Would The University of Chicago beat Ohio State this Saturday if it was still in the B1G?

No.

P5 really means anchor bowl and lucrative contract. Rutgers/Louisville combined don't add that. Perhaps the current contract would have been worth more than what it finally was with RU and UL, but if the anchor bowls had no interest in the Big East with WVU/Pitt/Syracuse, then they didn't in C-USA + Rutgers, Temple, UConn and Navy.

(10-25-2015 04:31 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  as opposed to Tulane, Tulsa, and E. Carolina.

Considering none of those teams were added prior to those 2 leaving you have to guess no. After all, everyone that was attractive enough to move up did so. The league would've been nothing but an empty set of documents if all that wished to leave had a better destination.

The results on the field would be pretty even with a bottom P5, but it's never been just about that.

I don't even think the Big East 2.0 with WVU, Pitt, and Cuse would have been respected as a P5 if they stayed together. They would be the "tweener" league. Best case scenario for them would be agree to the original $80M/yr offer from ESPN and hold onto the Liberty, Belk, etc.

The Big East's biggest mistake was not taking in Penn State in the 80s, and their days as a power conference were numbered when Miami left.

(10-25-2015 07:23 PM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 07:14 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 06:26 PM)pablowow Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 04:48 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  Considering ECU has a better football program than Rutgers, I'll say no. Maybe if we had them as opposed to Tulane and Tulsa.

considering we were picked first it would be ECU, Tulsa in that order who was added last

Tulane fans are hilarious. We were picked at the same time and announced on the same day. If you think Tulane was added for anything athletics related, you're mistaken.

I have inside knowledge and ECU was wanted by the football schools for the first round. Many things changed for many reasons and the Big East collapsed. Anyone who tells you different doesn't know the truth. Tulane and Tulsa were not in the mix until the end.

The answer to the OP is still no, even if history had unfolded with the original football wants. That's exactly why the Big East had the first two defections.

Of course you had inside knowledge. It's call some asst athletic director was smoozing you at a fundraiser and telling you how great they did. Your funny

(10-25-2015 04:31 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  as opposed to Tulane, Tulsa, and E. Carolina.

No...

The old Big East was a better league than the current AAC. However despite having some very recognizable and traditional names in the league the P5 was always trying to marginalize the BigEast out of BCS status. That is really the bottom line: the P5 have always wanted to consolidate their power among five leagues...so it wouldn't have mattered if WVU, TCU and Boise would have stuck around....we would have still been left out of the mix.

Add West Virginia and yeah.

No. Its not opinion, its a fact. The AAC/Big East was not invited to the P5 while Rutgers and Louisville were still in this conference in 2013. There isn't any debate about your question. Cheers!

Nah. Maybe if we'd have kept Boise and SDSU, though.

I doubt it. Maybe Louisville & West Virginia, Rutgers isn't that great of a football program.

Any chance of getting rid of these obnoxious color photos by certain posters? Any possibility of getting our AAC board advisors not to allow it?

(10-26-2015 02:02 PM)MechaKnight Wrote:  I don't even think the Big East 2.0 with WVU, Pitt, and Cuse would have been respected as a P5 if they stayed together. They would be the "tweener" league. Best case scenario for them would be agree to the original $80M/yr offer from ESPN and hold onto the Liberty, Belk, etc.

The Big East's biggest mistake was not taking in Penn State in the 80s, and their days as a power conference were numbered when Miami left.

Agreed good points. Tulsa was taken because they were a solid fb school and descent bb. If they took Penn st. It still would have collapsed cause of meat ball and trained goose.

No.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

(10-26-2015 03:27 PM)pablowow Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 07:23 PM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 07:14 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 06:26 PM)pablowow Wrote:  

(10-25-2015 04:48 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  Considering ECU has a better football program than Rutgers, I'll say no. Maybe if we had them as opposed to Tulane and Tulsa.

considering we were picked first it would be ECU, Tulsa in that order who was added last

Tulane fans are hilarious. We were picked at the same time and announced on the same day. If you think Tulane was added for anything athletics related, you're mistaken.

I have inside knowledge and ECU was wanted by the football schools for the first round. Many things changed for many reasons and the Big East collapsed. Anyone who tells you different doesn't know the truth. Tulane and Tulsa were not in the mix until the end.

The answer to the OP is still no, even if history had unfolded with the original football wants. That's exactly why the Big East had the first two defections.

Of course you had inside knowledge. It's call some asst athletic director was smoozing you at a fundraiser and telling you how great they did. Your funny

No. One of the defecting ADs, I know his brother. Not saying more than that. But it isn't as immature as your response.

I do miss all the jokes about ECU applying to the Big East

The American would be a P6 conference if it had ECU, Louisville, and Southern Miss in it. Book it.