(09-21-2013 08:49 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(09-21-2013 01:49 AM)AusTxPony Wrote:  Boise has a bad defense. However, the announcers said their team was young. Bodes Ill for next year in the battle for a playoff spot.

Most of the team might be young, Boise's quarterback is a 5th year senior. I think that the rest of the MWC has caught up to Boise a little. It may be time for the Boise coach to go, before his image is damaged.

Starting a team full of freshman doesn't = being caught up with. You don't have THAT much of a swing in 2 years.

(09-21-2013 11:18 AM)jaredf29 Wrote:  Boise screwed us so I say screw them.

You could also say the Big East screwed them and everyone else by not trying to get any other West invites other than BYU, AFA. stalled around way too long as the Beast melted down. Yeah We are leaving but the Beast could still be around today if They hadn't dropped the ball.

(09-21-2013 12:08 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(09-21-2013 11:18 AM)jaredf29 Wrote:  Boise screwed us so I say screw them.

You could also say the Big East screwed them and everyone else by not trying to get any other West invites other than BYU, AFA. stalled around way too long as the Beast melted down. Yeah We are leaving but the Beast could still be around today if They hadn't dropped the ball.

This. Should have gotten the rest of the western schools, BYU & AF would have followed eventually.

(09-21-2013 10:47 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Marv, I tried telling you about Fresno State. They've got one of the best QB's in college football right now. Fresno should be 4-0 right now. They should destroy Colorado.

And I tried to tell you that Boise State is overrated. Boise State was just mauled by Washington a few weeks earlier. Boise is at best a 9-3 or 8-4 team.

Fresno is o.k., but they are not 20 spots better in the polls than Rutgers.

There was never an opportunity for the AAC to add other western schools after the C7 left. Isn't one of the reasons Boise decided to return to the MWC was because of the TV deal being way less than what it was projected to be?

(09-21-2013 03:15 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  There was never an opportunity for the AAC to add other western schools after the C7 left. Isn't one of the reasons Boise decided to return to the MWC was because of the TV deal being way less than what it was projected to be?

No, We're talking a whole year before the C7 cut and run. The BE waisted many many months chasing 2 schools that never would have come to start with. Could have had Fresno, UNLV amongst others. Upper Mgt. Fell on the Sword.

(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.

(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.

.....Memphis did?

yes Memphis did.

Memphis was purely responsible for the horrible 2004 Big East season, complete with having to have Pitt as the BCS representative.

Well I can't say "purely." I suppose the other teams could have just been better, but they single handedly forced Louisville, Cicny, USF (and Marquette and Depaul) to stay in CUSA in 2004.

But the BE became super relevant after that? Rutgers-Louisville, USF number 2 in the BCS...

An extra season without the first set of CUSA refugees is not high on the list of things that killed BE football, is what I'm saying.

(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.

Whoa, besides being out of line, you're arguing that we never tried to get a full western division. I agree. I was responding to others who said that. Not me. Relax already.

All I said was that the C7 would never have allowed it, and that's why we got Tulane instead, plus ECU for FB only, even if we had wanted a full western division, which some people keep saying we should have done, when we couldn't.

(09-21-2013 10:47 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Marv, I tried telling you about Fresno State. They've got one of the best QB's in college football right now. Fresno should be 4-0 right now. They should destroy Colorado.

I told you that Rutgers was underrated.

(09-21-2013 04:23 PM)justinslot Wrote:  But the BE became super relevant after that? Rutgers-Louisville, USF number 2 in the BCS...

An extra season without the first set of CUSA refugees is not high on the list of things that killed BE football, is what I'm saying.

The league never recovered from the 2004 season. Instead of being celebrated when those things happened, we were actually mocked for it, because of how bad 2004 was.

(09-21-2013 04:34 PM)TripleA Wrote:  All I said was that the C7 would never have allowed it, and that's why we got Tulane instead, plus ECU for FB only, even if we had wanted a full western division, which some people keep saying we should have done, when we couldn't.

It wasn't about the C7. The OTHER teams DID NOT want a full western division. That is what many who blame the C7 do not understand. Especially those who were never members with them. The C7 generally gave the football schools rubber stamp. Problem was the football schools, under any configuration NEVER could agree on anything.

(09-21-2013 07:15 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(09-21-2013 04:34 PM)TripleA Wrote:  All I said was that the C7 would never have allowed it, and that's why we got Tulane instead, plus ECU for FB only, even if we had wanted a full western division, which some people keep saying we should have done, when we couldn't.

It wasn't about the C7. The OTHER teams DID NOT want a full western division. That is what many who blame the C7 do not understand. Especially those who were never members with them. The C7 generally gave the football schools rubber stamp. Problem was the football schools, under any configuration NEVER could agree on anything.

That's true, too. All I'm saying is it never mattered either way, b/c there were never enough votes, however you want to count them. But even if ALL the FB schools wanted to go west, the C7 had enough votes to block it. That was my secondary point.

My original point was simply that there were not enough votes to get there, as some people seem to wish still.

They may have had enough to block it, but you saying they were set to do so. My point is there is not only no proof of that, but all evidence points to the opposite. You are blaming them for something they "could" have done if they wanted to but didn't.

they simply wanted the league to survive. You wanna know the last thing the blocked as a group? Extending an invite to Villanova. They had to be convinced to add them by the football schools (then all 15 had to convince Nova). Yet they are blamed for inviting them and "destroying" the conference.

(09-21-2013 07:32 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  They may have had enough to block it, but you saying they were set to do so. My point is there is not only no proof of that, but all evidence points to the opposite. You are blaming them for something they "could" have done if they wanted to but didn't.

they simply wanted the league to survive. You wanna know the last thing the blocked as a group? Extending an invite to Villanova. They had to be convinced to add them by the football schools (then all 15 had to convince Nova). Yet they are blamed for inviting them and "destroying" the conference.

I never said they were set to do so, only that they were not going to allow it. They made that clear to several FB ADs, at least three that I'm aware of.

Anyway, who cares about the freakin' C7? Not sure why you are defending them, but it's irrelevant to me.

My whole point was that people keep saying we should have built up an all western division, when that was clearly not going to happen, regardless of who was or was not for it.

(09-21-2013 10:14 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-21-2013 07:32 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  They may have had enough to block it, but you saying they were set to do so. My point is there is not only no proof of that, but all evidence points to the opposite. You are blaming them for something they "could" have done if they wanted to but didn't.

they simply wanted the league to survive. You wanna know the last thing the blocked as a group? Extending an invite to Villanova. They had to be convinced to add them by the football schools (then all 15 had to convince Nova). Yet they are blamed for inviting them and "destroying" the conference.

I never said they were set to do so, only that they were not going to allow it. They made that clear to several FB ADs, at least three that I'm aware of.

Anyway, who cares about the freakin' C7? Not sure why you are defending them, but it's irrelevant to me.

My whole point was that people keep saying we should have built up an all western division, when that was clearly not going to happen, regardless of who was or was not for it.

You are wrong

(09-21-2013 10:19 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(09-21-2013 10:14 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(09-21-2013 07:32 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  They may have had enough to block it, but you saying they were set to do so. My point is there is not only no proof of that, but all evidence points to the opposite. You are blaming them for something they "could" have done if they wanted to but didn't.

they simply wanted the league to survive. You wanna know the last thing the blocked as a group? Extending an invite to Villanova. They had to be convinced to add them by the football schools (then all 15 had to convince Nova). Yet they are blamed for inviting them and "destroying" the conference.

I never said they were set to do so, only that they were not going to allow it. They made that clear to several FB ADs, at least three that I'm aware of.

Anyway, who cares about the freakin' C7? Not sure why you are defending them, but it's irrelevant to me.

My whole point was that people keep saying we should have built up an all western division, when that was clearly not going to happen, regardless of who was or was not for it.

You are wrong

Which part? That we weren't going to ever have a full western division, or that the C7 didn't want it?

But frankly, who cares? It's done. Those who wished for a full western division weren't going to get it. That doesn't mean that a few schools didn't want it to happen. They did. But there was too much opposition.

Your assertion that the C7 had something to do with it. That was your claim. And it was completely inaccurate