http://www.wvmetronews.com/sports.cfm


link is on the right hand side....sounds like there at least looking at the network

Jackson

Thanks for posting Jackson.

Not a terribly convincing interview. Does not exactly give you a warm and fuzzy feeling about the future of Big East football. But he really can't divulge specific scenarios or tip the Big East's hand about its thinking. So I don't read too much into it.

A couple of things. Based on his interview, the Big East is "aware" and "monitoring" the situation. He mentioned these words a few times during the interview (Is that code for we are helpless to act and/or unwilling to change?)

Paquette stated during the interview, "We are a sixteen team league. The largest in the NCAA. We feel we are stronger than we've ever been." (In other words, the Big East is a basketball league first, and a football league second. He does not even acknowledge that Big East football is among the smallest, if not the smallest football league in the country, which has made the league vunerable. I know he is trying to be positive, but good lord, at least acknowledge the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

Link is on the right hand side of the page...just click on Paquette interview...I can't directly link it

Jackson

(04-21-2010 09:39 PM)WacoBearcat Wrote:  Thanks for posting Jackson.

Not a terribly convincing interview. Does not exactly give you a warm and fuzzy feeling about the future of Big East football. But he really can't divulge specific scenarios or tip the Big East's hand about its thinking. So I don't read too much into it.

A couple of things. Based on his interview, the Big East is "aware" and "monitoring" the situation. He mentioned these words a few times during the interview (Is that code for we are helpless to act and/or unwilling to change?)

Paquette stated during the interview, "We are a sixteen team league. The largest in the NCAA. We feel we are stronger than we've ever been." (In other words, the Big East is a basketball league first, and a football league second. He does not even acknowledge that Big East football is among the smallest, if not the smallest football league in the country, which has made the league vunerable. I know he is trying to be positive, but good lord, at least acknowledge the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

It's not so much being the smallest that makes the league vulnerable, but being the poorest. If they had pushed some sort of network more recently and demanded higher numbers for their product such as what other leagues might get for the same teams, then the Big East would be fine now.

(04-21-2010 08:13 PM)Jackson1011 Wrote:  http://www.wvmetronews.com/sports.cfm


link is on the right hand side....sounds like there at least looking at the network

Jackson

(04-21-2010 09:59 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(04-21-2010 09:39 PM)WacoBearcat Wrote:  Thanks for posting Jackson.

Not a terribly convincing interview. Does not exactly give you a warm and fuzzy feeling about the future of Big East football. But he really can't divulge specific scenarios or tip the Big East's hand about its thinking. So I don't read too much into it.

A couple of things. Based on his interview, the Big East is "aware" and "monitoring" the situation. He mentioned these words a few times during the interview (Is that code for we are helpless to act and/or unwilling to change?)

Paquette stated during the interview, "We are a sixteen team league. The largest in the NCAA. We feel we are stronger than we've ever been." (In other words, the Big East is a basketball league first, and a football league second. He does not even acknowledge that Big East football is among the smallest, if not the smallest football league in the country, which has made the league vunerable. I know he is trying to be positive, but good lord, at least acknowledge the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

It's not so much being the smallest that makes the league vulnerable, but being the poorest. If they had pushed some sort of network more recently and demanded higher numbers for their product such as what other leagues might get for the same teams, then the Big East would be fine now.

I think that being the smallest and the poorest are interrelated. Don't you?

(04-21-2010 10:09 PM)WacoBearcat Wrote:  

(04-21-2010 08:13 PM)Jackson1011 Wrote:  http://www.wvmetronews.com/sports.cfm


link is on the right hand side....sounds like there at least looking at the network

Jackson

(04-21-2010 09:59 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(04-21-2010 09:39 PM)WacoBearcat Wrote:  Thanks for posting Jackson.

Not a terribly convincing interview. Does not exactly give you a warm and fuzzy feeling about the future of Big East football. But he really can't divulge specific scenarios or tip the Big East's hand about its thinking. So I don't read too much into it.

A couple of things. Based on his interview, the Big East is "aware" and "monitoring" the situation. He mentioned these words a few times during the interview (Is that code for we are helpless to act and/or unwilling to change?)

Paquette stated during the interview, "We are a sixteen team league. The largest in the NCAA. We feel we are stronger than we've ever been." (In other words, the Big East is a basketball league first, and a football league second. He does not even acknowledge that Big East football is among the smallest, if not the smallest football league in the country, which has made the league vunerable. I know he is trying to be positive, but good lord, at least acknowledge the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

It's not so much being the smallest that makes the league vulnerable, but being the poorest. If they had pushed some sort of network more recently and demanded higher numbers for their product such as what other leagues might get for the same teams, then the Big East would be fine now.

I think that being the smallest and the poorest are interrelated. Don't you?

I don't. Adding Temple and Memphis would make us poorer. If they made the conference more profitable they'd already be here. Plus with WVU, Rutgers, and UConn really being our only state schools doesn't help either.

(04-21-2010 10:21 PM)KnightChris Wrote:  

(04-21-2010 10:15 PM)animus Wrote:  I don't. Adding Temple and Memphis would make us poorer. If they made the conference more profitable they'd already be here. Plus with WVU, Rutgers, and UConn really being our only state schools doesn't help either.

Are we really not going to call Pitt a state school? I realize Pennsylvania has some weird title they bestow upon them like "state-related," but come on... they're a state school. USF is also state. Louisville is state. The only non-state football school in the conference is Syracuse. Maybe you're drawing some weird distinction between "state" and "public" that I'm missing though. Do you mean state "flagship?"

I meant flagship. Schools like Pitt and Loiusville tend to drawl from their city limits and Rutgers, WVU, UConn tend to drawl more of a statewide audience.

Try this:

http://www.wvmetronews.com/mediaplayer.c...urce=story

(04-21-2010 10:40 PM)KnightChris Wrote:  

(04-21-2010 10:28 PM)animus Wrote:  

(04-21-2010 10:21 PM)KnightChris Wrote:  

(04-21-2010 10:15 PM)animus Wrote:  I don't. Adding Temple and Memphis would make us poorer. If they made the conference more profitable they'd already be here. Plus with WVU, Rutgers, and UConn really being our only state schools doesn't help either.

Are we really not going to call Pitt a state school? I realize Pennsylvania has some weird title they bestow upon them like "state-related," but come on... they're a state school. USF is also state. Louisville is state. The only non-state football school in the conference is Syracuse. Maybe you're drawing some weird distinction between "state" and "public" that I'm missing though. Do you mean state "flagship?"

I meant flagship. Schools like Pitt and Loiusville tend to drawl from their city limits and Rutgers, WVU, UConn tend to drawl more of a statewide audience.

OK then, that's a different argument. With that in mind, you have to consider that the Big East conference has been historically Northeastern based. The Northeast contains the oldest & wealthiest schools in the country, and consequently has been historically dominated by privates. Aspiring towards acquiring state flagships in this region is actually counter-productive. For example, New York state's "state flagship" school is actually a private Ivy (Cornell) by virtue of Morrill Land-Grant rights. Would adding Cornell really make the Big East better? or Maine? or New Hampshire for that matter? We've already obtained every state flagship in the area that reasonably adds value. Our best bet is going after non-flagships like Boston College (private) that have brand equity in the area. Can we get them? Maybe, maybe not. However, if we could they're more valuable than any state flagship besides Penn State.

Which is why our best best is trying to pry Maryland, Clemson, and the Florida Schools. But the chance of actually grabbing them is the bigger problem.