(09-21-2013 10:45 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Your assertion that the C7 had something to do with it. That was your claim. And it was completely inaccurate

Okay, we just disagree. All I know for sure is that the Memphis AD and other ADs said privately it wasn't happening, due to too much opposition.

The best time it could have happened was when Tulane and ECU were invited. We could have invited whoever from the west. At that time, the C7 had the majority votes, so do the math. If they had WANTED a full western division to happen, they could have done it then. But instead, we got Tulane, whom nobody was clamoring for, and ECU, as football only.

Now, who in this conference that had a vote at that time would be FOR ECU as FB only? And for Tulane for anything? I'm not saying the C7 was some kind of voting bloc that shut down everything. I'm simply saying between them and everybody else with a vote, the full western thing wasn't happening.

I'm done. Carry on. We are going to disagree.

(09-21-2013 11:24 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-21-2013 10:45 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Your assertion that the C7 had something to do with it. That was your claim. And it was completely inaccurate

Okay, we just disagree. All I know for sure is that the Memphis AD and other ADs said privately it wasn't happening, due to too much opposition.

That is probably true. Your conclusion from that, however, is where ou veer off the correct path. The teams who opposed, were primarily other football schools. I can tell you without a doubt, that football expansion was mostly rubber stamped. Hence the problems that arose when ECU and Tulane came aboard.

(09-20-2013 09:38 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(09-20-2013 09:36 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  This should have been a Big East game in or West division. BE screwed up royalty not inviting Fresno.

Fresno was ready to sign on the contract. It was totally mishandled.

That whole process was an abortion.

(09-21-2013 07:18 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-21-2013 12:47 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(09-20-2013 11:15 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Geez, do you guys forget that we couldn't invite more western teams while the C7 were still here, and once they left, it was too late? It was never going to happen.

That's not true at all. Unless you have forgotten about the BE trying to add BYU, Air Force, and sniffing at a few others.

Also remember that Boise St and San Diego St left... after the C7 left.


BTW, one thing you all should notice: this game doesn't exist on ESPN.com. Not on the front page, the college football page, nor the initial scoreboard page. You have to look deep (change the scoreboard filter) to find it. No one cares about this game. Tuesday night MAC never got coverage that bad.

Then e disagree, b/c we're talking about two different things. Yes, we were trying to add ONE MORE western team. But we were NOT going to add a western division, "taking the best of the MWC." THAT is what I'm disagreeing with.

And Boise and SDSU didn't leave b/c the C7 left, but the C7 prevented us from the beginning of even considering a true western division. By the time the C7 left, ND, UL and RU were leaving, and that killed our TV deal to the point where Boise was better off extorting the MWC.

Do you honestly think that Tulane was our best remaining choice, or that the football schools thought ECU should be football only? No, the C7 forced those choices, further diluting our TV value.

Some folks have a short memory.

The C7 didn't provide us with many options while they were still in the league. Folks also need to remember that the BE didn't want to invite a bunch of Western teams until Boise made up their mind on where they were staying or going. They were the lynch pin for a true western conference and the BE didn't want to get 'stuck' with west coast teams w/o Boise serving as anchor. That is why SDSU was encouraged to stay in the MWC after Boise successfully escorted The MWC.

(09-21-2013 03:40 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(09-21-2013 07:18 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Do you honestly think that Tulane was our best remaining choice, or that the football schools thought ECU should be football only? No, the C7 forced those choices, further diluting our TV value.

That is not true, the last sentence, no matter how often you want to repeat it. A "true western division" was simply not logistical unless you had an 8 team divsision. That was due to the C7: it was due to NCAA rules that dictate a true western division would have required all teams to have all sports involved. So unless you were wanting a full 20 team football league, a "full western division" was NEVER an option. C7, no C7. An remember the C7 left when Tulane was invited. It obviously wasn't their call (although truth be told no one seems to know how that happened. No offense Tulane fans but it's true).

BTW The C7 actually voted for the Western schools, or Boise anyway. You know who voted against them? Louisville and Cincinnati.

Know history before blaming. If anyone can be blamed for the state of the Big East, it is your school. They ****** over the Big East in 2004 and it never recovered.

I am sorry ,but you are going to have to explain to me how we had anything to do with any problem the BE had in 2004

(09-20-2013 09:38 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(09-20-2013 09:36 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  This should have been a Big East game in or West division. BE screwed up royalty not inviting Fresno.

Fresno was ready to sign on the contract. It was totally mishandled.

My memory says Fresno was not ready to do a fb only, which would have been the only possible on the table. The C7 were never going to open up to a full membership west wing, and to be honest I don't know that the FB schools would have wanted it either.

Bottom line was the NBE with those schools was not going to generate big tv dollars, and travel would have been considerably worse. Both sides are better off the way it all worked out. The MWC survived, and Boise got an expanded TV package. The American got the TV $$ that was their without the travel.

Are we really arguing about this? It feels like all that was a century ago. Leave it in the past , it was a failed Meatball.

(09-22-2013 07:26 AM)FUB Wrote:  I am sorry ,but you are going to have to explain to me how we had anything to do with any problem the BE had in 2004

When Miami, and VPI were invited to leave the Big East to join the ACC the BE invited 5 teams from C-USA to replace them the following year. The teams had agreed to a settlement to leave and join the BE. Memphis was said no, and then sued to force the other schools to stay. The BE then had to insist Uconn move up a year earlier, and keep Temple for one additional year, essentially giving the BE only 5 teams from a competition standpoint in the league, though UConn was much more competitive than they should have been.

Everyone else was okay with the move EXCEPT for Memphis, including the league AND the other teams (who were getting a pretty penny), and they were the ones who forced the issue. Essentially it would have been like Southern Miss forcing Memphis, UCF, Houston, and SMU to stay in CUSA until 2014.

As I recall, UAB was part of that lawsuit threat along with Memphis.