(02-21-2012 01:21 PM)stever20 Wrote: Dayton is worthless compared to the football schools that you mentioned. How many tournaments have they been in? 1 in the last 8 years. That's the exact same number as Houston. Post Calipari Memphis will be in their 3rd tourney in 4 years. Yeah, that's not too bad at all.
You keep on bringing up the split- but refuse to face the facts that if the big east football had been a seperate conference, they would have been MUCh stronger than the hoops teams in the last 6 years. Even with the defections, football is stronger.
The Football 8 _were_ a stronger basketball group than the Catholic 8. After trading Syracuse, West Virginia and Pitt for Memphis, UCF, Houston and SMU, it's not clear there's an advantage either way. Take out Louisville (or UConn), and the Catholic 8 are a stronger basketball league by themselves.
Agree 100%. You can't trade Pitt, Cuse and WVU (and probably UL) for UCF, SMU, UH, Boise and SDSU. Sure Boise has had a great run but there is no comparison to Cuse, Pitt and WVU's histories and fanbases. The others are simply market grabs, with the exception of UH. UH has at least been there kind of.
The point of Big East football was for the Catholic schools to cling to them, thereby making the Big East a "major" basketball conference instead of a "mid major". At this point the Catholic schools are merging with a large group of schools that have no athletic history for the most part. You just can't expect the same results anymore. The little bit of BE football credibility they had is gone but I'm sure you're all going to jump to defend the newcomers. Fact is even though they've been fairly successful recently, they ARE NOT a WVU, Pitt or Cuse in terms of brand recognition.
There is a tipping point coming. By tipping point, I mean the point at which BE football is history.[/u] I believe that tipping point will be when UL bails. At that point the Big East brand is probably salvaged best by adding the best private (preferably Catholic) universities in large urban settings. Schools like Xavier, Butler, Richmond, St Louis, Creighton, etc make a lot of sense at that point.
1> Boise is every bit the brand of Pitt and Syracuse in football- for the younger folks. You know- the ones that advertisers try to get. A 18 year old was like 5 when Syracuse had McNabb.
2> The big east basketball only teams- just have not been as good recently. Only 3 of the 8 schools have at least 9 units in the last 6 tournaments combined. Compare to 5 on the football side. Granted 3 of those are gone now. but still- football side has 2 teams with at least 9 units left, and adding Memphis(who has 17), would put the football back to 3.
3> If the basketball schools were goign to leave- it would have done so by now. They know they are MUCH more viable with the football schools. If they didn't think that- none of these additions would have happened. Period.
(02-21-2012 03:16 PM)stever20 Wrote: There are major problems with that though....
1> Boise is every bit the brand of Pitt and Syracuse in football- for the younger folks. You know- the ones that advertisers try to get. A 18 year old was like 5 when Syracuse had McNabb.
Boise is an increasingly prominent brand and yes the Pitt and Syracuse brands are SLIGHTLY less lustrous than they used to be. That being said, Boise doesn't make up for losing their brands.
But Pitt and Syracuse aren't brands in football. They're just not. And, even if they were brands- Syracuse going 9-40 in conference play last 7 years is not a good brand at all.
(02-21-2012 11:37 AM)stever20 Wrote: I was thinking about it.
I don't think the Big East has a school like that. Sure, losing Louisville would hurt, but they would be replacable.
Please keep thinking.
One of the last two schools that the nBE can afford to lose is 1) UConn (and one can make the case strictly for their women's hoops program), and Louisville.
But really, with the losses of West Virginia, Syracuse, and Pitt, the damage to the Big East is done -- although it may take a year or two for it to really sink in with the fans.
(02-21-2012 03:29 PM)stever20 Wrote: But Pitt and Syracuse aren't brands in football. They're just not. And, even if they were brands- Syracuse going 9-40 in conference play last 7 years is not a good brand at all.
You're right. Pitt, Cuse and WVU are bigger brands PERIOD. there's no if's, and's or but's about this. Boise might be popular right now but they don't make up for those 3 losses. Then factor in Boise will be a football only member. They won't get any of that basketball unit $$$ distribution that you explained to me the other day.
By your own admission the non-football schools haven't pulled their basketball weight as much as they should be. Now you're losing the schools that are essentially the sugar daddies of the conference in both football and basketball. Somehow you expect UCF, SMU and Houston to make up for this just because they planted their university in a city?? You can't have it both ways Steve.
When was the last time that Pitt was truly relevent? Last time they finished in the postseason top 10 was back in 1981. So, for a 30 yr old- they were just born when that happened. For advertisers, they crave that 18-49 crowd. A 49 yr old would have been only 19 when Pitt was good. Been to 1 major bowl the last 28 years, and they got MURDERED by Utah.
(02-21-2012 03:29 PM)stever20 Wrote: But Pitt and Syracuse aren't brands in football. They're just not. And, even if they were brands- Syracuse going 9-40 in conference play last 7 years is not a good brand at all.
You're right. Pitt, Cuse and WVU are bigger brands PERIOD. there's no if's, and's or but's about this. Boise might be popular right now but they don't make up for those 3 losses. Then factor in Boise will be a football only member. They won't get any of that basketball unit $$$ distribution that you explained to me the other day.
By your own admission the non-football schools haven't pulled their basketball weight as much as they should be. Now you're losing the schools that are essentially the sugar daddies of the conference in both football and basketball. Somehow you expect UCF, SMU and Houston to make up for this just because they planted their university in a city?? You can't have it both ways Steve.
Boise, UH, and SMU are better than Pitt, or SU in Football. Boise st is better than WV. Basketball is another story.
(02-21-2012 03:29 PM)stever20 Wrote: But Pitt and Syracuse aren't brands in football. They're just not. And, even if they were brands- Syracuse going 9-40 in conference play last 7 years is not a good brand at all.
You're right. Pitt, Cuse and WVU are bigger brands PERIOD. there's no if's, and's or but's about this. Boise might be popular right now but they don't make up for those 3 losses. Then factor in Boise will be a football only member. They won't get any of that basketball unit $$$ distribution that you explained to me the other day.
By your own admission the non-football schools haven't pulled their basketball weight as much as they should be. Now you're losing the schools that are essentially the sugar daddies of the conference in both football and basketball. Somehow you expect UCF, SMU and Houston to make up for this just because they planted their university in a city?? You can't have it both ways Steve.
1st off, Memphis is every bit the basketball school that the teams that are leaving are. Heck, they have more units than any Big East school currently.
UCF is improving quickly in hoops. Houston is recruiting very well. Only SMU is a "problem" but I'd expect with the Big East name that they'll start doing better fairly soon.
Football- Boise for the 18-49 yr old crowd(especially the 18-34 crowd)- is extremely popular. That's the demographic that advertisers crave. Pitt and Syracuse just aren't that much of a name in football for that age.
Boise is the #1 "Johnny Come Lately", was the biggest beneficiary of the BCS loopholes, and the #1 reason all of this conference alignment has taken place.
Boise State is NOT a brand. If they were, they'd have the Big Texas XII or the Pac 12 falling over themselves to have Boise join.
In fact, as a result of these shifts in landscape, Boise is on an island with a blue turf, and it'll take a couple of seasons for the eastern-most nBE schools to wise up and say, "dang -- this ain't what we wanted" and we'll see another shift in landscape. I hope Boise has a basketball program to speak of, b/c they will need one.
(02-21-2012 04:17 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote: Boise is the #1 "Johnny Come Lately", was the biggest beneficiary of the BCS loopholes, and the #1 reason all of this conference alignment has taken place.
Boise State is NOT a brand. If they were, they'd have the Big Texas XII or the Pac 12 falling over themselves to have Boise join.
In fact, as a result of these shifts in landscape, Boise is on an island with a blue turf, and it'll take a couple of seasons for the eastern-most nBE schools to wise up and say, "dang -- this ain't what we wanted" and we'll see another shift in landscape. I hope Boise has a basketball program to speak of, b/c they will need one.
With that said, I guess YOU could say same thing about ECU?
Football- league is going to be a LOT deeper. Boise takes over very well for West Virginia. Houston, SMU, Navy, and San Diego St all match up well with Syracuse and Pittsburgh. As I said- Syracuse went 9-40 last 7 years in conference, so not big loss there at all. Pittsburgh is not the Pittsburgh of yesteryear- and I think Pittsburgh fans would admit that. As I said- it's been 30 years since they finished in the top 10 postseason.
Basketball- league will be a bit weaker, but still plenty strong enough.
bottom line- league- their gains in football will more than make up for the losses in basketball.
(02-21-2012 04:17 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote: Boise is the #1 "Johnny Come Lately", was the biggest beneficiary of the BCS loopholes, and the #1 reason all of this conference alignment has taken place.
Boise State is NOT a brand. If they were, they'd have the Big Texas XII or the Pac 12 falling over themselves to have Boise join.
In fact, as a result of these shifts in landscape, Boise is on an island with a blue turf, and it'll take a couple of seasons for the eastern-most nBE schools to wise up and say, "dang -- this ain't what we wanted" and we'll see another shift in landscape. I hope Boise has a basketball program to speak of, b/c they will need one.
BCS loopholes?
Boise first off was selected AT LARGE 1 year. That ain't a loophole.
And in terms of why all this conference realignment took place- not even close.. What exactly did Boise do that precipitated that?
And you say Johnny come lately. Is that what folks said about Florida St about 30 years ago? Why the hell does that matter? Why are folks such sticks in the mud that they can't accept that the landscape can and does change. Why are folks so darn scared of Boise.
(02-21-2012 04:24 PM)stever20 Wrote: Football- league is going to be a LOT deeper. Boise takes over very well for West Virginia. Houston, SMU, Navy, and San Diego St all match up well with Syracuse and Pittsburgh. As I said- Syracuse went 9-40 last 7 years in conference, so not big loss there at all. Pittsburgh is not the Pittsburgh of yesteryear- and I think Pittsburgh fans would admit that. As I said- it's been 30 years since they finished in the top 10 postseason.
Basketball- league will be a bit weaker, but still plenty strong enough.
bottom line- league- their gains in football will more than make up for the losses in basketball.
(02-21-2012 04:17 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote: Boise is the #1 "Johnny Come Lately", was the biggest beneficiary of the BCS loopholes, and the #1 reason all of this conference alignment has taken place.
Boise State is NOT a brand. If they were, they'd have the Big Texas XII or the Pac 12 falling over themselves to have Boise join.
In fact, as a result of these shifts in landscape, Boise is on an island with a blue turf, and it'll take a couple of seasons for the eastern-most nBE schools to wise up and say, "dang -- this ain't what we wanted" and we'll see another shift in landscape. I hope Boise has a basketball program to speak of, b/c they will need one.
With that said, I guess YOU could say same thing about ECU?
Boise does have a very good brand right now, and assuming they continue winning at or near the clip they have been that will remain and maybe even grow. There have been a few schools that late in the game grew from nothing to long-standing national brands. The 2 big examples I can think of are Florida State and Virginia Tech. What's going to be interesting to see with Boise is what happens if they have a down year or 2 with the roster turnover and the new conference. The true brands even when average have great fan support and national appeal. It remains to be seen if Boise has reached the point that if they aren't top 10 if people outside of Boise will really care. I'm not saying people won't, because Boise has been a national name for nearly a decade now and it may be that they have reached that brand status where a downturn doesn't greatly decrease interest, but that won't ever really be known till they face a downturn. I'm not predicting they have one, because really I don't know.
(02-21-2012 04:35 PM)Chappy Wrote: I'm sorry, are people saying with a straight face that they'd rather have Boise, Houston, Memphis, SDSU, SMU, and UCF than Pitt, Syracuse and WVU?
Really?
Yes.
SMU and SDSU are the most ridiculous comparisons anybody could make.
/
School Alliance can least afford to lose
