It was Southern Miss and Tulane in place of UCF and USF, as well as South Carolina in place of Penn St. PSU was never a part of it.

(10-31-2013 05:33 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  It was Southern Miss and Tulane in place of UCF and USF, as well as South Carolina in place of Penn St. PSU was never a part of it.

Penn State would have been. They weren't invited because of basketball and travel concerns. But in an alternate universe (which is what we are discussing) they would have been invited.

(10-31-2013 10:03 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(10-31-2013 09:54 AM)chrisiskingx Wrote:  Had UCF been invited to the Big East early on, we may never know if the on campus stadium would have worked out, and maybe settled with the Citrus just as USF has settled with Ray Jay.

Possible.

One key difference, though, is that Ray Jay really is an elite-level facility, used for two Super Bowls and for the Buccaneers. The Citrus Bowl is not nearly the same caliber, so it was much more urgent for UCF to get out of there and into something different/better.

With that said, I agree with the basic point that USF football is badly served by playing its home games in Ray Jay and -- IMHO -- needs to build an OCS if it ever wants to reach its full potential in football.

Citrus Bowl would have been renovated back in 2005-6.

(10-31-2013 03:48 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  I have always wondered what if this had happened:

Boston College
Connecticut
Syracuse
Rutgers
Temple
Penn State
Pitt
West Virginia
Cincinnati
Louisville
Memphis
Virginia Tech
East Carolina
Central Florida
South Florida
Miami

everyone gets pissed off at psu demanding/receiving special treatment and leaves.

(10-31-2013 09:49 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(10-30-2013 06:30 PM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  

(10-30-2013 02:36 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(10-29-2013 09:45 PM)First Mate Wrote:  

(10-28-2013 10:30 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Quick question for anyone who was there and remembers: What went down regarding realignment in the Big East in 2003? Why was South Florida/Cincinnati (UL was a no brainier) picked over Central Florida/ECU/Memphis? I don't remember hearing the details on this before but I remember being absolutely stunned when USF got the Big East invite. I also remember ECU and Memphis fans being outraged when they got left behind in CUSA. TCU immediately contacted the MWC and eventually got in. I can't remember any reaction out of Houston fans at being left in CUSA. ? Does anyone have a good recollection of the details of how those 3 schools were picked by the Big East in the Fall of 2003 after the defection of Miami, Virginia Tech and later BC to the ACC?

Va. tech was actually a proponent of ECU coming to the BE. When they left for the ACC so did ECU's chances. The Big East made their decisions based on basketball for the most part. The USF addition was what baffled ECU fans, done purely on tv market and perceived potential. At that time I don't think USF had even participated in a bowl game. ECU also had an impressive won/loss advantage over Cincy in football which also made the decision cut even deeper. ECU fans thought the decisions would be made to improve BE football (they already had enough strength in basketball) and to keep some of the Virginia/NC market they were losing with Va Tech. Unfortunately that didn't happen.

The BE may still be around as a football league if it had added ECU, Memphis, maybe UCF along with the others and got to 12 for a league title game. The decisions made to pacify the bball only schools and not with football first is why the Big East didn't make it as a football conference.

There seems to be some selective memory loss here. Timing was all wrong for ECU in 2003. They were coming off a losing season and their football program was in shambles. When BC left in October, ECU was in the midst of a 1-11 season and everyone knew the previous spring that their team was a train wreck waiting to happen. Back in 2003, there were a lot of people lobbying for Marshall, which was a much stronger football program at the time. If football were the only issue, Marshall had a lot more cred in 2003 than ECU.

The idea that ECU was a strong football program that the Big Eat overlooked is a myth. they hadn't won a conference championship in over 25 years. They hadn't been ranked by AP since 1991 and had that same unranked streak broken only by a #23 ranking in the coaches' poll in 1995. Adding ECU was going to do absolutely nothing for the stature of the Big East.

You're saying that the expansion decisions were made largely for basketball reasons and ignored football but you then advocate adding Memphis with its terrible football program, claiming that the football conference would still be together with an ECU + Memphis combo added. What are you smoking?

There were a variety of factors involved in the decision making in 2003. Whether anyone likes the choice or not, USF was added as a replacement for Miami. The league liked the idea of a warm weather road game and they liked the access to Florida recruiting that a Florida team gave them. At the time the decision was made, USF had built up its attendance so that it was comparable to ECU's (both were in the low 30's) and they were coming off a win over Louisville. I'm sure their wins over Pitt and UConn 2 years earlier made a favorable impression as well. They were seen as a program on the rise and met the conference's geographic needs.

Why not UCF? They had the same timing problem that ECU did. They were at a low point in the program's history and that same fall, they had been demolished by both Syracuse and Virginia Tech. Not a good audition. UCF was a MAC program at a time when CUSA was seen as the stronger conference and it was reflected in their attendance, which was not as good as USF's.

Was basketball a factor? Sure it was. The conference wasn't going to take in programs that couldn't compete in the Big East, one of the strongest basketball conferences in the country. UCF basketball was competing in the Atlantic Sun Conference, which was just a bridge to far in terms of the step up in competition. USF had already been competing in CUSA for years and had been holding its own.

But it wasn't about basketball The Big East didn't need to improve its basketball. It desperately needed to improve football. Their were rumors that they would be dropped from BCS competition and they certainly were concerned about presenting the strongest football profile they could. ECU, UCF, and Memphis simply didn't help do that at the time these decisions were being made.

Geography and market were also major considerations. Stretching the conference as far west as Louisville was a big deal at the time. This was a Northeast conference with traditions in that region. ECU was South and had little in common with anyone except VA Tech and West Virginia. Memphis was simply too far west. No one was thinking about geography then the way they are now. Florida schools were different because they are Florida. Adding Louisville and Cincinnati as a package made sense because it made for a geographically coherent Ohio Valley corridor, beginning with Pitt and West Virginia.

The Big East had always been built around big markets whether anyone likes that or not. That was the conference's identity. It's how it marketed itself to TV, which was extremely important. ECU didn't fit that profile. It didn't bring a big urban market and it wasn't its state flagship like West Virginia. Moreover, it is in a state crowded with BCS programs, a state which has never been successful at producing any school that could sustain high profile success in football. It's a state that was already owned by the ACC, which meant that the Big East couldn't get to first base with a TV network by touting ECU as bringing anything that would add value to the conference's profile in either revenue sport.

Let me address a few things here that you have wrong and/or out of context.

ECU hadn't won a conference championship in 25 years. Well, that leave out the fact the ECU was independent in football from 1979 through 1996. Kind of hard to win a conference when you don't belong to one 17 of the 25 years you state. Plus what we had done was still better than Cinny to that point 1978-2003.

Not going to argue 2002-2003 seasons, can't be done, they awful. But, will point out VT was added to the BE with losing record.

Markets, well, strictly going by the DMA's, no we don't offer much. But it was and is still bigger than Blacksburg's. But, we and the TV partners know that fan bases extend outside those boards. Here there is no one dominate team in football for viewership. ECU owns the markets and parts of marks east of I-95 covering about 2.2 million house hold (larger than WVU). NCSU covers the Raleigh area and splits the central portion of the state with UNC. UNC pretty much has the rest. Wake and Duke have the Home Counties and that's about it. They are small private schools, with more fans and Alumni from out of state. This is proven by the TV ratings for our games and the fact the ECU was the only school out side of ND to have it's own TV with ESPN in the 1990's, worth about 2 million a year in today's dollars.

But, simply the BE fail on the ECU pick not in 2003, when we were gawd awful, but in 1990-91 when ECU and VT were mirror images of each other and had a close hard hitting rivalry going.

But, that's past and I'm trying to look forward.

Sorry that I overlooked ECU's period of independence, but that doesn't change the fact that ECU was not a dominant football program, rarely ranked, and flubbed its chance in CUSA to establish a position that would have warranted selection.

I have no idea how you determined who owns what markets in NC, but UNC and NC State draw from across the state. I assume that ECU does as well even though it has a regional designation. Ticket buyers may come predominantly from certain regions, but I doubt that TV viewers do despite your claims, which is a big deal. Bottom line is that ECU would have been the 5th BCS program in a state that has never been known for producing top flight football programs. That was a non-starter.

Reverting back to 1990 and saying that ECU should have been taken over VA Tech ignores the realities of 1990. Except for Miami, the Big East was a regional conference - as were all conferences at the time. Given the mentality of the time, extending the boundaries south from West Virginia to Virginia was a big deal. Proximity mattered and ECU was not close to anyone else in the Big East.

First, I didn't say over VT. When the BE started football they went too small, should had more to start with IMO.

As far as TV goes, that's been proven time and again. When on ESPN against an equal oppent ECU has out draw NC State for viewers in the Raleigh/Durham market 7.4 to 6.6, UNC draws a 7.7 and we beat them out in Charlotte as well 5.4 to 4.0, UNC a 5.7. Of course when we play a C-USA team on some nameless channel it drops off, less interest in the other team, and fewer people have that channel.

That's based off ESPN's numbers from the Nelson ratings.

http://www.ecu.edu/undaunted/our_tv_audience.cfm

(10-31-2013 03:38 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(10-29-2013 09:26 AM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  

(10-29-2013 07:45 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  The problem that the BE had was that they wouldn't go beyond 8 fb schools. 8 is the minimum number to form a conference in FBS. Being the BCS conference with the fewest schools made the conference look week, everyone else has at least 11. I thought the split should have just happened then, everyone would have been better off. The Syracuse/BE bond (the glue to the conference) wasn't ready to be broken yet. The BE shouldn't have waited to add TCU.

This.

Should have made Temple a full member instead of kicking them out and taken Memphis, Houston, TCU...

Hindsight being 20/20 though, no use crying over what could have been the 4th or 5th best conference.

Double this, you've both nailed it. Holding at 8 was the demise...

Seriously though, it's ancient history. Look forward people, look forward.

So, being at 10 or 12 would have held them together with any football additions? I doubt it. When opportunity came knocking, those teams scattered to the 4 winds . . . or should I say, 4 conferences. It had to do with quality and compatibility, not quantity.

(10-31-2013 08:42 AM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(10-31-2013 07:05 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Wonder how things would have turned out today for all of us if the Metro super conference had come into being…I think it would have been an outstanding conference and would still be strong today. It had the right mix of football, basketball, markets, etc. It was a model years ahead of it's time.

Anybody know why it never came to be?

There are three major reasons why the Metro super-conference never materialized in my opinion.

#1. Disagreements over revenue sharing. Back in the 1980s-1990s, schools were paid per TV appearance. This payment-per-appearance model was one of the reason why schools like UofL and FSU were initially opposed to the Metro super-conference model. At the time, UofL was making a lot of revenue off of TV appearances and it wanted assurances from the conference that those profits wouldn't be diminished if the conference started sharing revenues. On the other hand, Florida State was willing to play football in the Metro so long as there was only minimal revenue sharing (i.e. no bowl revenue sharing, only partial TV revenue sharing, etc). UofL wanted to protect its hoops revenues and Florida State wanted to protect its football revenue. Basically both were demanding that the other share their best asset while keeping their own cash cow separate.

The revenue sharing model was eventually worked out over the summer of 1990 (the proposed revenue sharing would have allowed schools to keep 90 percent of their earned television dollars). However, by that point, it was already too late.

#2. The Metro Conference went public. In the summer of 1990, the Metro publishing a three-page story detailing its expansion plan. There is a reason why conferences nowadays don't tip their hand when it comes to expansion; you don't want your competitors to know what your exact plans and revenue projections are. Projections from Raycom had the conference making more than every other conference. That made the ACC and SEC nervous and both decided it would be in their best interest to expand before the Metro could follow through on its plan. Making a public announcement about how the conference was going to cash in was one of the dumbest moves the Metro ever made.

#3. The Metro started the process too late. The discussions to sponsor football didn't start until very late in the game (1989-1990). The first expansion plan was released in the summer of 1990 (revised because it had initially included Penn St) and the conference set Oct. 15 as a deadline for acquiring an "agreement in principle" from the 16 proposed schools. The problem is that the SEC and ACC were already considering expansion and when the Metro released their expansion pamphlet to the public, the other conferences decided to act immediately. FSU was invited to the ACC in September of 1990 (joined July 1st, 1991) and South Carolina was invited to the SEC that year as well. The loss of those two schools threw the Metro's conference expansion plans into disarray and in the ensuing chaos, the Big East finalized its plan to sponsor football as a league sport. With that announcement, the Metro conference super-conference dream officially died.

Now there are certainly other factors that contributed to the decline of the Metro (e.g. Coach Schnellenberger was dead set on keeping UofL independent; a lot of the presidents thought the idea of a 16 team conference was pure fantasy and wouldn't support it, etc). However, I think the three outlined above were probably the major ones.

This is pretty much my recollection, too, only my version adds a few cuss words for Louisville and FSU.

(11-01-2013 04:38 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-31-2013 08:42 AM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(10-31-2013 07:05 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Wonder how things would have turned out today for all of us if the Metro super conference had come into being…I think it would have been an outstanding conference and would still be strong today. It had the right mix of football, basketball, markets, etc. It was a model years ahead of it's time.

Anybody know why it never came to be?

There are three major reasons why the Metro super-conference never materialized in my opinion.

#1. Disagreements over revenue sharing. Back in the 1980s-1990s, schools were paid per TV appearance. This payment-per-appearance model was one of the reason why schools like UofL and FSU were initially opposed to the Metro super-conference model. At the time, UofL was making a lot of revenue off of TV appearances and it wanted assurances from the conference that those profits wouldn't be diminished if the conference started sharing revenues. On the other hand, Florida State was willing to play football in the Metro so long as there was only minimal revenue sharing (i.e. no bowl revenue sharing, only partial TV revenue sharing, etc). UofL wanted to protect its hoops revenues and Florida State wanted to protect its football revenue. Basically both were demanding that the other share their best asset while keeping their own cash cow separate.

The revenue sharing model was eventually worked out over the summer of 1990 (the proposed revenue sharing would have allowed schools to keep 90 percent of their earned television dollars). However, by that point, it was already too late.

#2. The Metro Conference went public. In the summer of 1990, the Metro publishing a three-page story detailing its expansion plan. There is a reason why conferences nowadays don't tip their hand when it comes to expansion; you don't want your competitors to know what your exact plans and revenue projections are. Projections from Raycom had the conference making more than every other conference. That made the ACC and SEC nervous and both decided it would be in their best interest to expand before the Metro could follow through on its plan. Making a public announcement about how the conference was going to cash in was one of the dumbest moves the Metro ever made.

#3. The Metro started the process too late. The discussions to sponsor football didn't start until very late in the game (1989-1990). The first expansion plan was released in the summer of 1990 (revised because it had initially included Penn St) and the conference set Oct. 15 as a deadline for acquiring an "agreement in principle" from the 16 proposed schools. The problem is that the SEC and ACC were already considering expansion and when the Metro released their expansion pamphlet to the public, the other conferences decided to act immediately. FSU was invited to the ACC in September of 1990 (joined July 1st, 1991) and South Carolina was invited to the SEC that year as well. The loss of those two schools threw the Metro's conference expansion plans into disarray and in the ensuing chaos, the Big East finalized its plan to sponsor football as a league sport. With that announcement, the Metro conference super-conference dream officially died.

Now there are certainly other factors that contributed to the decline of the Metro (e.g. Coach Schnellenberger was dead set on keeping UofL independent; a lot of the presidents thought the idea of a 16 team conference was pure fantasy and wouldn't support it, etc). However, I think the three outlined above were probably the major ones.

This is pretty much my recollection, too, only my version adds a few cuss words for Louisville and FSU.

thx for the input guys

(10-31-2013 06:11 PM)MagicKnightmare Wrote:  

(10-31-2013 05:33 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  It was Southern Miss and Tulane in place of UCF and USF, as well as South Carolina in place of Penn St. PSU was never a part of it.

Penn State would have been. They weren't invited because of basketball and travel concerns. But in an alternate universe (which is what we are discussing) they would have been invited.

Penn State was never a consideration in the Super Metro in any fashion. I am not sure if there was known to be no interest from their side, or if there was not a want to deal with Joe Pa, or too many kings in the kitchen, but they were never a consideration. You are thinking of the Big East.

(10-31-2013 11:29 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(10-31-2013 03:38 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(10-29-2013 09:26 AM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  

(10-29-2013 07:45 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  The problem that the BE had was that they wouldn't go beyond 8 fb schools. 8 is the minimum number to form a conference in FBS. Being the BCS conference with the fewest schools made the conference look week, everyone else has at least 11. I thought the split should have just happened then, everyone would have been better off. The Syracuse/BE bond (the glue to the conference) wasn't ready to be broken yet. The BE shouldn't have waited to add TCU.

This.

Should have made Temple a full member instead of kicking them out and taken Memphis, Houston, TCU...

Hindsight being 20/20 though, no use crying over what could have been the 4th or 5th best conference.

Double this, you've both nailed it. Holding at 8 was the demise...

Seriously though, it's ancient history. Look forward people, look forward.

So, being at 10 or 12 would have held them together with any football additions? I doubt it. When opportunity came knocking, those teams scattered to the 4 winds . . . or should I say, 4 conferences. It had to do with quality and compatibility, not quantity.

Either way you slice it, UConn and many of our now conference mates would have been in better position now had they been with us since 2004 instead of just coming in now for the last year of the BCS. Perception would be totally different if Houston, UCF, Temple, and Memphis had all been in the Big East for the past decade.

(11-01-2013 09:43 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  Penn State was never a consideration in the Super Metro in any fashion. I am not sure if there was known to be no interest from their side, or if there was not a want to deal with Joe Pa, or too many kings in the kitchen, but they were never a consideration. You are thinking of the Big East.

They were part of Raycom's original plan. Per the Sports Business Daily:

"According to Raycom’s plan, the Metro’s members would have come from the North (Boston College, Syracuse, Pittsburgh), the South (Miami, Florida State, South Carolina) and moved west through the middle of the country (Louisville, Memphis, Cincinnati). The original plan also included Penn State, but the Nittany Lions committed to the Big Ten before Raycom could finish the project."

(10-30-2013 06:47 PM)First Mate Wrote:  

(10-30-2013 05:57 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(10-30-2013 08:57 AM)First Mate Wrote:  

(10-30-2013 12:42 AM)Crimsonelf Wrote:  

(10-29-2013 09:45 PM)First Mate Wrote:  Va. tech was actually a proponent of ECU coming to the BE. When they left for the ACC so did ECU's chances. The Big East made their decisions based on basketball for the most part. The USF addition was what baffled ECU fans, done purely on tv market and perceived potential. At that time I don't think USF had even participated in a bowl game. ECU also had an impressive won/loss advantage over Cincy in football which also made the decision cut even deeper. ECU fans thought the decisions would be made to improve BE football (they already had enough strength in basketball) and to keep some of the Virginia/NC market they were losing with Va Tech. Unfortunately that didn't happen.

BEThe may still be around as a football league if it had added ECU, Memphis, maybe UCF along with the others and got to 12 for a league title game. The decisions made to pacify the bball only schools and not with football first is why the Big East didn't make it as a football conference.

Wrong. The BE was doomed anyway, whenever a P5 conference wanted to expand, they could pluck BE teams at will. The BE was still the low man on the Big 6 totem pole...

Maybe, maybe not. You don't know and neither does anyone else. I'm not saying ECU or any other group of teams could've saved the BE. I am saying that the admin made a series of stupid moves that brought the conference down.

My opinion is that if the football/all sports group would have been aggressive from the start and expanded to a 12 team league it would have had a much better chance to survive. The 8 teams left were greedy and didn't want to split the pie is my guess. While all the other BCS leagues were going to 12 teams for a championship game the old BE stayed at 8 football teams. Not taking the first TV deal was a fatal blow in hindsight.

Not splitting away from the bball only schools was a poor decision. The HQ was in Providence and the league was being run by leaders from the basketball only schools.
The hybrid model was a loser for both sides in the end.

All this combined brought down the Big East.

Why blame the "admin" and Providence? They work for the membership. if the member schools directed them to move in a certain direction, they would move that way. You're assuming way too much autonomy for the conference HQ.

Furthermore, the commissioner's office accomplished the recruitment of TCU, which was a home run. Give them credit for doing something. Circumstances beyond their control intervened to nullify that move, but they can't be held responsible for that.

Fans blame the commissioner's office way to often and absolve the membership of any responsibility. Who hired the commissioner in the first place? What role does his board play in giving him direction. Why couldn't the membership ever get their act together?

It certainly wasn't the commissioner's fault that the football schools didn't use their "get out of jail free" card and split when they had the opportunity. they could then have done whatever they wanted in forming an all sports conference. They weren't prisoners in the Big East. What seems eminently clear in hind sight is that this particularly group of football schools were never, ever really committed to each other. Ultimately that's why it didn't work and why they are now scattered among 4 different conferences.

The conference office provides the leadership of the conference, does it not? You don't think John Swofford or Mike Slive are running the show?? Swofford has been aggressive throughout this expansion wave going back to 2003. Sure, the presidents have to sign off but a good commissioner runs the show. The BE had two commissioners from Providence College. Last I checked Providence doesn't play major college football. Tranghese and Marrianatto were not football guys and they didn't lead with football in mind as other BCS commissioners did.

You are probably correct about the football schools not committing to each other being part of the problem. They should have seen the wave of BCS leagues going to 12 teams and more and expanded more aggressively back in 2003 IMO.

Actually 3 commissioners were from/associated with PC, including the man that had the idea to form the BE in the 1st place.