Thoughts?

I'd argue it was, given the competing football and basketball interests weakening the conference and making it vulnerable to poaching from other conferences.

It was doomed when it had such a large non-football membership. It also didn’t help when Miami, Virginia Tech, and Boston College left.

(02-14-2020 09:15 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  It was doomed when it had such a large non-football membership. It also didn’t help when Miami, Virginia Tech, and Boston College left.

So... from the start.

Poaching is the wrong word. Poaching implies that prior relationships that VT or Miami had with other ACC schools never mattered. At no point since 1954 had VT given up on rejoining the group. All that was keeping them out after MD and Clemson finally calmed down was that UVa's price to rejoin the group was NO OTHER Virginia schools, and the dilution of ACC Tournament Ticket Books. The relationship between FSU and Miami was such that FSU wanted Miami to come with them in the early 90's but their shenanigans were so well known that MD, Carolina, and Duke blocked them for academic and behavioral reasons on the surface, but under the radar they did not want the football competition and did not want to split ACC Tournament Ticket Books.

Those Ticket Books drove the Iron Duke, Ed Foundation, Wolfpack Club, Terrapin Club, and Virginia Student Aid. The expansion of the NCAA tournament cut into the relative value of those books as a booster club item.

Without Penn State, there was nothing to hold Miami and VT to the BE since those were short term relationships of convenience.

If Penn St/Maryland ever fully committed, it would’ve survived as a power conference. Even with VT & Miami leaving for their natural home. A core of Penn St, Maryland, BC, Syracuse, Rutgers, Pitt, & WVU is enough to hold it together. There’s enough outposts (Cincy, Louisville) and backfill (Temple, UConn, Army, Navy) to survive.

But without Penn St/Maryland, the league just didn’t have enough glue. It’s a shame.

Maryland was never going to agree to play ball in the Big East. Kirwan wanted MD in the Big 10 because he fell in love with Ohio State and wanted to use the B10 aura to take over UM Baltimore. There are more agendas than just sports.

PSU only had two practical choices the B10 or the ACC from a faculty and governance standpoint. Neither the Big 10 or ACC is a completely natural fit for PSU. However if they went to the Big East, they would have to carry the conference and eventually get rid of most of the Catholic schools.

When the musical chairs started with the old eastern independents the money pecking order or value was:

1. ND
2. PSU
3. FSU
4. Miami
5. Syracuse
6. BC
7. Pitt
8. West Virginia
9. Navy
10. Army
11. Rutgers

Eastern Independents were major schools pre World War II with the exception of Florida State.

VT was a Southern Conference School tossed out of the future ACC
SC was an SoCon ACC school that got mad and left the ACC
Louisville and Cincinnati were Missouri Valley schools attempting to move up

My point is that these 11 were left over when major conference formation ended with GT and Tulane leaving the SEC in the 1960's. For a quarter of a century after 1965 non of the old major eastern independents moved until PSU moved, triggering all the other moves.

BE would not go above 8 FB
Louv, Cin, Memph could play BB in A-10
UCF & So Fla, East Car wanted to pay it's own way

As a fan of a former Big East school, this is such a complex question. However, the short answer is yes, it was doomed from the start because of competing interests.

The constant push-pull between what doing what was best for the football side of the conference versus doing what was best for the basketball side of the conference invariably killed the whole thing As it became clear that those interests were diverging.

For the Big East, that really culminated in the whole proposed Villanova football membership. When that plan came to light, and I got a good look at everything Villanova was specifically not going to do to support it — because they didn’t even want to play FBS football — that was the final straw for me. That’s when I knew it was over and that we had to leave that conference or we were going to go down with the ship in the same way that UConn did go down with that ship.

Believe me, it wasn’t easy because Big East basketball was my favorite thing ever and I absolutely hated giving it up – especially the Big East tournament at MSG, which blows away the ACC tournament (in effing Greensboro!) on every level.

An all eastern sports conference would have been way to go. Again though, that is a really complex issue full of gray areas. Everyone always tries to re-write that history and of course they always paint themselves as being the most reasonable people involved. However, the truth is everyone involved acted in their own short term self interests – every. single. one. Trust me when I tell you that there were no white knights in that situation.

Also, I can’t help but wonder if that even mattered? Once the money took off like it did, how are they ever going to keep Penn State out of the Big Ten? And once Penn State left, how were they ever going to prevent the ACC from poaching them?

I just don’t think either would’ve happened. I think we would’ve ended up pretty much where we did anyway. Market forces, man, those GD market forces.

Are we talking from when the football conference started? If so definitely and it is not because of internal conflicts, it's from the simple reality of the situation. The conference was new and had several schools that would be valuable in more stable conferences. By the time it formed a football conference, there was nothing it could do to stop the ACC from expanding (Miami wanted with Florida State more than the other way around and with that move any Big East college would follow).

By themselves, both the ACC and Big East football where distant in football pedigree to the Big Ten and SEC and some kind of merger made sense. What we ended up with was the ACC slowly taking the Big East schools it wanted. If you want to create a scenario where the Big East survives as a major football conference till today, I think you have to reverse the reality of the ACC having the upper hand.

How do you get there? I think you need two things.

1. Penn State joins the Big East in the 80s which pushes a somewhat earlier football conference. They might still leave for the Big Ten in the early 90s, but regardless of if they do or they don't the added attention to the Big East is crucial. That might make it more attractive for Florida State as they look for a home, but regardless...
2. Florida State does not join the ACC. It could have easily joined the SEC if they had wanted. Without them, ACC football at this point is much, much weaker.

From there, you need Miami to choose the Big East too still.

Certainly you needed Penn State. Had the "Big East" or "Eastern football" been formed, Penn State might have not accepted the Big Ten's offer. Or imagine if PSU was accepted in the Big East and they were a part of the great 80's era in men's basketball with Georgetown and Villanova both winning national championships as opposed to the Atlantic 10. Sure, football's more important than basketball but football wasn't the cash cow it is today. Of course basketball wasn't either and PSU has always been football first but maybe if PSU made the cut to the Big East basketball would have been more important.

I had discussed this in the "alternate scenarios" thread. Had PSU been accepted in the Big East, the Big East would have had four football playing members: Penn State, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, and Boston College. The Atlantic 10 at the time had Temple, West Virginia, and Rutgers. I don't know what the rules were at the time and if seven members could have qualified as a conference. Virginia Tech was a possibility for the 8th. Who knows about Miami and/or Florida State? Maybe the model of Big East and Atlantic 10 as two separate conferences for other sports and one conference in football would have worked.

Dumb question: Why exactly did Miami want to be in the Big East in the first place as opposed to the ACC (or the SEC)? Did neither of the ACC nor SEC want them? Eventually the ACC did want Miami and they left. The Big East had no Penn State and their nearest opponent was Virginia Tech. It really made no sense for Miami to join the Big East. Or why didn't the Big East invite both Miami and Florida State together? Had the Big East not taken Miami, maybe Big East football dies well before it does or maybe never gets established in the first place. Among full football members, only Boston College, Syracuse, and Pitt had football. The Big East really didn't care about West Virginia, Rutgers, Temple, or Virginia Tech at the time. Maybe Pitt or Syracuse becomes #12 in the Big Ten. Maybe the ACC takes Miami, Syracuse, and BC when they took Florida State (they would eventually). Imagine how monumental that would have been.

No one got screwed by the Big East more than Temple. Remember back in the 90's Temple was at its peak in the John Chaney era. In 1988, they were a #1 seed and made the Elite 8. They made two more Elite 8's in 1991 and 1993. Yet the Big East invited Rutgers and West Virginia as full members before Temple. They don't need Temple because they have Villanova? Why do they need Rutgers when they have Seton Hall (and St. John's for the New York market)? Why was Rutgers better than Temple at the time? West Virginia brought a new state but it's West Virginia, who cares? If they bring any significant market, it's Pittsburgh and duh the Big East already had that. I know Rutgers made the NCAA Tournament in 1991 (we're reminded of that a lot this year) but Rutgers basketball wasn't Temple basketball.

Then the Big East added Virginia Tech, leaving Temple as the only Big East football member. Certainly that made sense considering Virginia is new territory and that was right after Michael Vick.

Then came the final insult when the Big East kicked Temple out. Temple has never recovered. Has any Division 1 school ever been booted from a conference since Temple? We sucked when we got booted. So did Rutgers. Why didn't they get booted? They were a full member. They never should have been. They're the flagship school of New Jersey? Then why don't they call themselves the "University of New Jersey" or "New Jersey University" so people from the rest of the country know where the school is located? If I didn't live next door, I'd probably believe they're a private school.

Think about the seven football playing schools I mentioned from the old Big East/Atlantic 10. Temple is the only one not in a P5 conference right now. If Rutgers had been booted from the Big East or had never been promoted to a full member, they'd be right with Temple in the AAC right now rather than cashing in with the rest of the Big Ten. The (old) Big East screwed Temple so screw them.

(02-15-2020 12:01 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  As a fan of a former Big East school, this is such a complex question. However, the short answer is yes, it was doomed from the start because of competing interests.

The constant push-pull between what doing what was best for the football side of the conference versus doing what was best for the basketball side of the conference invariably killed the whole thing As it became clear that those interests were diverging.

For the Big East, that really culminated in the whole proposed Villanova football membership. When that plan came to light, and I got a good look at everything Villanova was specifically not going to do to support it — because they didn’t even want to play FBS football — that was the final straw for me. That’s when I knew it was over and that we had to leave that conference or we were going to go down with the ship in the same way that UConn did go down with that ship.

Believe me, it wasn’t easy because Big East basketball was my favorite thing ever and I absolutely hated giving it up – especially the Big East tournament at MSG, which blows away the ACC tournament (in effing Greensboro!) on every level.

An all eastern sports conference would have been way to go. Again though, that is a really complex issue full of gray areas. Everyone always tries to re-write that history and of course they always paint themselves as being the most reasonable people involved. However, the truth is everyone involved acted in their own short term self interests – every. single. one. Trust me when I tell you that there were no white knights in that situation.

Also, I can’t help but wonder if that even mattered? Once the money took off like it did, how are they ever going to keep Penn State out of the Big Ten? And once Penn State left, how were they ever going to prevent the ACC from poaching them?

I just don’t think either would’ve happened. I think we would’ve ended up pretty much where we did anyway. Market forces, man, those GD market forces.

I'd argue the C7 were united and working in their groups best interest as opposed to the FB side where it was as you said everyone for themselves. So to me that was what doomed the conference. Especially when the FB side laughed the BBall schools out of the room when they stated that the BBall was worth more than the FB. That proved to be true with the resurgence of the conference post split. Those schools are getting paid 4-5 million a year now when those FB schools wanted to pay them a quarter of that per year.

The Big East needed an anchor school or schools to draw a big TV deal and survive.

The Big Ten has Ohio State and Michigan, the SEC has Alabama and LSU, among others, etc...

The Big East had no such blue blood, Top Ten type programs to anchor it.

It was always doomed to be absorbed.

(02-15-2020 08:25 AM)TerryD Wrote:  The Big East needed an anchor school or schools to draw a big TV deal and survive.

The Big Ten has Ohio State and Michigan, the SEC has Alabama and LSU, among others, etc...

The Big East had no such blue blood, Top Ten type programs to anchor it.

It was always doomed to be absorbed.

The Big East did have a blue blood (Miami). Problem was the ACC took them. They were really an odd fit in the Big East anyway and probably should have been in the ACC (or SEC) to begin with.

I voted no, but in reality it was a yes. Had the BE not been so short sighted, and added a #9, and or #10 for football only in the beginning, and went back to 10, or 12 for football when UM and VT left. It may have been able to handle the losses of Cuse, Pitt, Rutgers, WV and Maryland, and still remain a P conf. The left over schools would have had a bit more clout, and likely would have gotten a better TV deal than the new AAC did.

All football only schools should have only had a vote on football issues, and no votes on all sports issues, which would have protected the All sports membership.

Take it from a non football member's perspective, say Villanova. If you accept, say a TCU, as a full member, you have to travel to Fort Worth in men's and women's basketball, baseball, softball, men's and women's soccer (assuming TCU has all these sports). It's one thing to do these for Miami (especially when they were competing for national championships) and another for Tulsa. Once the Big East lost Miami and they were just adding football members to fill a conference, the Catholic 7 had enough.

I also don't believe that all sports in one conference works for everyone. There are certainly cases where having your football team in a different conference than the rest of your school's sports works like Hawaii playing football in the MWC and other sports in the Big West and Navy playing football in the AAC and other sports in the Patriot. I'm sure West Virginia would love to have its other sports in the Big East while keeping its football in the Big 12 (if I were the Big 12, I'd let them to it so the rest of the conference's sports don't have to travel to West Virginia).

I said before the Big East was "choosing sides" when it made Rutgers and West Virginia full members but not Temple or Virginia Tech. Maybe they should have just kept Big East football separate all along (or only Miami a full member). Then the Big East would have never had 16 members or added DePaul/Marquette, giving the Villanova's and Georgetown's enough extra members to break away. Of course if you assume the ACC would have come for Boston College, Syracuse, and Pittsburgh like they did, the Big East probably would have just closed up in football altogether and the remaining schools would have had to find new conferences or move to existing conferences (kind of like what happened to A-10 football).

(02-15-2020 07:23 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Dumb question: Why exactly did Miami want to be in the Big East in the first place as opposed to the ACC (or the SEC)?

Miami wanted to join the ACC with Florida State in 1990, but had no real chance of getting an invitation. At the time, there was a lot opposition to Florida State, with Duke and Maryland leading the opposition voting block. So there was no way these schools would accept a school with Miami's reputation. Had Miami joined the ACC with Florida State, then I imagine there wouldn't have been a need for the ACC to expand in 2003.

Temple was improving when kick out, basically Temple was stunting Conn & Rutgers growth.
All 3 were recruiting Eastern Pa & NJ. Bobby Wallace did help, Temple hired him to run option after winning NC in div2, got off plane & announced switch to spread OFF. After Temple got rid of him, went back to div 2 and won NC running option

Regarding then booting of Temple:

It was 100% political. NCAA regulations required 8 schools who were full members sponsoring football. They knew they had the UConn program coming and that the Huskies would be the 8th full member. This made the Owls expendable and they got the axe.