(10-09-2011 03:17 PM)SO#1 Wrote:  The Big East is about basketball. UConn won 10 National Championships (3 men and 7 women). The only way to devalue the Big East is to remove UConn not Pitt. Once they are rebuilt, Notre Dame will always have a home and this time removing UConn will not be enough. It will be political suicide to take BCS label from Air Force and Navy. They are more of national names than Syracuse and Pitt. Which mean the Big East still have enough value in basketball and football for Comcast/NBC to keep the Big East going for a very long time which keep Notre Dame independent for a long, long time.

What funny about this is it cost ESPN more money by paying ACC more money per team and get very little out of it and at the same time get a competition from Comcast/NBC by give up northeast market with strong basketball programs and national name brands football games. This time it would be easy for Notre Dame to honor their words playing Air Force and Navy maybe one other BE team would add value to football side of TV contract. Houston and SMU will add market value and bring football to ten. It’s what they plan to in the first place.

Agree completely. Look at it this way: according to the list I came up with this summer, we've lost the programs who were, in my opinion, our 3rd, 9th, and worst basketball members. That means it's practically a wash for us competitively, and maybe even addition by subtraction.

And after all this poaching, the ACC can't hide the fact that it's still a league with a couple of kings (UNC, Duke, Cuse), a few rooks (Pitt, Maryland, NC State), and a bunch of pawns.

The Big East still has more schools that have won national titles and more schools that have been to Final 4's than the ACC, both in gross numbers and as a percentage of total members.

(10-09-2011 03:26 PM)omniorange Wrote:  I just posted this in the other thread, so I am reposting it here as well:

In regard to the recent Boston.com article, nowhere does Blaudschen have GDF saying UConn was #2 after SU. He doesn't say GDF indicated UConn was second, nor does he quote GDF saying that.

Maybe that was the case, maybe not. We do know GDF tried to "block" UConn. But was that at the point in time they were about to be recommended for an invite or was it during the discussion of all 10 applicants stage?

We also know GDF lobbied for Pitt. Again, was this after the committee had decided to invite SU and UConn, or was this during the discussion of all 10 applicants stage? Pitt was being talked about as a possible Big 12 expansion candidate whereas UConn and Rutgers were not. All three, Pitt, Rutgers, and UConn were possible BiG targets last year. Leaving any of three out at this point leaves the other two for possible BiG expansion. But taking Pitt cuts any Big 12 interest in the northeast off altogether. That's a compelling argument in and of itself.

We just don't know. A lot of this is Blaudschun reading between the lines and interpreting what GDF actually did say vs. what Blaudschun thinks MAY have happened. Since he asked GDF about Coach K's support for UConn, it's obvious to me Blaudschun went in with this notion that somehow UConn got bumped by either SU or Pitt and wanted clarification.

In the end, the ACC may never have said SU #1, UConn #2, Pitt #3 - it just simply could have been a discussion about candidates #1-#10 whereby the arguments that led to SU and Pitt being chosen at the end of the day was simply good, sound deliberations for that particular conference with that particular make-up. And I'd say the same thing if last summer the BiG had chosen Rutgers, UConn and Pitt over SU.

Cheers,
Neil

(10-09-2011 12:17 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(10-09-2011 12:05 PM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(10-09-2011 11:45 AM)SF Husky Wrote:  It does not matter what conference UCONN is in cause UCONN will ALWAYS be better than BC.

I laugh every time someone posts things like "Team A (UCONN) will ALWAYS be better than Team B (BC)."

Can't even begin to start a discussion with someone who believes everything in life is permanent and can never change.

Thank you, Knight Light. Your comment illustrates just how incredibly dumb his comment is. It also shows the incredible hubris of many Uconn fans who actually believe such a thing is possible.

Time changes, coaches change, college presidents change, fortunes of schools rise and fall. Not necessarily year-to year but over the course of several years, decades, etc.

To think one school has some kind of "mainfest destiny" to be always superior is just idiotic.

The initial comment reminded me of 5-6 year olds playing in the front yard.

Couldn't believe they were actually words typed by someone that I thought was at least 18 yrs of age.

(10-09-2011 01:53 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  I'm sure ESPN would welcome a lawsuit from the BE. It would absolutely be the final straw to the existence of BE Football because they would become the laughing stock of the nation in collegiate sports. The ACC is no more trying to destroy the BE than the BE was trying to destroy CUSA in 2003. Like ringmaster said, it is business. Just like USF, UL, and UC was begging to get out of CUSA, Cuse and Pitt apparently wanted out of the BE. Just like BC, Miami, and Va Tech wanted out of the BE in 2004.

Some of the BE posters here are simply hypocrites.

Great point.

In just ONE MONTH in 2003, the Big East took FIVE Schools away from CUSA...while in EIGHT YEARS, ACC has now taken 5 schools from the Big East.

Funny I don't recall any comments from Big East fans back in 2003 worried about the future of CUSA or the harm it caused CUSA.

(10-09-2011 11:27 AM)SF Husky Wrote:  Well well well... truth is starting to come out regarding all of this.

1. ESPN is clearly behind the raid.
2. Jealous little nobody of a program in Chestnut somehow got some of their little buddies to block UCONN. As if UCONN fans need any more reason to hate that piece of sh*t program.
3. The move was to damage the BE by the ACC.

UCONN will thrive no matter where we are. We bring a ton to the table and we actually contribute to a conference unlike that nobody program in Chestnut who is there just being a body for rest of the ACC to beat on. Whatever conference UCONN is in will be a viable conference. Screw the nobody in Chestnut cause no one in their own hometown cares about them.

Before you get too upset at ESPN, remember the BE recently thumbed their nose at them and turned down a 1.2 billion dollar contract that also included some teams for expansion...

(10-09-2011 12:14 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  Everyone thinks the Yankees have always been good in the 80's and early 90's they were one of the worst teams in baseball.

Since I'm a Yankee, I have to offer a quick fact check. It is not a factual statement that the Yankees were one of the worst teams in baseball in the '80's & early '90's. Here are the facts:

1. The Yankees had the 2nd most wins of any AL team in the decade of the 1980's. Certainly not one of the worst teams in baseball in that decade.

2. At one point, he Yankees had 4 straight losing seasons (1989-92). In 1990, they finished in last place in the AL East. That certainly doesn't make them one of the worst teams in baseball even for that 4-year period since they had only one last place finish & not a single other season in which they finished even next to last, but I guess that's debatable. The Yankees had only one other losing season (1982) in the 1980's & early '90's while having 2 first place finishes& several 2nds.

Just sticking up for my boys even though I'm now in KC & blossoming into the star that the Yankees could have had if they kept me.

(10-09-2011 01:11 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  I've had a theory for awhile that the reason for the decline in the programs at Syracuse and BC over the past decade has been for three reasons:

1) UConn started a BCS program and took many of the good local athletes that previously would have gone to BC or Syracuse
2) Rutgers (for awhile at least) was no longer a joke program, and took many of the good NJ athletes that used to go to BC and Syracuse
3) (just for BC) BC relies on midwestern Catholic high schools for a good chunk of their recruiting. And the best high school Catholic teams in the country are from Cincinnati (3 of the top 30 high school programs over the past decade are Cincy Catholic schools, according to USA Today). BC used to get 2-4 recruits a year from Cincy (which would frustrate the heck out of me), and over the past 5 years it's averaged about 1 a year.

Is it clear now why BC wants Rutgers and UConn, and to a lesser extent UC, to fade back to insignificance? Is it clear why Syracuse wants Rutgers and UConn to fade away as well? This is not a conspiracy theory, it's more a statement of what is in their best interest.

As somebody that went to Sycamore, it frustrated me too. We should have won multiple state titles.

(10-09-2011 02:01 PM)mavblues Wrote:  Yes, Calhoun did spout off repeatedly about BC. However, as I have already pointed out, Calhoun is a NE guy through and through. He grew up in Mass, and he attended and coached at Northeastern. In his mind, what BC did was unforgiveable. Couple that with the fact that he (Calhoun) is the self-appointed defender of the BE, and you have his aforementioned statements (which from a purely Calhoun perspective, make perfect sense).

Correction on a minor detail. Calhoun did not attend Northeastern; he is an alum of Springfield College.

Otherwise I get your point. No intent to disparage anything you said.

UConn will be happy in CUSA. Hattiesburg, Greenville, Birmingham, Memphis, and Huntington are very nice in the fall. :-)

(10-09-2011 01:11 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  I've had a theory for awhile that the reason for the decline in the programs at Syracuse and BC over the past decade has been for three reasons:

1) UConn started a BCS program and took many of the good local athletes that previously would have gone to BC or Syracuse
2) Rutgers (for awhile at least) was no longer a joke program, and took many of the good NJ athletes that used to go to BC and Syracuse
3) (just for BC) BC relies on midwestern Catholic high schools for a good chunk of their recruiting. And the best high school Catholic teams in the country are from Cincinnati (3 of the top 30 high school programs over the past decade are Cincy Catholic schools, according to USA Today). BC used to get 2-4 recruits a year from Cincy (which would frustrate the heck out of me), and over the past 5 years it's averaged about 1 a year.

Is it clear now why BC wants Rutgers and UConn, and to a lesser extent UC, to fade back to insignificance? Is it clear why Syracuse wants Rutgers and UConn to fade away as well? This is not a conspiracy theory, it's more a statement of what is in their best interest.

Actually Syracuse like Pitt told Pernetti they were likely headed to the ACC. The 4 old line BE FB schools had been working together to improve the conference and keep out Nova and guess what they finally had enough so when the opportunity came for Cuse and Pitt they took it. Don't think they aren't lobbying hard for RU and WVU too, because I'm sure they are. Unfortunately, Rutgers is on its own at this point and future doesn't look so hot.

Yes, GDF was on the expansion committee, but equally importantly (to the detriment of UConn), so was Shalala...

And remember, no schools had formally applied so there was no "veto" required, as I don't believe there was ever a vote taken on UConn-ACC expansion. This was internal committee level discussions, where GDF and Shalala could have killed it.

If you have GDF and Shalala essentially saying "no" to UConn on the committee level, while nobody is doing the same against Pitt & 'Cuse, guess which schools ultimately got past the committee discussion to an actual Y/N vote.

I believe if Duke/NC had their way on this, UConn would have been 1st choice. Never even got that far, though.

At this point, it is what it is.

I don't blame UConn and others for suing. I don't blame BC for blocking. I just think BC should be honest and srop trying to claim it's because of the lawsuit. If it was because of the lawsuit, Pitt would still be out of the ACC, because they were the most vocal.

It's all about the fact that they (BC) won't be able to compete on the field, and that is what will hurt their brand.

Successful schools don't worry about the program up the road, they welcome the chance to beat them up. The best revenge BC could have is to get UConn into the conference and beat the crap out of them year after year. That won't happen, so they've placed their bet on trying to make UConn irrelevant, hoping they fade away.

The million $$ question is what ultimately happens to UConn. I see four scenarios, and three of them are bad for BC:

1) UConn to B1G. Before you laugh, B1G has had a series of conversations with UConn twice in the past. This happens = very bad for BC. (I don't think this will happen - 5% chance.)
2) UConn ultimately in ACC. This happens = bad for BC, but could be good if they (BC) fire existing FB & BB coaches (and AD) and get someone that knows what they're doing. Then go toe to toe with UConn and beat them. (40% chance, IMO)
3) UConn stays in BE and BE survives as AQ. Very bad for BC, as UConn will now have an easier path to BCS Bowls and BB will stay strong. (40% chance, IMO)
4) UConn stays in BE and it falls apart/ UConn leaves BE to Conf USA type of BCs conference. This = good for BC because UConn brand will be diminished. (15% chance, IMO)

(10-09-2011 05:27 PM)brista21 Wrote:  

(10-09-2011 01:11 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  I've had a theory for awhile that the reason for the decline in the programs at Syracuse and BC over the past decade has been for three reasons:

1) UConn started a BCS program and took many of the good local athletes that previously would have gone to BC or Syracuse
2) Rutgers (for awhile at least) was no longer a joke program, and took many of the good NJ athletes that used to go to BC and Syracuse
3) (just for BC) BC relies on midwestern Catholic high schools for a good chunk of their recruiting. And the best high school Catholic teams in the country are from Cincinnati (3 of the top 30 high school programs over the past decade are Cincy Catholic schools, according to USA Today). BC used to get 2-4 recruits a year from Cincy (which would frustrate the heck out of me), and over the past 5 years it's averaged about 1 a year.

Is it clear now why BC wants Rutgers and UConn, and to a lesser extent UC, to fade back to insignificance? Is it clear why Syracuse wants Rutgers and UConn to fade away as well? This is not a conspiracy theory, it's more a statement of what is in their best interest.

Actually Syracuse like Pitt told Pernetti they were likely headed to the ACC. The 4 old line BE FB schools had been working together to improve the conference and keep out Nova and guess what they finally had enough so when the opportunity came for Cuse and Pitt they took it. Don't think they aren't lobbying hard for RU and WVU too, because I'm sure they are. Unfortunately, Rutgers is on its own at this point and future doesn't look so hot.

That's interesting. I didn't know that. I guess it's always helped 'Cuse with recruiting to play in NJ in front of recruits, but in the old days they would in all the time.

I still think that Rutgers' rise (however brief it may have been) contributed to Syracuse's fall, although maybe not as much as UConn developing a BCS program. And now that UMass is going to be at D-1, the talent in the NE will be even more diluted. (And the Northeastern talent has been declining for decades as high school football has declined in that region).

(10-09-2011 05:27 PM)brista21 Wrote:  

(10-09-2011 01:11 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  I've had a theory for awhile that the reason for the decline in the programs at Syracuse and BC over the past decade has been for three reasons:

1) UConn started a BCS program and took many of the good local athletes that previously would have gone to BC or Syracuse
2) Rutgers (for awhile at least) was no longer a joke program, and took many of the good NJ athletes that used to go to BC and Syracuse
3) (just for BC) BC relies on midwestern Catholic high schools for a good chunk of their recruiting. And the best high school Catholic teams in the country are from Cincinnati (3 of the top 30 high school programs over the past decade are Cincy Catholic schools, according to USA Today). BC used to get 2-4 recruits a year from Cincy (which would frustrate the heck out of me), and over the past 5 years it's averaged about 1 a year.

Is it clear now why BC wants Rutgers and UConn, and to a lesser extent UC, to fade back to insignificance? Is it clear why Syracuse wants Rutgers and UConn to fade away as well? This is not a conspiracy theory, it's more a statement of what is in their best interest.

Actually Syracuse like Pitt told Pernetti they were likely headed to the ACC. The 4 old line BE FB schools had been working together to improve the conference and keep out Nova and guess what they finally had enough so when the opportunity came for Cuse and Pitt they took it. Don't think they aren't lobbying hard for RU and WVU too, because I'm sure they are. Unfortunately, Rutgers is on its own at this point and future doesn't look so hot.

Not sure the above is entirely accurate. Every source I know has indicated that both SU and UConn were in favor of the Nova upgrade, while WVU, Pitt, and RU were against it. The newbies basically "abstained", figuring it was best to let the "Old Guard" come to a consensus one way or the other.

What the Old Guard was united in was expansion to 12 on the football front. Which either meant 12/20, 12/18, or 12/16.

Cheers,
Neil

(10-09-2011 05:31 PM)mavblues Wrote:  Yes, GDF was on the expansion committee, but equally importantly (to the detriment of UConn), so was Shalala...

And remember, no schools had formally applied so there was no "veto" required, as I don't believe there was ever a vote taken on UConn-ACC expansion. This was internal committee level discussions, where GDF and Shalala could have killed it.

If you have GDF and Shalala essentially saying "no" to UConn on the committee level, while nobody is doing the same against Pitt & 'Cuse, guess which schools ultimately got past the committee discussion to an actual Y/N vote.

I believe if Duke/NC had their way on this, UConn would have been 1st choice. Never even got that far, though.

At this point, it is what it is.

You're entitled to your opinion, but the ACC has always had an interest in Syracuse going back to 1989,1990.

And the ACC had an interest in Pitt back in 2003.

Here's a post I did back in 2005 in this thread I think the ACC still wants Syracuse after Cat's Claw said that no conference had any interest in going beyond 12.

Cat's Claw, you will have to trust me on this one, the ACC's (or should I say the football schools within the ACC) plan was to immediately go to 12 but the vision was most definitely in 5-7 years down the road (somewhere around 2010) expand again to 14 and stop there.

When the ACC approached Pitt in April of 2003 as to what they thought about being a member of the ACC, it wasn't because Pitt was being considered for this most recent expansion - that was to be Miami, BC, and SU - it was because they were one of three teams being considered for #13 and #14 down the road.

Even back then, the ACC wanted to claim the northeast. Simply taking SU and BC to add to Maryland would not achieve that goal. It's why Swofford had difficulty articulating/selling his Boston to Miami vision and why the ACC settled initially for being SEC-lite and hoped for the best.

The main thing that has changed since then is that 16 is now considered a viable conference and may be preferable to the 14 I thought they would stop at.

Overall, in terms of a northeastern strategy for the ACC (or the BiG) looking at a map and then being familiar with any TNS-ESPN college sports poll (something I'm sure every conference has access to) I think it's pretty much a no-brainer which institutions one needs to ultimately lay claim to the northeast. The BiG has a step up on this since they already have PSU and seem to have a leg up on ND.

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail....3d7299f00b

The building blocks are as follows:

1a) Penn State
1b) Notre Dame



3) Syracuse
4) Maryland
5) Boston College
6) Pittsburgh

7a) Rutgers
7b) UConn

Pittsburgh's placement is as low as 6 with PSU and probably as high as 4 without PSU.

Since the ACC isn't going to get PSU, then its best bet is ND and either Rutgers or UConn so that at worse (assuming no ACC defections) the BiG is left with PSU and either Rutgers or UConn.

Cheers,
Neil

(10-09-2011 06:13 PM)omniorange Wrote:  You're entitled to your opinion, but the ACC has always had an interest in Syracuse going back to 1989,1990.

And the ACC had an interest in Pitt back in 2003.

Never disputed any of that. Simply said if Duke/UNC had their choice, UConn would have been picked.

(10-09-2011 06:27 PM)mavblues Wrote:  

(10-09-2011 06:13 PM)omniorange Wrote:  You're entitled to your opinion, but the ACC has always had an interest in Syracuse going back to 1989,1990.

And the ACC had an interest in Pitt back in 2003.

Never disputed any of that. Simply said if Duke/UNC had their choice, UConn would have been picked.

Well, actually, you said "1st choice".

But again, it's only opinion.

Cheers,
Neil

Interesting article but it contradicts itself. At first it sates that Pitt was invited because they were protecting the NE from the B12 getting a foothold in what they perceive as "their" territory. Later they say it was because Pitt wasn't UConn. Well sir, which is it?

Not so sure BC would block UConn or even try because there are a few over riding variables:
- Does adding ___________ university add or subtract from the conference in terms of TV
- In business it does not pay to hold grudges especially when there are millions of dollars at stake
- Sure there will be an impact in football recruiting but that is offset by the closer travel for other sports
- Academics are a consideration too, IN this case UConn and Rutgers both have very good academics

(10-09-2011 01:29 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  

(10-09-2011 09:52 AM)Brahman Wrote:  “We always keep our television partners close to us,’’ he said. “You don’t get extra money for basketball. It’s 85 percent football money. TV - ESPN - is the one who told us what to do. This was football; it had nothing to do with basketball.’’

Big East needs to sue ESPN.

While all you other guys have a pissing contest about nothing, Brahman has hit on the key phrase of this article. If there is any proof that ESPN told the ACC to target two BE schools, then there is a case for a lawsuit. This makes ESPN more then just a tv outlet of college sports. This makes them a player in conference realignment and shows that they intentionally targeted the BE to weaken it while the BE was in negotiations with ESPN. At first blush, this has the appearance of collusion between ESPN and the ACC to intentionally destroy the reputation of another national brand. The BE would be intentionally financially harmed by not being able to negotiate a better tv contract. ESPN and the ACC now renegotiating that tv deal, could be used as proof of the windfall that both would gain by harming the BE.

Ding!

...or is that phrase copyrighted?

Two things...

1) While we all believe the ACC kneecapped the BE at ESPN's behest, its going to take a lot more than speculation to bring that case to trial.

2) How in the world can't NE support two BCS schools. Compared to places in the south, there should be more than enough kids to support BC, 'Cuse, Rutgers and UConn.