(05-09-2012 10:54 AM)VinnieVegas Wrote:  I'd say the basketball. The BE doesn't have a Texas so to speak unless you consider Notre Dame.

TEXAS has driven more programs away (see Mizzou, Texas A&M, Nebraska, Colorado) than it has kept together. They have ruined two conferences. That is not a model to aspire to.

(05-09-2012 11:16 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 10:54 AM)VinnieVegas Wrote:  I'd say the basketball. The BE doesn't have a Texas so to speak unless you consider Notre Dame.

TEXAS has driven more programs away (see Mizzou, Texas A&M, Nebraska, Colorado) than it has kept together. They have ruined two conferences. That is not a model to aspire to.

I agree.

(05-09-2012 08:00 AM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  I don't think his jawboning is going to work though. The BE is still waaaaaaay ahead of the alliance, no matter how he spins how far under the supposed "big five" the BE is.

... but the issue is not only how far we are ahead of the Alliance (and i agree we are far ahead of them), but also how far we are behind what Neinas calls the "Big 5" ....

Because Neinas has been working on the alliance, he knows it helps that otherwise-lost cause by categorically grouping the Big East in with it. Do we take Neinas's word about the BE "losing out", or do we read the actual reports that hint that the BE didn't lose money in the BCS reconfiguration.

(05-08-2012 05:42 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 05:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 05:27 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  And they can harp on the Big12 contract but the reality is that even in the top 5 there is a divide and the gap between the SEC,BigTen and the PAC,ACC,Big12 is just as large.
He can spin it anyway he wants but a big12 that replaces Nebraska,Texas AM, Mizzou and Colorado with West Virginia and TCU has also dropped back in the ranks

He has absolutely no reason to spin anything.

Really? You don't think that the Big12 has slid farther back from the big 2 with the recent moves? But you don't see old Neinas mentioning that do you.

Call me delusional if you like, but isn't the new play-off system designed to take away barriers hat were raised with the BCS-AQ issue?

Aren't things supposed to based upon on the field performance ... ?

Even, I'm kinda laughing at the idea that we're all going to get an even shake, LOL ... :ncaabbs: !!!

(05-08-2012 07:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I had previously missed this, but from yesterday's USA Today article about JM resignation:

"Amid the uncertainty comes a growing understanding: The Big East, once one of the country's top six in prestige and power, has slipped down the food chain.

"Now, there are five" on top, says Chuck Neinas, acting commissioner of the Big 12 and a longtime college athletics policymaker and shaper. "It's just an honest evaluation. The other leagues (Atlantic Coast, Big Ten, Big 12, Pacific-12 and Southeastern) have separated themselves."

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/s...54805358/1

Please..... Explain to me how the ACC has "pulled" away?

They have more "names" but the overall performance in all sports including FB is very similar.

Plus how honest can you be when you are hyping your own league in the same breath.

I am not even attempting to claim the Big East (at least FB) is on par with the SEC, Pac-12, Big Ten, or even the uggggghhhh Big-12. But the ACC please..........

(05-09-2012 12:54 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 07:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I had previously missed this, but from yesterday's USA Today article about JM resignation:

"Amid the uncertainty comes a growing understanding: The Big East, once one of the country's top six in prestige and power, has slipped down the food chain.

"Now, there are five" on top, says Chuck Neinas, acting commissioner of the Big 12 and a longtime college athletics policymaker and shaper. "It's just an honest evaluation. The other leagues (Atlantic Coast, Big Ten, Big 12, Pacific-12 and Southeastern) have separated themselves."

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/s...54805358/1

Please..... Explain to me how the ACC has "pulled" away?

They have more "names" but the overall performance in all sports including FB is very similar.

Plus how honest can you be when you are hyping your own league in the same breath.

I am not even attempting to claim the Big East (at least FB) is on par with the SEC, Pac-12, Big Ten, or even the uggggghhhh Big-12. But the ACC please..........

The answer: The ACC hasn't pulled away from us. Last year, the new Big East went 6-2 in bowl games, and the current Big East went 3-2. The ACC's bowl record? 2-6, including a rather talented Clemson team getting thrashed by West Virginia in a BCS bowl. If bowl records are an indication of anything (and I think they are), we're clearly the fifth best football conference in Div. 1-A. (The media, of course, will say otherwise, especially ESPN.)

(05-09-2012 11:16 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 10:54 AM)VinnieVegas Wrote:  I'd say the basketball. The BE doesn't have a Texas so to speak unless you consider Notre Dame.

TEXAS has driven more programs away (see Mizzou, Texas A&M, Nebraska, Colorado) than it has kept together. They have ruined two conferences. That is not a model to aspire to.

More schools have left the BE than have left the Big12....Who is driving them away in the BE, is it alpha male MSG? Should we all asprire to a model with two school bunches thousands of miles away from each other. To associate with schools like SMU that get 1k in attendance for BB games and 10k for football games? Or a conference with BB only schools, football only schools, and all sports schools, none of which ever agree on anything?

(05-09-2012 01:29 PM)BMcKitchup Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 11:16 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 10:54 AM)VinnieVegas Wrote:  I'd say the basketball. The BE doesn't have a Texas so to speak unless you consider Notre Dame.

TEXAS has driven more programs away (see Mizzou, Texas A&M, Nebraska, Colorado) than it has kept together. They have ruined two conferences. That is not a model to aspire to.

More schools have left the BE than have left the Big12....Who is driving them away in the BE, is it alpha male MSG? Should we all asprire to a model with two school bunches thousands of miles away from each other. To associate with schools like SMU that get 1k in attendance for BB games and 10k for football games? Or a conference with BB only schools, football only schools, and all sports schools, none of which ever agree on anything?

Realignment isn't unique to the Big East. You're a Conference USA fan, you should know that.
The Big East responded to it aggressively by going from an 8 team model to a 14 team model (in football). That's a net positive.
As much as you're butthurt about being left out, I'd be more concerned if I was a CUSA fan over inviting FBS start-ups and FCS teams. CUSA has subscribed to a tighter geographic model at the cost of credibility.
We are clearly a league that is predimonantly composed of urban institutions with a similar focus on athletic excellence. Our universities (including SMU) offer a great history and tradition of being players on the national level. The Big East brand has been and will continue to be relevant on that level. It has in the past and has the skins on the walls that project to a bright future.

By the way, SMU beat TCU and Pitt (in their bowl game) last year.

(05-09-2012 08:01 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 07:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Personally, i don't think it is a big accomplishment for the Big 12, and i certainly didn't think it was for the Big East. I thought inviting TCU was a desperate move designed to boost our "BCS points" and thus salvage our AQ status, and that TCU had absolutely no cultural or geographic affinity with the Big East.

Of course, i was loudly derided by many on this board, particularly "optimists", who almost unanimously hailed the addition of TCU as a fantastic move for the conference just as they now hail the additions of Houston, SMU, Boise, etc.

Your bold move would have been ECU and UCF to replace West Virginia, Pitt, Syracuse. I'm sorry but no conference commish in his right mind would offer such a limited and narrow vision to maintain a viable national brand. Exapansion to at least 12 was a must. That was a long time coming..
And whether you realize it or not, big time collegiate athletic conferences have become national brands. Adding just UCF and ECU to replace the defectors would have severely weakened Big East basketball and football credibility. Both of those programs had losing records on the gridiron last year.
As it stands now, our numbers compare very favorably with the ACC. I don't think it takes an optimist to see which line of action was the way to go.

You are out of touch, chico.

As it stands now, our conference compares very unfavorably with the ACC as far as "national brands" go. We have nobody anywhere close to FSU or even Miami as big-name football brands.

Expansion makes sense if you do not dilute the product. We diluted not only our football product, we made a total mess of our conference identity.

Time will tell if expanding to 13/14 was a good thing or not, but most signs are negative.

(05-09-2012 09:17 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Who cares what Neinas or any other commissioner says.

The Big East's status in the pecking order will be clear to all of us in objective manner by the end of the year as shown through (1) the bowl tie-ins and guaranteed revenue share that it receives from the new playoff system and (2) the amount of the new Big East TV contract. When those numbers come in, we'll know exactly where the Big East stands in the food chain and, depending on your point of view, your optimism or pessimism is going to be either validated or rejected.

Frank, everyone knows this. Nevertheless, it is fun to speculate. Everyone does it, and in doing so we look for clues about what is likely to happen. That's why MLB fans are arguing right now over whose team is better, even though they all know that in 6 months it will be settled in an objective manner when the world series is played.

Like it or not, Neinas is an insider, so his views might carry some weight.

(05-09-2012 01:46 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  As much as you're butthurt about being left out, I'd be more concerned if I was a CUSA fan over inviting FBS start-ups and FCS teams.

I guess an ACC or Big 12 fan could say " ... I'd be more concerned if i was a Big East fan over inviting C-USA teams".

(05-09-2012 02:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 01:46 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  As much as you're butthurt about being left out, I'd be more concerned if I was a CUSA fan over inviting FBS start-ups and FCS teams.

I guess an ACC or Big 12 fan could say " ... I'd be more concerned if i was a Big East fan over inviting C-USA teams".

LOL! Big 12 fans have a former CUSA program in their membership as well. Pac 12 fans have a former MWC program in their membership. Most of the Big 12 expansion candidates (listed in countless news stories) have been former CUSA or MWC programs, including some that have accepted Big East offers.

(05-09-2012 02:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 09:17 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Who cares what Neinas or any other commissioner says.

The Big East's status in the pecking order will be clear to all of us in objective manner by the end of the year as shown through (1) the bowl tie-ins and guaranteed revenue share that it receives from the new playoff system and (2) the amount of the new Big East TV contract. When those numbers come in, we'll know exactly where the Big East stands in the food chain and, depending on your point of view, your optimism or pessimism is going to be either validated or rejected.

Frank, everyone knows this. Nevertheless, it is fun to speculate. Everyone does it, and in doing so we look for clues about what is likely to happen. That's why MLB fans are arguing right now over whose team is better, even though they all know that in 6 months it will be settled in an objective manner when the world series is played.

Like it or not, Neinas is an insider, so his views might carry some weight.

And everyone in this board knows and expects the Big East to remain the 6th best conference with regards to bowls and tv contracts.

(05-09-2012 03:22 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 02:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 09:17 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Who cares what Neinas or any other commissioner says.

The Big East's status in the pecking order will be clear to all of us in objective manner by the end of the year as shown through (1) the bowl tie-ins and guaranteed revenue share that it receives from the new playoff system and (2) the amount of the new Big East TV contract. When those numbers come in, we'll know exactly where the Big East stands in the food chain and, depending on your point of view, your optimism or pessimism is going to be either validated or rejected.

Frank, everyone knows this. Nevertheless, it is fun to speculate. Everyone does it, and in doing so we look for clues about what is likely to happen. That's why MLB fans are arguing right now over whose team is better, even though they all know that in 6 months it will be settled in an objective manner when the world series is played.

Like it or not, Neinas is an insider, so his views might carry some weight.

And everyone in this board knows and expects the Big East to remain the 6th best conference with regards to bowls and tv contracts.

Yes, but since the #5 conference will make about $17 million per year per team from media deals and the #7 conference about $3 million, there is an enormous gap in which #6, us, might find ourselves.

That's what all the discussion is about.

(05-09-2012 02:46 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 02:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 01:46 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  As much as you're butthurt about being left out, I'd be more concerned if I was a CUSA fan over inviting FBS start-ups and FCS teams.

I guess an ACC or Big 12 fan could say " ... I'd be more concerned if i was a Big East fan over inviting C-USA teams".

LOL! Big 12 fans have a former CUSA program in their membership as well. Pac 12 fans have a former MWC program in their membership. Most of the Big 12 expansion candidates (listed in countless news stories) have been former CUSA or MWC programs, including some that have accepted Big East offers.

Why do you say "LOL!" when nothing you say thereafter puts a dent in what i said?

Hint: There is a huge difference between two other conferences, with 22 combined members, having one C-USA team in their ranks, and the Big East, which has, well, a majority of members as C-USA remnants.

(05-09-2012 09:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 02:46 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 02:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 01:46 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  As much as you're butthurt about being left out, I'd be more concerned if I was a CUSA fan over inviting FBS start-ups and FCS teams.

I guess an ACC or Big 12 fan could say " ... I'd be more concerned if i was a Big East fan over inviting C-USA teams".

LOL! Big 12 fans have a former CUSA program in their membership as well. Pac 12 fans have a former MWC program in their membership. Most of the Big 12 expansion candidates (listed in countless news stories) have been former CUSA or MWC programs, including some that have accepted Big East offers.

Why do you say "LOL!" when nothing you say thereafter puts a dent in what i said?

Hint: There is a huge difference between two other conferences, with 22 combined members, having one C-USA team in their ranks, and the Big East, which has, well, a majority of members as C-USA remnants.

Not really. The number is purely arbitrary. Two of the programs that have been brought up for Big 12 consideration have been Louisville and Cincinnati. They have played in CUSA at one time as well, and if a scenario presented itself that led them to the Big 12, that would make 3 former CUSA programs in the Big 12.

And you want to know a little secret? They'd both be better than half the programs already in that league.

And you'd still be singing the Big 12's praises. Quo, your arguments are full of logical flaws. There's no sense in debating anything with you because you always request exceptions to your contradictions. You have no skills.

(05-09-2012 09:59 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 09:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 02:46 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 02:23 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-09-2012 01:46 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  As much as you're butthurt about being left out, I'd be more concerned if I was a CUSA fan over inviting FBS start-ups and FCS teams.

I guess an ACC or Big 12 fan could say " ... I'd be more concerned if i was a Big East fan over inviting C-USA teams".

LOL! Big 12 fans have a former CUSA program in their membership as well. Pac 12 fans have a former MWC program in their membership. Most of the Big 12 expansion candidates (listed in countless news stories) have been former CUSA or MWC programs, including some that have accepted Big East offers.

Why do you say "LOL!" when nothing you say thereafter puts a dent in what i said?

Hint: There is a huge difference between two other conferences, with 22 combined members, having one C-USA team in their ranks, and the Big East, which has, well, a majority of members as C-USA remnants.

Not really. The number is purely arbitrary. Two of the programs that have been brought up for Big 12 consideration have been Louisville and Cincinnati. They have played in CUSA at one time as well, and if a scenario presented itself that led them to the Big 12, that would make 3 former CUSA programs in the Big 12.

And you want to know a little secret? They'd both be better than half the programs already in that league.

And you'd still be singing the Big 12's praises. Quo, your arguments are full of logical flaws. There's no sense in debating anything with you because you always request exceptions to your contradictions. You have no skills.

If i have no skills, then why do i so regularly destroy your feeble homer-istic posts? Oh, it's because i don't NEED skills because your arguments are so feeble.

For example, i note that 1 in 22 teams in the PAC and B12 are from CUSA while more than half in the Big East are, and you claim this enormous difference is "purely arbitrary"? That is beyond ludicrous. I suppose you think that if we are comparing the wealth of two people, and one has $1 million and the other $1,000, you would think that difference is merely "arbitrary" too? How asinine can you be?

Then, you blather further that Cincy and Louisville have been "brought up" for Big 12 consideration, as if this supports your position? Never mind that "brought up" doesn't mean the Big 12 has itself actually considered inviting them (we know they haven't actually invited them), and never mind that if the Big 12 invites them it would be inviting 2 Big East teams, not 2 C-USA teams. But apparently you see no difference between inviting a team that is currently in C-USA and inviting a team that is currently in the Big East and hasn't been in C-USA for a decade?

You are one big dumb homer.

(05-09-2012 10:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  If i have no skills, then why do i so regularly destroy your feeble homer-istic posts? Oh, it's because i don't NEED skills because your arguments are so feeble.

For example, i note that 1 in 22 teams in the PAC and B12 are from CUSA while more than half in the Big East are, and you claim this enormous difference is "purely arbitrary"? That is beyond ludicrous. I suppose you think that if we are comparing the wealth of two people, and one has $1 million and the other $1,000, you would think that difference is merely "arbitrary" too? How asinine can you be?

Then, you blather further that Cincy and Louisville have been "brought up" for Big 12 consideration, as if this supports your position? Never mind that "brought up" doesn't mean the Big 12 has itself actually considered inviting them (we know they haven't actually invited them), and never mind that if the Big 12 invites them it would be inviting 2 Big East teams, not 2 C-USA teams. But apparently you see no difference between inviting a team that is currently in C-USA and inviting a team that is currently in the Big East and hasn't been in C-USA for a decade?

You are one big dumb homer.

More contradictions.

Now you're saying the Big 12 would really be inviting Big East teams, in UL and UC, instead of CUSA teams...

...and yet, you're counting them as CUSA teams, when you use their former conference affiliation to deride the Big East.

The funniest part is that USF (the school you claim to have attended) is a former CUSA program.

What's even funnier is that you imply that these programs are second rate, and yet you acquiesce that once they've been in the Big East for awhile they're fit to be in the upper echelon of FBS.

So, how can you possibly have anything against the new additions, who will be playing at the highest level once they've been indoctrinated into the league? Seems to me they'd meet that standard once they play in the Big East.

You are truly a piece of work, quo. LOL!

(05-08-2012 09:00 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 08:13 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(05-08-2012 07:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  "Now, there are five" on top, says Chuck Neinas, acting commissioner of the Big 12 and a longtime college athletics policymaker and shaper. "It's just an honest evaluation. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/s...54805358/1

Might be an "honest evaluation", but his motivation for publicly stating it is as obvious as his callousness. As Lou Holtz once said, "burning your neighbor's house down does not make yours look better".

I'd say that depends on the neighbor and the house. I've seen some houses that would be much improved by becoming a pile of ash, and often their owner would improve society by becoming a small piece of that pile...

Well, you do live in Knoxville...