Neil, the lines of communication have always been open through the back door. That's how these things get done. In public there's nothing officially happening. But it happens all the same...

I know there were back door discussions each and every year since the first raid. At least there were up until 2 years ago. That came from the old man's mouth. Right up until his death he was plugged into the network. Altough not quite so deeply as when he was before he retired. But he had sources in every city in BEast territory...

I seriously doubt those back door discussion died when my father did. It seems to me that such things have a longer lifespan...

(01-12-2012 05:15 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(01-12-2012 04:24 PM)Ottoman Wrote:  

(01-12-2012 01:10 PM)Butterfly Wrote:  A negative evidence cannot be used to validate a claim, a lack of said formula is not proof of anything. That is yet another logical fallacy on your part.
It's an opinion, there is no such formula, that's been my point the entire time.

Man is this what you pass off as intellect?
Someone says they can rate colleges and I say show what formula you use and you give this answer about a negative. I dont' see a negative. If I say Jordan is the best player and you say prove it- i can start with his number of NBA titles and his number of scoring scoring titles. YOu asking me for my formula is not a negative, I figure you just want to know how I come to my conclusions.

It's not an opinion the U.S. news has no formula. I've read a number of articles where the writers of the publication could not even write about the ranking because they did not know what the formula was. The link I have on that page is to U.S. News and it details their "formula" which is not a formula at all-really. So I guess it's not just an opinion- I actually read a few things.

And what does SYR not being in NEW YORK have to do with anything. Please re-read your post because you are wrong here. SYR is actually in New York. Where else is it if it's not in New YOrk. I went there and I tell you we all thought we were in New YOrk. Maybe you know better.

But thanks for spending so much time entertaining yourself. Afraid I'm hardly impressed or even insulted. You're just plumb nutzo in my book. You argued strongly against an opinion which basically reaches the same conclusion as your opinion. Now that's Nutzo.

Flaw in my logic? Your logic is clouded by emotion young jedi.

You guys are killing me.

You know, cuse. I got a bone to pick with you...

A lot of people have been killing you lately, and you're still not dead. What's up with that?

(01-13-2012 10:03 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Neil, the lines of communication have always been open through the back door. That's how these things get done. In public there's nothing officially happening. But it happens all the same...

I know there were back door discussions each and every year since the first raid. At least there were up until 2 years ago. That came from the old man's mouth. Right up until his death he was plugged into the network. Altough not quite so deeply as when he was before he retired. But he had sources in every city in BEast territory...

I seriously doubt those back door discussion died when my father did. It seems to me that such things have a longer lifespan...

(01-12-2012 05:15 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(01-12-2012 04:24 PM)Ottoman Wrote:  

(01-12-2012 01:10 PM)Butterfly Wrote:  A negative evidence cannot be used to validate a claim, a lack of said formula is not proof of anything. That is yet another logical fallacy on your part.
It's an opinion, there is no such formula, that's been my point the entire time.

Man is this what you pass off as intellect?
Someone says they can rate colleges and I say show what formula you use and you give this answer about a negative. I dont' see a negative. If I say Jordan is the best player and you say prove it- i can start with his number of NBA titles and his number of scoring scoring titles. YOu asking me for my formula is not a negative, I figure you just want to know how I come to my conclusions.

It's not an opinion the U.S. news has no formula. I've read a number of articles where the writers of the publication could not even write about the ranking because they did not know what the formula was. The link I have on that page is to U.S. News and it details their "formula" which is not a formula at all-really. So I guess it's not just an opinion- I actually read a few things.

And what does SYR not being in NEW YORK have to do with anything. Please re-read your post because you are wrong here. SYR is actually in New York. Where else is it if it's not in New YOrk. I went there and I tell you we all thought we were in New YOrk. Maybe you know better.

But thanks for spending so much time entertaining yourself. Afraid I'm hardly impressed or even insulted. You're just plumb nutzo in my book. You argued strongly against an opinion which basically reaches the same conclusion as your opinion. Now that's Nutzo.

Flaw in my logic? Your logic is clouded by emotion young jedi.

You guys are killing me.

You know, cuse. I got a bone to pick with you...

A lot of people have been killing you lately, and you're still not dead. What's up with that?

No one ever succeeds in actually killing me.

Are we related? I suffer from a similar condition...

(01-11-2012 10:20 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(01-11-2012 10:29 AM)4cornerz Wrote:  Money talks if The Big East gets a better Payday than ACC I betcha Pitt and Syracuse will not go to the ACC. The ADs will come up with a Political correct answer

In an open market environment I could possibly see the Newer New Big East getting a tv contract that was as lucrative as the ACC's.

But even if that were to happen (which isn't a given, but just a possibility), the Rubicon has been crossed. The conference has lost its identity entirely.

I've been harping on this aspect even prior to the ACC's move. Identity is one of the main reasons why the football schools couldn't come to agreement as to who to add after TCU.

Sorry. I'd have liked things to work out in the Big East while it was still recognizable to me, but SU couldn't take the chance especially with WVU flirting with the SEC and both WVU and Pitt being named as possible Big 12 expansion candidates.

Cheers,
Neil

The biggest mistake that football fans make regarding conference realignment and TV contracts is the "What have you done for me lately?" mentality. It honestly doesn't matter that the ACC has been horrible in BCS games (which is true). TV networks know that the one year when Florida State or Miami gets good again, the ACC pops right back to the top of the ratings chart (just like Notre Dame or other marquee programs that haven't been playing well lately). They've seen the ratings history of what has happened when those schools are playing well and it's extremely good, so the CEILING is still high for the ACC. This is Big East board so anything that is stated positively about the ACC seems to get shot down as a reflex action, but just look at how the TV networks have acted and conference realignment has shaken out. Anyone that's in the Big East today that would say that they would've passed over an ACC invite is lying to themselves.

Is the ACC as strong as the SEC or Big Ten? Certainly not. However, they are very comparable to the Pac-12 (great academics, nice recruiting areas and a handful of top brand names at the top but don't really travel that well), and YES, "prestige" matters because the group that makes conference realignment decisions consist of university presidents (as opposed to ADs or coaches), who almost universally got to their positions based on the most snobby and elitist academic backgrounds of ANY profession. These are the people that are the ones that are standing at the very top of the ivory tower, so anyone that discounts prestige (whether it's real or perceived) is ignoring a massive issue in conference realignment. (This is why proclamations that the SEC can just poach ACC schools is completely wrong. The ACC smacks the SEC down in academics far greater than the SEC smacks the ACC down in football.) You can argue that it *shouldn't* matter or it's "not fair", but it *does* matter in reality.

(01-13-2012 12:11 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-11-2012 10:20 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(01-11-2012 10:29 AM)4cornerz Wrote:  Money talks if The Big East gets a better Payday than ACC I betcha Pitt and Syracuse will not go to the ACC. The ADs will come up with a Political correct answer

In an open market environment I could possibly see the Newer New Big East getting a tv contract that was as lucrative as the ACC's.

But even if that were to happen (which isn't a given, but just a possibility), the Rubicon has been crossed. The conference has lost its identity entirely.

I've been harping on this aspect even prior to the ACC's move. Identity is one of the main reasons why the football schools couldn't come to agreement as to who to add after TCU.

Sorry. I'd have liked things to work out in the Big East while it was still recognizable to me, but SU couldn't take the chance especially with WVU flirting with the SEC and both WVU and Pitt being named as possible Big 12 expansion candidates.

Cheers,
Neil

The biggest mistake that football fans make regarding conference realignment and TV contracts is the "What have you done for me lately?" mentality. It honestly doesn't matter that the ACC has been horrible in BCS games (which is true). TV networks know that the one year when Florida State or Miami gets good again, the ACC pops right back to the top of the ratings chart (just like Notre Dame or other marquee programs that haven't been playing well lately). They've seen the ratings history of what has happened when those schools are playing well and it's extremely good, so the CEILING is still high for the ACC. This is Big East board so anything that is stated positively about the ACC seems to get shot down as a reflex action, but just look at how the TV networks have acted and conference realignment has shaken out. Anyone that's in the Big East today that would say that they would've passed over an ACC invite is lying to themselves.

Is the ACC as strong as the SEC or Big Ten? Certainly not. However, they are very comparable to the Pac-12 (great academics, nice recruiting areas and a handful of top brand names at the top but don't really travel that well), and YES, "prestige" matters because the group that makes conference realignment decisions consist of university presidents (as opposed to ADs or coaches), who almost universally got to their positions based on the most snobby and elitist academic backgrounds of ANY profession. These are the people that are the ones that are standing at the very top of the ivory tower, so anyone that discounts prestige (whether it's real or perceived) is ignoring a massive issue in conference realignment. (This is why proclamations that the SEC can just poach ACC schools is completely wrong. The ACC smacks the SEC down in academics far greater than the SEC smacks the ACC down in football.) You can argue that it *shouldn't* matter or it's "not fair", but it *does* matter in reality.

You have expressed some very fine insight on this board Frank. I wholeheartedly have disagreed with you on some of these issues, especially about the Acc's ability to poach from the BE, even though the BE was waiting on this financial windfall from the new tv deal. But you were right. And very good insight shared about academic prestige.

(01-13-2012 12:22 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  You have expressed some very fine insight on this board Frank. I wholeheartedly have disagreed with you on some of these issues, especially about the Acc's ability to poach from the BE, even though the BE was waiting on this financial windfall from the new tv deal. But you were right. And very good insight shared about academic prestige.

And to be clear, this is not about bashing the Big East but reflecting the pecking order that has been established (and goes far beyond the results of some bowl games). By the exact same token, any school that's in the MWC or C-USA would be absolutely insane to turn down a Big East invite, too. I'm constantly having to explain to fans of schools that got passed over by the Big East (*cough* ECU *cough) why that happened, while also saying that the league is ultimately going to survive and still get a good TV contract (meaning that even if AQ status goes away, schools like Boise State are better off in the BE). Most fans typically have an over-inflated view of the relative worth of their respective schools and conferences, so they take it personally. In reality, there are only about 10 or 15 schools out there that truly control their own destinies and there's a pretty clear pecking order to the conferences that really doesn't ever change.