(06-13-2013 02:36 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-13-2013 01:08 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-13-2013 12:29 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  That FLOORED me as I had never experienced anything like that before: a conference pride cheer. No fan of the old Big East would have ever left a big win by chanting "Go Big East" or anything like that. We would chant something more school specific like "Let's Go Pitt" or something like that.

That was a HUGE cultural difference and I think that is emblematic of why one league has been decimated to the point that it is now being re-branded while the other continues to flourish.

Ironically, I could see this happening with the "new" Big East--there's much more shared identity, a feeling of basketball-onlies against the world. A year or two ago, UConn or Georgetown or Syracuse winning in the NCAAs would help St Johns a bit in perception, but man, f--- those guys. Now, Georgetown and Villanova and Marquette are our brothers-in-arms, veterans of the "realignment wars" against the football schools and the ACC defectors.

I could imagine a "Go Big East" chant at next years' NCAAs.

You mean you're going to be really upset when Georgetown loses in the first round again next year?

Cal going to miss another tourny?

(06-13-2013 11:21 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(06-13-2013 02:36 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-13-2013 01:08 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-13-2013 12:29 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  That FLOORED me as I had never experienced anything like that before: a conference pride cheer. No fan of the old Big East would have ever left a big win by chanting "Go Big East" or anything like that. We would chant something more school specific like "Let's Go Pitt" or something like that.

That was a HUGE cultural difference and I think that is emblematic of why one league has been decimated to the point that it is now being re-branded while the other continues to flourish.

Ironically, I could see this happening with the "new" Big East--there's much more shared identity, a feeling of basketball-onlies against the world. A year or two ago, UConn or Georgetown or Syracuse winning in the NCAAs would help St Johns a bit in perception, but man, f--- those guys. Now, Georgetown and Villanova and Marquette are our brothers-in-arms, veterans of the "realignment wars" against the football schools and the ACC defectors.

I could imagine a "Go Big East" chant at next years' NCAAs.

You mean you're going to be really upset when Georgetown loses in the first round again next year?

Cal going to miss another tourny?

Cal won in the first round this year.

St. Johns hasn't won an NCAA tournament game in so long, the last time they did win one, Bill Clinton was president.

(06-13-2013 12:09 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(06-13-2013 11:01 AM)ULdave Wrote:  ]I don't think his comments on this subject will move anyone. While it may be correct that any other school would have done the same, it doesn't change the fact that THEY actually did it and killed the Big East. UConn, Cincy and USF could very well be pushed off the map in big time college athletics and Pitt has their blood on its hands. Pitt shouldn't expect forgiveness and understanding from those programs it destroyed.

You're right. Pitt probably should have done the chivalrous thing and allowed UConn to take its spot in the ACC so that everyone could go to bed at night with a clear conscience.

100% cray-cray.

Bottom line, the SEC and ACC both had to expand in order to reopen their TV deals. The Pac 10 wanted/needed to expand to add enough game inventory to allow them to launch a conference TV network. The B1G wanted/needed to expand by at least one school to even out the conference at 12, add a CCG, and add inventory for the BTN. That's a need for at least 7 schools that have to come from somewhere.

The Big East, Big 12, and MWC were the obvious potential sources of the schools to fill these needs. The Big 12 and Big East both had all kinds of internal tensions that made them susceptible to being raided. In the case of the Big East, this was evidenced by the whole debacle over adding a 10th football school, with ESPN-recommended UCF not even coming up for a vote and then Villanova unable to get the necessary votes.

The ACC appeared on its face to be the peer of the Big East and Big 12 in the conference pecking order. However, it was far more cohesive as a group. Ultimately, this is what allowed it to add schools rather than lose them.

Somebody was going to get these various invitations. Any member of the Big 12 or Big East that did not evaluate its options was at serious risk of being left behind. No one school can be blamed for this situation. It's economic forces at work, no different than any other industry.

(06-14-2013 08:06 AM)orangefan Wrote:  The ACC appeared on its face to be the peer of the Big East and Big 12 in the conference pecking order. However, it was far more cohesive as a group. Ultimately, this is what allowed it to add schools rather than lose them.

Maryland?

FWIW, given how ludicrous the Villanova subsidization plan was...apparently, they are no longer pursuing that upgrade, officially.

When their football coach retires and once their hoops coach is poached, that program is finished. They want to refurbish their arena...township's already telling them "no."

(06-14-2013 08:11 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 08:06 AM)orangefan Wrote:  The ACC appeared on its face to be the peer of the Big East and Big 12 in the conference pecking order. However, it was far more cohesive as a group. Ultimately, this is what allowed it to add schools rather than lose them.

Maryland?

Big East/AAC -7 (incl. ND and TCU)
Big 12 -4
ACC -1

(06-14-2013 08:16 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  FWIW, given how ludicrous the Villanova subsidization plan was...apparently, they are no longer pursuing that upgrade, officially.

When their football coach retires and once their hoops coach is poached, that program is finished. They want to refurbish their arena...township's already telling them "no."

They sure don't seem to have a good relationship with their neighborhood in Philly. From reading the Villanova boards, getting anything approved by the neighborhood is difficult.

(06-13-2013 12:09 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(06-13-2013 11:01 AM)ULdave Wrote:  ]I don't think his comments on this subject will move anyone. While it may be correct that any other school would have done the same, it doesn't change the fact that THEY actually did it and killed the Big East. UConn, Cincy and USF could very well be pushed off the map in big time college athletics and Pitt has their blood on its hands. Pitt shouldn't expect forgiveness and understanding from those programs it destroyed.

You're right. Pitt probably should have done the chivalrous thing and allowed UConn to take its spot in the ACC so that everyone could go to bed at night with a clear conscience.

100% cray-cray.

You missed the point completely. Pitt may have done what is best for them, but in doing so they damaged those other schools and killed the Big East. UConn didn't do it. Pitt is responsible for their actions, the quote by the AD tries to shift that responsibility to what "might" have happened. I get what they did and why did it and I'm not saying they should have been chivalrous about it.

Pederson should just say "We did what was in the best interest of Pitt" maybe throw a "sorry" in there if it is genuine. Not give some face saving argument that they moved out of fear and tried to help everyone else. THAT is what rubs me the wrong way.

(06-13-2013 11:21 AM)4x4hokies Wrote:  How did Pitt destroy their programs?

Not sure if you are serious?
The death of the Big East removes those programs from "BCS" status. These programs will not get the same support and interest as they had with "Big Time" status. That is especially deadly to these programs because they are still in a developing stage. None has a large entrenched fanbase with generations of support.

(06-14-2013 09:31 AM)ULdave Wrote:  

(06-13-2013 11:21 AM)4x4hokies Wrote:  How did Pitt destroy their programs?

Not sure if you are serious?
The death of the Big East removes those programs from "BCS" status. These programs will not get the same support and interest as they had with "Big Time" status. That is especially deadly to these programs because they are still in a developing stage. None has a large entrenched fanbase with generations of support.

His point is that if Pitt didn't jump you had other programs in the BIG EAST that would have taken their spot.

(06-14-2013 09:34 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 09:31 AM)ULdave Wrote:  

(06-13-2013 11:21 AM)4x4hokies Wrote:  How did Pitt destroy their programs?

Not sure if you are serious?
The death of the Big East removes those programs from "BCS" status. These programs will not get the same support and interest as they had with "Big Time" status. That is especially deadly to these programs because they are still in a developing stage. None has a large entrenched fanbase with generations of support.

His point is that if Pitt didn't jump you had other programs in the BIG EAST that would have taken their spot.

Yeah, if Pitt had said no, UConn, Rutgers, Louisville or whoever would have been out the door to the ACC as their replacement. To think otherwise is ridiculous.

(06-14-2013 08:46 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 08:16 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  FWIW, given how ludicrous the Villanova subsidization plan was...apparently, they are no longer pursuing that upgrade, officially.

When their football coach retires and once their hoops coach is poached, that program is finished. They want to refurbish their arena...township's already telling them "no."

They sure don't seem to have a good relationship with their neighborhood in Philly. From reading the Villanova boards, getting anything approved by the neighborhood is difficult.

Yeah, unfortunately for Villanova they are in an extremely wealthy suburban area (Radnor Twp.) where the neighbors don't think they need Villanova and hate having the college students around. It's such a contrast with Penn, Temple and Drexel that are actually in the city limits where their neighborhoods are literally being transformed overnight with expansion.

(06-14-2013 10:08 AM)MKPitt Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 09:34 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 09:31 AM)ULdave Wrote:  

(06-13-2013 11:21 AM)4x4hokies Wrote:  How did Pitt destroy their programs?

Not sure if you are serious?
The death of the Big East removes those programs from "BCS" status. These programs will not get the same support and interest as they had with "Big Time" status. That is especially deadly to these programs because they are still in a developing stage. None has a large entrenched fanbase with generations of support.

His point is that if Pitt didn't jump you had other programs in the BIG EAST that would have taken their spot.

Yeah, if Pitt had said no, UConn, Rutgers, Louisville or whoever would have been out the door to the ACC as their replacement. To think otherwise is ridiculous.

If if if....

Pitt did it, others didn't. They are responsible.

(06-14-2013 08:46 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 08:16 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  FWIW, given how ludicrous the Villanova subsidization plan was...apparently, they are no longer pursuing that upgrade, officially.

When their football coach retires and once their hoops coach is poached, that program is finished. They want to refurbish their arena...township's already telling them "no."

They sure don't seem to have a good relationship with their neighborhood in Philly. From reading the Villanova boards, getting anything approved by the neighborhood is difficult.

Radnor Township, where Villanova is located, doesn't have a bad relationship with the school, per se...just the sports culture on the local roads, residents, and commerce.

It's going to be a colossal turn if Villanova really tanks. If they were able to pull off the upgrade, it could have served as a model for smaller or other cash-strapped schools considering FBS play. That excitement in the region back in 2009 after they won the FCS NC...to where things stand now? Wow. Just...wow.

(06-14-2013 09:34 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 09:31 AM)ULdave Wrote:  

(06-13-2013 11:21 AM)4x4hokies Wrote:  How did Pitt destroy their programs?

Not sure if you are serious?
The death of the Big East removes those programs from "BCS" status. These programs will not get the same support and interest as they had with "Big Time" status. That is especially deadly to these programs because they are still in a developing stage. None has a large entrenched fanbase with generations of support.

His point is that if Pitt didn't jump you had other programs in the BIG EAST that would have taken their spot.

Right. No one is questioning the harm suffered by those who lost this game of musical chairs. The question is "who caused it?" My point above was that there were strong forces pushing the SEC, ACC, B1G and P10 toward expansion. Saying that any individual school should have resisted those forces, particularly when doing so placed them at substantial risk, is not a reasonable argument. Nobody else said no, and anybody who says that their school would have said no is not being honest.

(06-14-2013 10:19 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 09:34 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 09:31 AM)ULdave Wrote:  

(06-13-2013 11:21 AM)4x4hokies Wrote:  How did Pitt destroy their programs?

Not sure if you are serious?
The death of the Big East removes those programs from "BCS" status. These programs will not get the same support and interest as they had with "Big Time" status. That is especially deadly to these programs because they are still in a developing stage. None has a large entrenched fanbase with generations of support.

His point is that if Pitt didn't jump you had other programs in the BIG EAST that would have taken their spot.

Right. No one is questioning the harm suffered by those who lost this game of musical chairs. The question is "who caused it?" My point above was that there were strong forces pushing the SEC, ACC, B1G and P10 toward expansion. Saying that any individual school should have resisted those forces, particularly when doing so placed them at substantial risk, is not a reasonable argument. Nobody else said no, and anybody who says that their school would have said no is not being honest.

I NEVER SAID THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE IT. I am saying they are responsible for what they did. You cannot absolve yourself responsibility by the actions that others didn't take.

(06-13-2013 09:57 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Here is another interesting stanza from the blog posting:

Quote:From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Pederson did say that he and Pitt chancellor Mark Nordenberg did try earnestly to save the Big East, but didn't get enough commitment from other members (some of whom are probably now stuck in the American).


"We tried to keep everybody together and make some longer term commitments, because at that point nobody could guarantee what was going to happen or where you might go," Pederson said. "We were the ones saying, 'Hey, let's lock arms here and sort this out.' But we could never get a full commitment from the people that had to be committed to this to make it happen. We did try, we made a concerted effort to try, but a lot of them just decided that if the options came along, they were going to take them, so they were unwilling to make any long-term commitment to us. Some of those ended up in great places and some of them didn't."

I'm guessing that he is talking about West Virginia, Louisville, Rutgers and Connecticut here but I cannot be sure. Does anyone else have any thoughts?

Yes, I agree.

West Virginia was very public about its dissatisfaction and its intentions to move on to another conference if the opportunity presented itself. UConn is the most obvious choice for a school that hoped to be included in expansion but was left behind.

I'm not sure about the other two. Louisville seemed to have a strong commitment. Rutgers seemed pretty neutral. I assumed that was because they didn't think they had any better prospects. But if he's referring to someone else who didn't go to the ACC, Rutgers certainly fits the profile.

If I were guessing on another school with wandering eyes, it would have been Syracuse. Mainly because of their intention to depart along with BC & Miami the first time around. The fact that they weren't saying much publicly doesn't matter because they didn't say much the first time either. So, silent plotting would fit their MO. And of course an AD would be aware of things that the rest of us hadn't heard.

The other part of the interview that I found interesting is Pitt's interest in staying on the East Coast. Even though they're even more into the Midwest than Penn State, East Coast ties are important to them. As a state school, they draw from all over the state regardless of their location on the state's western frontier. Their ties with Philly go back to before WW II when they played Penn annually and those two were the big teams in the state, not Penn State.

(06-14-2013 10:15 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 08:46 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-14-2013 08:16 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  FWIW, given how ludicrous the Villanova subsidization plan was...apparently, they are no longer pursuing that upgrade, officially.

When their football coach retires and once their hoops coach is poached, that program is finished. They want to refurbish their arena...township's already telling them "no."

They sure don't seem to have a good relationship with their neighborhood in Philly. From reading the Villanova boards, getting anything approved by the neighborhood is difficult.

Radnor Township, where Villanova is located, doesn't have a bad relationship with the school, per se...just the sports culture on the local roads, residents, and commerce.

It's going to be a colossal turn if Villanova really tanks. If they were able to pull off the upgrade, it could have served as a model for smaller or other cash-strapped schools considering FBS play. That excitement in the region back in 2009 after they won the FCS NC...to where things stand now? Wow. Just...wow.

BC has exactly the same kind of relationship with its neighbors in Chestnut Hill and Newton.

It's not surprising that WVU was dissatisfied with The BEast. The conference ignored every suggestion from Morgantown on how best to strengthen the football side of the conference, which ultimately led to the ACC systematically removing every rival WVU had. Who wouldn't be dissatisfied?

(06-13-2013 11:44 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-13-2013 11:21 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(06-13-2013 02:36 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-13-2013 01:08 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-13-2013 12:29 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  That FLOORED me as I had never experienced anything like that before: a conference pride cheer. No fan of the old Big East would have ever left a big win by chanting "Go Big East" or anything like that. We would chant something more school specific like "Let's Go Pitt" or something like that.

That was a HUGE cultural difference and I think that is emblematic of why one league has been decimated to the point that it is now being re-branded while the other continues to flourish.

Ironically, I could see this happening with the "new" Big East--there's much more shared identity, a feeling of basketball-onlies against the world. A year or two ago, UConn or Georgetown or Syracuse winning in the NCAAs would help St Johns a bit in perception, but man, f--- those guys. Now, Georgetown and Villanova and Marquette are our brothers-in-arms, veterans of the "realignment wars" against the football schools and the ACC defectors.

I could imagine a "Go Big East" chant at next years' NCAAs.

You mean you're going to be really upset when Georgetown loses in the first round again next year?

Cal going to miss another tourny?

Cal won in the first round this year.

St. Johns hasn't won an NCAA tournament game in so long, the last time they did win one, Bill Clinton was president.

It seems like just yesterday that Bill Clinton was president.