(06-20-2010 01:08 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(06-20-2010 12:49 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  No teams play ALL BCS programs. If other leagues are playing 8 conference and 4 OOC games, the BE isn't going to play 9 conference games. Pitt would have to give up one or two of Utah, Miami, or ND to add UCF and Memphis to their schedule. How would this make sense in any way for any team?

Not all leagues are playing 8 conference games. The PAC has played 9 for over 30 years. The Big 11+1 will play 9 this year as will the Big 12. No one said anything about replacing Miami, ND or Utah. The games replaced this season would be FIU and NH. And don't give me the BCS bullsh*t. YOU have repeatedly complained about UCF and Memphis not being quality programs and now you want to complain about them being "a BCS program." Which is it? You can't have it both ways. (Well most logical thinkers can't. That's probably OK with you and your circular arguments.)
CJ

Well you should have because there is no way any team is going to play all existing 7 BCS conference games, 2 new additional BCS conference games, and Utah, ND and Miami OOC. Pittsburgh wouldn't be stupid enough to do this and for that matter neither would Louisville. No team from another BCS conference is going to do this either.

(06-20-2010 02:32 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  No Neil,
I'm not saying Pitt can't win the national title going undefeated against that schedule. I'm saying their margin for error, being in The Big East, is smaller than say a SEC or Big 11 program. It's the same for any Big East program. I'm simply used Pitt as they are projected to have the best team in The Big East this year. Right or wrong I happen to believe conference games are not put under a microscope like OOC games are. I on the other hand hope they do get a shot at the national title and believe Wanny can do it. The conference could certianly use it after comig so close with WVU, UofL and UC the last few years.
CJ

And your solution to this perception of a problem is to add UCF and Memphis and/or ECU?

(06-20-2010 02:33 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(06-20-2010 02:19 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  You think Pitt playing Memphis,UCF, or ECU would be any more attractive to their fans than Akron or Ohio? Yes it would mean more being a conference game but you wont have 10k more.

Which is why we're the best fit for the BE. I know you all like to dismiss us because the people previously in charge royally blew it, but we have more history with BE schools than anyone available, and I think we definitely would draw more interest than anyone else.

I totally disagree concerning Temple. At this point there is no way Temple would draw more interest than any of the CUSA east schools. Sorry, its just simply a fact. CUSA overall is a much better conference with much better competition and located in better markets etc. From a personal standpoint I would have more interest in Memphis, ECU and Marshall. Memphis with their basketball, ECU and Marshall are already on the future schedule in football for us. UCF hasnt done anything in basketball or Football but I can see the attraction with them being in Orlando. Personally I would have more interest in Southern Miss before I'd have interest in Temple. Thats just my opinion.


.

(06-20-2010 03:41 PM)WVUeer Wrote:  Personally I would have more interest in Southern Miss before I'd have interest in Temple. Thats just my opinion.

Thanks for completely going non-sequitur on my post, btw.

(06-20-2010 12:30 PM)animus Wrote:  

(06-20-2010 12:27 PM)AtlantaCard Wrote:  It would only benefit us football schools as we will not have to schedule and entertain D-1AA offers like Indiana State.

Its not just Big East schools that play an Indiana St. Look at Florida, Alabama, Penn St, half of the ACC's schedule. Sh1t the ACC have been known for the occasional hiccup against 1AA schools.

The SEC doesn't have to schedule these games. They do it so they don't have to leave home until conference play begins...

The BE needs to add Buffalo and call it a day.

If a team adds revenue it will be added, if they dont they wont. Its a s simple as that

(06-20-2010 07:49 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  If a team adds revenue it will be added, if they dont they wont. Its a s simple as that

I'm not so sure that's true, I think people underestimate how complex the Big East hybrid, and the political factions it creates are... If you add to that the academic and athletic snobbery, and divided goals, I think that you begin to realize how truly difficult it is to get ANYTHING done in the Big East conference...

(06-20-2010 03:14 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(06-20-2010 01:08 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(06-20-2010 12:49 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  No teams play ALL BCS programs. If other leagues are playing 8 conference and 4 OOC games, the BE isn't going to play 9 conference games. Pitt would have to give up one or two of Utah, Miami, or ND to add UCF and Memphis to their schedule. How would this make sense in any way for any team?

Not all leagues are playing 8 conference games. The PAC has played 9 for over 30 years. The Big 11+1 will play 9 this year as will the Big 12. No one said anything about replacing Miami, ND or Utah. The games replaced this season would be FIU and NH. And don't give me the BCS bullsh*t. YOU have repeatedly complained about UCF and Memphis not being quality programs and now you want to complain about them being "a BCS program." Which is it? You can't have it both ways. (Well most logical thinkers can't. That's probably OK with you and your circular arguments.)
CJ

Well you should have because there is no way any team is going to play all existing 7 BCS conference games, 2 new additional BCS conference games, and Utah, ND and Miami OOC. Pittsburgh wouldn't be stupid enough to do this and for that matter neither would Louisville. No team from another BCS conference is going to do this either.

Exactly right. I've mentioned this same argument a number of times on different expansion threads. Pitt, Syracuse and WVU regularly hover between 2 to 3 BCS conference games OOC. For those years when these schools would want to carry 3 quality opponents, they would not be able to do so as a result of wasting 2 conference game slots on CUSA schools. Net loss for Pitt, WVU and Syracuse, and I have zero interest in seeing this happen.

(06-20-2010 12:47 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(06-20-2010 12:35 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I still want to know which BE teams are having all of this trouble scheduling quality OOC games? As said above, Pitt does not have these problems. Also, I think trading 5 OOC games for 3 OOC games, but adding 2 conference games with UCF and Memphis, for every year moving forward in perpetiuty, is a net loss to Pitt, Syracuse and WVU in my opinion. Playing 9 conference games with Memphis and UCF as part of the conference is a losing proposition. If that were to happen, then I would hope and pray that Pitt can jump ship and move on to another BCS conference. If that were not to happen, then I hope Pitt gives up Div 1 football and sides with the basketball schools. My opinion is that my school deserves better than that. Sorry if you don't like my opinions on the issue, but again, this is a BE board and my comments are directed to fellow BE fans.

More of the "traditional schools" arrogance.
CJ

No, the arrogance is coming from people like you and your ilk who want to expand the league to get more of UL's buddies into the conference and take it over. Jurich is trying to consolidate power, and I don't want any part of that.

you guys ever hear of consistancy, a very important thing in life, when a conf usa or mac or other team consistantly comes in 1st or 2nd place for 3 yrs they will probally be added to the beast and i hope 2 of the 3 teams will be dumped, depaul, seton hall, marquette.............

untill then 8 it is, unless bc or umass is added..............

BC is very bitter w/ the beast and untill we can up our bcs money to like 15milion per team bc will never come back...........

(06-20-2010 08:03 PM)UCF-ENG Wrote:  

(06-20-2010 07:49 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  If a team adds revenue it will be added, if they dont they wont. Its a s simple as that

I'm not so sure that's true, I think people underestimate how complex the Big East hybrid, and the political factions it creates are... If you add to that the academic and athletic snobbery, and divided goals, I think that you begin to realize how truly difficult it is to get ANYTHING done in the Big East conference...

Really? and how much do you know about the Big East and what the ADs are discussing? I have heard what i stated from two people involved in Big East athletics. But hey its easier for some to blame the Big East for inaction and arrogance than admit that maybe their schools dont bring enough to the table at this time.

(06-20-2010 09:31 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(06-20-2010 08:03 PM)UCF-ENG Wrote:  

(06-20-2010 07:49 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  If a team adds revenue it will be added, if they dont they wont. Its a s simple as that

I'm not so sure that's true, I think people underestimate how complex the Big East hybrid, and the political factions it creates are... If you add to that the academic and athletic snobbery, and divided goals, I think that you begin to realize how truly difficult it is to get ANYTHING done in the Big East conference...

Really? and how much do you know about the Big East and what the ADs are discussing? I have heard what i stated from two people involved in Big East athletics. But hey its easier for some to blame the Big East for inaction and arrogance than admit that maybe their schools dont bring enough to the table at this time.

Exactly. It's not like the Big East has kept it a secret. They aren't going to expand just to expand. They are only going to expand if someone adds value to the existing schools. Many coming over here have an overinflated view of what they bring to the table.

(06-20-2010 09:08 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Jurich is trying to consolidate power, and I don't want any part of that.

You know you'd love to have Jurich has your King (though I am partial to the title of Imperator)

(06-20-2010 09:24 PM)Stookey57 Wrote:  you guys ever hear of consistancy, a very important thing in life, when a conf usa or mac or other team consistantly comes in 1st or 2nd place for 3 yrs they will probally be added to the beast and i hope 2 of the 3 teams will be dumped, depaul, seton hall, marquette.............

untill then 8 it is, unless bc or umass is added..............

BC is very bitter w/ the beast and untill we can up our bcs money to like 15milion per team bc will never come back...........

Before you attack someone, you should probably not spell fail. It's 'consistency' and 'consistently'...

(06-20-2010 02:19 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  I hate to tell you guys this BUT if you think that adding UCF,Memphis or ECU would remove a 1AA game from your schedule. You are totally wrong.

I think it would stop schools like USF and RU playing TWO home games vs Div I-AA schools (as they have done in the past)...especially when under the current set up...every other year, teams only have THREE conf home games.

Going to 8 (or even 9) conf regular season games would help with the scheduling...and while some teams will almost always have one Div I-AA home game on their schedule...believe going from 7 to either 8 or 9 conf games per year will help avoid teams having to schedule TWO Div I-AA home games.

(06-20-2010 01:20 PM)animus Wrote:  

(06-20-2010 01:17 PM)Bill Marsh Wrote:  

(06-20-2010 01:08 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(06-20-2010 12:49 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  No teams play ALL BCS programs. If other leagues are playing 8 conference and 4 OOC games, the BE isn't going to play 9 conference games. Pitt would have to give up one or two of Utah, Miami, or ND to add UCF and Memphis to their schedule. How would this make sense in any way for any team?

Not all leagues are playing 8 conference games. The PAC has played 9 for over 30 years. The Big 11+1 will play 9 this year as will the Big 12. No one said anything about replacing Miami, ND or Utah. The games replaced this season would be FIU and NH. And don't give me the BCS bullsh*t. YOU have repeatedly complained about UCF and Memphis not being quality programs and now you want to complain about them being "a BCS program." Which is it? You can't have it both ways. (Well most logical thinkers can't. That's probably OK with you and your circular arguments.)
CJ

I guess someone forgot to send out the memo. All of the Big Ten & Big XII schools show 8 conference games on their schedules for 2010.

And that the Pac 10 only started having a true 9 game round robin when the season was expanded to 12 games a few seasons back. CJ is wrong again... Anybody surprised.

Also...Pac-10 did not start playing 9 conf games till 2006.

The BE will not go above 8 teams.

(06-21-2010 05:43 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(06-20-2010 02:19 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  I hate to tell you guys this BUT if you think that adding UCF,Memphis or ECU would remove a 1AA game from your schedule. You are totally wrong.

I think it would stop schools like USF and RU playing TWO home games vs Div I-AA schools (as they have done in the past)...especially when under the current set up...every other year, teams only have THREE conf home games.

Going to 8 (or even 9) conf regular season games would help with the scheduling...and while some teams will almost always have one Div I-AA home game on their schedule...believe going from 7 to either 8 or 9 conf games per year will help avoid teams having to schedule TWO Div I-AA home games.

Those two cases you mentined where caused by special circumstances which probably would have still happened even if UCF,ECU or Memphis where in the conference.
In USF's cases it was FIU cancelling out to play Rutgers at a late date that didnt allow enough time to get a home replacement. Since we would have still had a 1AA game on our schedule, had a 1A opponent cancelled at such a late date again the result would probably had been the same.
Once again the Big East will only add teams if it improves revenues for all. Any other things you guys point out are irrelevant.

If the Big East Network may indeed have enough gravity to perhaps pull BC, Maryland or Miami back out of ACC orbit, then I would agree that waiting until the network becomes a known quantity before making any moves on expansion is the prudent thing to do.

As for the people who want to add four wannabes right now, I just think that's crazy. Taking four out of the Big 12 is one thing, but simultaneously picking up four from the club we are talking about is suicide. We need ONE - 1 for an insurance policy to lessen the blow of a potential raid, 1 to balance the schedule, 1 to add a decent sized market and increase our appeal for sponsorships.