any more jokes. A lot depends on Fro staying health, but would expect use to be bowling next year.

Regarding Gillette, McGuirk was built in 1965 and the press box was not FBS ready. We were forced to play at Gillette. In the final two years of the contract, we will be playing a majority of games on campus.

I disagree with you there. FCS isn't in trouble, it's the bottom end of FBS (i.e., UAB) and it's going to get worse.

Schools in FCS aren't trying to compete with the likes of the Big 10, SEC, etc. They don't need the money you talk about to keep pace with the really big boys. They aren't cutting sports programs like many in FBS. They aren't farming out games to ESPN so they can play in front of 5,000 fans on a Tuesday night. They stay locked in conferences that are regional and don't bust budgets to send field hockey teams a thousand miles away for a match.

Look what UMass has had to do just to make the move. Move games two hours off campus and join a league where your closest rival was Buffalo. I'm not sure who the beneficiary was, certainly not the students. And based on gate attendance, there has not been any groundswell of new interest in UMass football with the move. Could be wrong, but I think the largest (or one of them) crowd ever was a CAA game played at Gilette vs. UNH. As far as McGuirk (have been there and like it), I don't think any home game since the FBS move has come close to any records there either.

Meanwhile, UNH is expanding their stadium and developing a pretty solid football reputation.

It's just my opinion but I think it was a big risk for UMass and the jury is still out, though there have been plenty of warning signs. So far it has come across like a foolish endeavor. Unless they can find a home for the program - one that has some regional interest to the fans - it's going to be a tough road for the price paid.

In the end, I respect that any move is the schools decision. They can have any number of reasons for it. I just don't think it's legitimate to go through what you have been through and then tell everyone FCS is in trouble. It's just not.

(01-01-2015 12:15 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Good comments from several people here. I think it was inevitable that the independents BC, Syracuse, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Va Tech, Ga Tech, Florida State and Miami were all going to end up in (a) power conference(s).

I also agree that had some form of EAC been formed early enough, and had it included Penn State, Notre Dame and Florida State, that would have killed the ACC as a football conference.

There was exactly ZERO chance of that. ND had no interest in such a thing at all.

(01-03-2015 05:05 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 12:15 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Good comments from several people here. I think it was inevitable that the independents BC, Syracuse, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Va Tech, Ga Tech, Florida State and Miami were all going to end up in (a) power conference(s).

I also agree that had some form of EAC been formed early enough, and had it included Penn State, Notre Dame and Florida State, that would have killed the ACC as a football conference.

There was exactly ZERO chance of that. ND had no interest in such a thing at all.

No one is saying that ND would have joined the Big East. My original point was that Notre Dame is the only team that COULD have saved the Big East. It would have involved Notre Dame taking a good deal but not the best deal they could have received. The only way Notre Dame is ever joining a conference is if no one would accept them into league, unless it was for all sports. The Big East and the A10 would both bend over backwards to take Notre Dame, so there is, as you say, zero chance of Notre Dame having to join a conference for football.

(01-03-2015 05:17 PM)UpStreamRedTeam Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 05:05 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 12:15 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Good comments from several people here. I think it was inevitable that the independents BC, Syracuse, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Va Tech, Ga Tech, Florida State and Miami were all going to end up in (a) power conference(s).

I also agree that had some form of EAC been formed early enough, and had it included Penn State, Notre Dame and Florida State, that would have killed the ACC as a football conference.

There was exactly ZERO chance of that. ND had no interest in such a thing at all.

No one is saying that ND would have joined the Big East. My original point was that Notre Dame is the only team that COULD have saved the Big East. It would have involved Notre Dame taking a good deal but not the best deal they could have received. The only way Notre Dame is ever joining a conference is if no one would accept them into league, unless it was for all sports. The Big East and the A10 would both bend over backwards to take Notre Dame, so there is, as you say, zero chance of Notre Dame having to join a conference for football.

I understood your scenario. My question is what reason would ND have had to give away or lessen an advantageous position to help "save" the Big East in the first place?

It looks like in retrospect most people agree that the Big East wasn't really worth "saving" and was really a "dead man walking" anyway. Most old BE schools have found more advantageous homes themselves.


1) Why would ND have considered joining a football conference in the 1995-2010 time frame and

2) If it did, why would it have picked the Big East instead of, say, the ACC?

(01-04-2015 09:56 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 05:17 PM)UpStreamRedTeam Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 05:05 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 12:15 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Good comments from several people here. I think it was inevitable that the independents BC, Syracuse, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Va Tech, Ga Tech, Florida State and Miami were all going to end up in (a) power conference(s).

I also agree that had some form of EAC been formed early enough, and had it included Penn State, Notre Dame and Florida State, that would have killed the ACC as a football conference.

There was exactly ZERO chance of that. ND had no interest in such a thing at all.

No one is saying that ND would have joined the Big East. My original point was that Notre Dame is the only team that COULD have saved the Big East. It would have involved Notre Dame taking a good deal but not the best deal they could have received. The only way Notre Dame is ever joining a conference is if no one would accept them into league, unless it was for all sports. The Big East and the A10 would both bend over backwards to take Notre Dame, so there is, as you say, zero chance of Notre Dame having to join a conference for football.

I understood your scenario. My question is what reason would ND have had to give away or lessen an advantageous position to help "save" the Big East in the first place?

It looks like in retrospect most people agree that the Big East wasn't really worth "saving" and was really a "dead man walking" anyway. Most old BE schools have found more advantageous homes themselves.


1) Why would ND have considered joining a football conference in the 1995-2010 time frame and

2) If it did, why would it have picked the Big East instead of, say, the ACC?

I passionately disagree. The 90's BIG EAST was awesome. Lose Temple and add in PSU and ND and it is arguably the strongest conference in the land with a number of fantastic rivalries.

(01-04-2015 09:56 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 05:17 PM)UpStreamRedTeam Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 05:05 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 12:15 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Good comments from several people here. I think it was inevitable that the independents BC, Syracuse, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Va Tech, Ga Tech, Florida State and Miami were all going to end up in (a) power conference(s).

I also agree that had some form of EAC been formed early enough, and had it included Penn State, Notre Dame and Florida State, that would have killed the ACC as a football conference.

There was exactly ZERO chance of that. ND had no interest in such a thing at all.

No one is saying that ND would have joined the Big East. My original point was that Notre Dame is the only team that COULD have saved the Big East. It would have involved Notre Dame taking a good deal but not the best deal they could have received. The only way Notre Dame is ever joining a conference is if no one would accept them into league, unless it was for all sports. The Big East and the A10 would both bend over backwards to take Notre Dame, so there is, as you say, zero chance of Notre Dame having to join a conference for football.

I understood your scenario. My question is what reason would ND have had to give away or lessen an advantageous position to help "save" the Big East in the first place?

It looks like in retrospect most people agree that the Big East wasn't really worth "saving" and was really a "dead man walking" anyway. Most old BE schools have found more advantageous homes themselves.


1) Why would ND have considered joining a football conference in the 1995-2010 time frame and

2) If it did, why would it have picked the Big East instead of, say, the ACC?

1) The only reason would be out of a sense of gratitude for the Big East providing a place for Notre Dame's other sports a place where they could thrive. I think you have to admit that Notre Dame's Olympic sports did very well for themselves during their time in the Big East.

2) Before the first ACC raid the Big East was better in football and basketball.

(01-03-2015 02:03 PM)Sitting bull Wrote:  I disagree with you there. FCS isn't in trouble, it's the bottom end of FBS (i.e., UAB) and it's going to get worse.

Schools in FCS aren't trying to compete with the likes of the Big 10, SEC, etc. They don't need the money you talk about to keep pace with the really big boys. They aren't cutting sports programs like many in FBS. They aren't farming out games to ESPN so they can play in front of 5,000 fans on a Tuesday night. They stay locked in conferences that are regional and don't bust budgets to send field hockey teams a thousand miles away for a match.

I don't agree. There may not be quality at the bottom of FBS, but given the line waiting to get in, business is good enough. Also, how is it that those at the bottom, the Georgia Southern's, Appy State's, Old Dominion's, and UMass' of FBS, are trash, but what made FCS conferences like SoCon and CAA treasure?

FCS is very unstable. That word may be more appropriate than "troubled." It doesn't help any of those conferences that one or two schools could literally cripple them and shoot them right down into the power standings. Like SoCon. CAA's on the precipice I think, and that's as much because of James Madison as it is the pettiness of schools like Hofstra, Drexel, and Northeastern, as it is inheriting the mess that was the A10's football operations. Missouri Valley...Missouri State and Illinois State wouldn't make FBS any better...their losses would be immediate and potentially irreplaceable on the FCS scale; at the very least, at the expense of another conference.

I also think that some of these schools at the FCS level definitely fight for some of the same FBS kids, though not many and obviously not as successfully. The name on the gates definitely enter the conversation with some of those institutions, W&M and Villanova included.

If the OP suggests that Nova could have saved the old Big East by joining... its a flawed premise. Nova WAS invited, and they basically DID accept, at least in the context of bringing forward their 'plan'. To be honest, in my naiveté back then I wasn't totally against Nova upgrading as a current BE member school, in that I really loved the old Big East (it was a GOOD conference), and it would have somewhat fixed the BB versus FB hybrid situation. But I assumed they would have upgraded PPL to 35K, or some similar reasonable plan. The anti-Nova crowd were right back then... the were not serious and their plan (an un-upgraded PPL) was a joke. My mistake.

Reality is that TCU was the only 'real' add, to fix the football situation. Nova was a compromise with the BB schools, and THAT was the end of the Big East.

As others pointed out, schools would certainly have still left, no matter who was added. The only think that could have saved the Big East was taking the ESPN deal. There would still be a conference. May have changed a few members out, but it would clearly be the #6 conference.

I think that a lot of this depends on how you envision the BIG EAST. I see the BIG EAST as it existed in the 90's as what would be "saved." Then adding PSU and ND are the answers, and adding fb schools sooner would have also helped. If you see the BIG EAST as it existed in the 80's as the conference that would be saved, then there is no need to make any additional adds. The spirit of the 80's BIG EAST is alive and well in the new conference with the same name. If you see the BIG EAST as it existed after the raid as the conference to be saved, I think that bringing UCF into the fold earlier and cultivating them into a power team would not have kept any schools from leaving, but it might have given the American a chance to exist as a true tweener conference (especially if it was enough to keep BSU and SDSU). If you see the BIG EAST as the American, then I think that the conference needs to add any school that adds geographic cohesion and cultural identity in order to last in the long term.

(01-04-2015 02:02 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 02:03 PM)Sitting bull Wrote:  I disagree with you there. FCS isn't in trouble, it's the bottom end of FBS (i.e., UAB) and it's going to get worse.

Schools in FCS aren't trying to compete with the likes of the Big 10, SEC, etc. They don't need the money you talk about to keep pace with the really big boys. They aren't cutting sports programs like many in FBS. They aren't farming out games to ESPN so they can play in front of 5,000 fans on a Tuesday night. They stay locked in conferences that are regional and don't bust budgets to send field hockey teams a thousand miles away for a match.

I don't agree. There may not be quality at the bottom of FBS, but given the line waiting to get in, business is good enough. Also, how is it that those at the bottom, the Georgia Southern's, Appy State's, Old Dominion's, and UMass' of FBS, are trash, but what made FCS conferences like SoCon and CAA treasure?

FCS is very unstable. That word may be more appropriate than "troubled." It doesn't help any of those conferences that one or two schools could literally cripple them and shoot them right down into the power standings. Like SoCon. CAA's on the precipice I think, and that's as much because of James Madison as it is the pettiness of schools like Hofstra, Drexel, and Northeastern, as it is inheriting the mess that was the A10's football operations. Missouri Valley...Missouri State and Illinois State wouldn't make FBS any better...their losses would be immediate and potentially irreplaceable on the FCS scale; at the very least, at the expense of another conference.

I also think that some of these schools at the FCS level definitely fight for some of the same FBS kids, though not many and obviously not as successfully. The name on the gates definitely enter the conversation with some of those institutions, W&M and Villanova included.

That's kind of my point. UMass as example was a force, pretty successful on every level in CAA football. A treasure if you want to call it that. Not sure if the MAC considered them that or vice versa. They won a national championship. They had solid rivalries with UNH, Delaware, Maine, Holy Cross. They drew near capacity crowds at Amherst. How would you describe their status today?

On conference stability, none seem to be any more unstable to me than the bottom end of FBS - Sunbelt, CUSA, AAC, WAC (dissolved). It's like a merry-go-round. Any one of them would move tomorrow if a higher league called them with an invite. The MAC is stable because of history and the cluster of schools regionally though that doesn't exclude them from the anxiety to keep pace. Playing weeknight games has been the first sacrifice they've had to make - and they made it for money. Why? Because when you put yourself in the same pool with the Big 10, you are in a race to compete. I don't see a great outcome there either down the road.

When I look at FCS, I see more stability - Ivy, Patriot, Southern, Big Sky, MV, OVC -even the CAA has 9 schools still clustered together who were there when it was initiated. The vast majority are very satisfied and aren't straining budgets, cutting sports, moving game times, etc.

There is a good article in the Philly paper today (link below) about Temple evaluating an on campus stadium with a lot of comparison about similar moves made by Akron as example. It's a huge risk. They actually have the info and detail I don't here on the weight and debt positions some at low end FBS are putting themselves in to compete.

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/col ... adium.html

It's just opinions but there will always be room for both Divisions. Obviously schools like W&M, Villanova, Montana, Lehigh, Furman, etc. aren't in position to compete with Alabama, Penn State and Michigan. So FCS will always have a place for schools at that level. The discussion here is how many schools can you cram into FBS under the pretension of competing for the same thing? What really is the risk versus the benefit if you are looking to shift?

Given the stakes, which are getting higher each day, you are going to see more UABs. And each new school who jumps into the pool looking for riches, fame and credibility does so at an increasing risk.

(01-04-2015 12:01 PM)UpStreamRedTeam Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 09:56 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 05:17 PM)UpStreamRedTeam Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 05:05 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 12:15 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Good comments from several people here. I think it was inevitable that the independents BC, Syracuse, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Va Tech, Ga Tech, Florida State and Miami were all going to end up in (a) power conference(s).

I also agree that had some form of EAC been formed early enough, and had it included Penn State, Notre Dame and Florida State, that would have killed the ACC as a football conference.

There was exactly ZERO chance of that. ND had no interest in such a thing at all.

No one is saying that ND would have joined the Big East. My original point was that Notre Dame is the only team that COULD have saved the Big East. It would have involved Notre Dame taking a good deal but not the best deal they could have received. The only way Notre Dame is ever joining a conference is if no one would accept them into league, unless it was for all sports. The Big East and the A10 would both bend over backwards to take Notre Dame, so there is, as you say, zero chance of Notre Dame having to join a conference for football.

I understood your scenario. My question is what reason would ND have had to give away or lessen an advantageous position to help "save" the Big East in the first place?

It looks like in retrospect most people agree that the Big East wasn't really worth "saving" and was really a "dead man walking" anyway. Most old BE schools have found more advantageous homes themselves.


1) Why would ND have considered joining a football conference in the 1995-2010 time frame and

2) If it did, why would it have picked the Big East instead of, say, the ACC?

1) The only reason would be out of a sense of gratitude for the Big East providing a place for Notre Dame's other sports a place where they could thrive. I think you have to admit that Notre Dame's Olympic sports did very well for themselves during their time in the Big East.

2) Before the first ACC raid the Big East was better in football and basketball.

Almost no one at ND in any position of influence (boosters, alumni, etc..) really gives a damn at all about basketball, baseball and Olympic sports.

Sure, the AD employed by ND at the time has some responsibility to do a fairly good job with them, but in no way, shape or form could anyone at ND even remotely get away with suggesting that football take any kind of hit for those sports.

There was zero chance, below zero actually, that any form of "gratitude" to the Big East for basketball, baseball and Olympic homes would have amounted to very much.

Hell, ND basketball is 14-1 and ranked #14 in the country right now. I doubt you will find a very large percentage of ND fans who are even aware of this or care very much.

Basketball plays in an arena built in 1968. It has no separate practice facility. It often struggles to attract more than 8,000-9,000 for home basketball games.

ND is spending $450 million right now on a football stadium project across from the Joyce Center/Purcell Pavilion basketball arean, but will not budget a nickel for a basketball practice facility.

ND baseball was winning 40-50 games a year for 15 years under Pat Murphy and Paul Mainieri and it went to the 2002 College World Series.

The only reason that they had a decent (not great, but decent)stadium (built in 1994) to play in was because a rich alumni, Frank Eck, donated all the money to have it built and predicated his gift to that purpose (Frank Eck Stadium).

ND would not budget any of its own athletic money on a baseball park.

Even during the Maineri years, ND baseball struggled to fill the tiny 2,500 seat park.

Like I said, there was never any chance that ND was going to mess with the golden goose that was football to help the Big East. None.

Basketball, baseball and Olympic sports "gratitude" to the Big East didn't exist at all or barely registered.

Anyone who thought differently at any time between 1995-2012 was wasting their time.

Anyone who would have advocated such a thing (join for football in gratitude for a basketball home) at ND would have been immediately strung up or run out on a rail.

As Neil stated earlier, ND kicked out its president, vice-president and athletic director for a number of reasons, but a very, very large one was their dalliance with possible football conference affiliation, even the unwritten, three game "promise" to play Big East schools in 2003 or 2004.