Hey guys... I know we sold off the "Big East" name when the split happen. However, I'm wondering if that was really a good idea or worth it? There was a lot of branding that had gone along with that name, with successful teams winning and making noise in that conference (Miami championships, West Virginia RichRod heyday's, Louisville success, etc).

Do you all think if the name of the conference was still the "Big East", that it would be easier to push the P6 narrative? Or that we would get more respect nationally? The Big East was in a different class than the other G4 conferences b/c they had the BCS label... and I'm wondering if by moving to the AAC, we made it a lot easier for us to be lumped in with the other G4 conferences in national perception/awareness as a conference since it had no real brand recognition?

Thoughts?

Ask the SoCon, or Missouri Valley, or the WAC how much having an illustriious name helps when don't have the schools that made the name special. (UConn excepted. Respect to Bearcat history, but Nick Van Exel and the Big O weren't Big East players.)

(11-01-2017 07:18 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Ask the SoCon, or Missouri Valley, or the WAC how much having an illustriious name helps when don't have the schools that made the name special. (UConn excepted. Respect to Bearcat history, but Nick Van Exel and the Big O weren't Big East players.)

Not sure I follow? You feel those conferences had the same reputation/branding as the BigEast did just a few years ago?

I'd have to strongly disagree. They weren't BCS conferences...

It would have aided the P6 narrative. The Big East was clearly part of the P6 before and an argument could be made that it (now the American) should remain.

Also, I love the post above. Why bring up Cincaniti and basketball when taking about P6? Big East basketball schools are still disconnected with reality that anything other than football matters when it come to P6. They will continue their sink into irrelevance and the Big East brand will become synonymous to the Atlantic 10.

I'm glad we sold it. The brand depends on the schools in it. The sunbelt would be a special brand name if it had Alabama, Florida, Georgia, etc. The Big East name means nothing now. Just a bunch of church league teams that happen to play well.

I think it would have been easier to rebuild under the Big East or at least a name that didn't sound like Conference USA Version 3.0. Even with a split, I think this conference would have benefitted from the Big East brand and hurt the C7 schools.

The league probably should have kept the Big East name and made a push to add VCU, Dayton, and Wichita State right off the bat to rebuild the basketball brand. Army, Marshall, or UMass could have a received a look as well. Part of the issue this conference has is that is basically Conference USA under a new name. Conference USA wasn't a bad league in either of its first two forms but it was never a BCS or power conference.

Metro Conference or Big Metro Conference would have worked too.

(11-01-2017 07:28 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  I'm glad we sold it. The brand depends on the schools in it. The sunbelt would be a special brand name if it had Alabama, Florida, Georgia, etc. The Big East name means nothing now. Just a bunch of church league teams that happen to play well.

Ya... but if UCF, USF, and Memphis were all Top 25 teams in the "Big East" conference... don't you think that would carry more weight than in the American Conference that people still arent even that familiar with?

Dont you feel being the AAC now makes it easier for us to lump in with the others?

I was thinking about this the other day. We should have kept the Big East name to push the p6 narrative but they probably sold the name because they were thinking western expansion.

How much change did the American get for the Big East name?

(11-01-2017 07:44 AM)KnightNasty Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 07:28 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  I'm glad we sold it. The brand depends on the schools in it. The sunbelt would be a special brand name if it had Alabama, Florida, Georgia, etc. The Big East name means nothing now. Just a bunch of church league teams that happen to play well.

Ya... but if UCF, USF, and Memphis were all Top 25 teams in the "Big East" conference... don't you think that would carry more weight than in the American Conference that people still arent even that familiar with?

Dont you feel being the AAC now makes it easier for us to lump in with the others?

Nope...don't think it would have mattered. Like someone mentioned above, we should of grabbed Wichita State and a few other basketball schools early. Keep the momentum of being a power basketball conference and hope football is good enough.

It is going to take time to shake the c-usa image. Basketball can help that.

(11-01-2017 07:25 AM)KnightNasty Wrote:  

(11-01-2017 07:18 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Ask the SoCon, or Missouri Valley, or the WAC how much having an illustriious name helps when don't have the schools that made the name special. (UConn excepted. Respect to Bearcat history, but Nick Van Exel and the Big O weren't Big East players.)

Not sure I follow? You feel those conferences had the same reputation/branding as the BigEast did just a few years ago?

I'd have to strongly disagree. They weren't BCS conferences...

Once upon a time, those were all major, top level conferences.
Then the schools that made them top level conferences left.
And they stopped being top-level conferences.

BYU won a national title in the WAC in the 1980s. Didn't help the WAC in the early 2000s after the MWC schools left.

IF you guys want a name with an illustrious major-conference history, "Southwest Conference" is available. There's no current trademark. Go for it.

"That would be silly," you say, "only 2 of our members have SWC history and most of the conference is nowhere near the old SWC footprint"? Yeah. Kind of like that.

(11-01-2017 07:44 AM)KnightNasty Wrote:  Ya... but if UCF, USF, and Memphis were all Top 25 teams in the "Big East" conference... don't you think that would carry more weight than in the American Conference that people still arent even that familiar with?

Dont you feel being the AAC now makes it easier for us to lump in with the others?

Not really. You're not lumped in with the other lower-FBS conferences because of your name. You're lumped in with them because your conference doesn't have a Michigan or an Alabama or a Florida or a USC or a Texas or an Oklahoma or a Florida State.

From 2005-12 the Mountain West and their fans cranked out all sorts of plausible statistics about how they were just as good as the Big East and better than the Big East and how the MWC should be a BCS league and--it didn't matter. Ever.

(11-01-2017 07:57 AM)8BitPirate Wrote:  How much change did the American get for the Big East name?

You kept the money (exit fees and credits) in the divorce, we got the name.

About $70 million, most of which ended up going to UConn, Cincinnati and USF. Here's an old csnbbs thread that quoted an article wholesale.

I don't know if keeping the name would have helped all that much, but there would have probably been some residual value to it. The thing I didn't like was the name "American", although it has grown on me. It just sounded too much like C-USA, and since we had so many C-USA teams, I thought we should have distanced ourselves from that a little more. I was really hoping for the Metro or something similar, since so many of our schools were in large metropolitan areas.

The name made no difference. Not in football, for sure. Basketball, maybe. But I think the name hurt football.

(11-01-2017 07:11 AM)KnightNasty Wrote:  Hey guys... I know we sold off the "Big East" name when the split happen. However, I'm wondering if that was really a good idea or worth it? There was a lot of branding that had gone along with that name, with successful teams winning and making noise in that conference (Miami championships, West Virginia RichRod heyday's, Louisville success, etc).

Do you all think if the name of the conference was still the "Big East", that it would be easier to push the P6 narrative? Or that we would get more respect nationally? The Big East was in a different class than the other G4 conferences b/c they had the BCS label... and I'm wondering if by moving to the AAC, we made it a lot easier for us to be lumped in with the other G4 conferences in national perception/awareness as a conference since it had no real brand recognition?

Thoughts?

Keeping the C7 in the fold with the BE name would have kept the conference brand as the tweener the BE was even as a BCS Conference. It would have been separated from the P5 but it definitely would have been much higher than the other G4 conferences with a much better TV contract and would have remained one of best - if not the premiere BB league in the country. Going after Boise was a mistake. The conference should have concentrated on placating the C7 by offering Villanova an FBS FB slot free of charge with no strings attached such as stadium improvements and should have offered G'town a small stipend for FB every year to help them compete better in the Patriot League. A stipend as low as a $100,000 dollars would go a long way for a few good coaches in that league. They were the leaders of the split so the other 5 schools would have fallen right in line for fear of being left behind in a smaller league out of the big money.

The BE would presently be comprised as:

FB -EAST - Villanova, Temple, UConn, Cinn, ECU, UCF, and USF.
FB- WEST - Navy, Houston, Tulane, Houston, SMU, Memphis and Tulsa.

FB Championship at the highest ranked division leader's stadium.

BB - NORTH - Nova, Providence, G'town, DePaul, Marquette, St. John, Seton Hall, UConn and Cinn.
BB - South - Temple, ECU, Memphis, UCF, USF, Tulane, Tulsa, SMU, Houston.

Each BB division member plays home and home against each other for 16 conference games and rotates 3 alternate division foes though the schedule every year for a 19 game league schedule. The BE Tournament remains in NYC.

The contract to leave free of charge for the C7 as a group remains in effect as well as a contract for the FB members to leave for free as a group is put in effect. If a school leaves on its own it pays the required exit fees. This covers any future expansion where the FB schools might merge with any remaining B-12 schools under the B-12 name should the Texa-Homa schools split from their conference for greener pastures. In that case the BB schools take the BE name free of charge and the spoils such as BB credits are split evenly at the time of the departure. Each group remains under a branded name should a future merger / split occur.

(11-01-2017 08:35 AM)TripleA Wrote:  The name made no difference. Not in football, for sure. Basketball, maybe. But I think the name hurt football.

So... it made no difference except maybe in basketball and definitely in football?

The Big East name had meaning for basketball but was maligned for football when Miami and Va Tech left.

The name wouldn't have helped with the P6 narrative in football, and that's what the American is concentrating on.

(11-01-2017 09:46 AM)megadrone Wrote:  The Big East name had meaning for basketball but was maligned for football when Miami and Va Tech left.

The name wouldn't have helped with the P6 narrative in football, and that's what the American is concentrating on.

The Big East brand is basketball. It wouldn't have helped football which has been 95% of the focus. I wish we went ahead and grabbed Dayton and VCU and go toe to toe with the Big East in hoops and be a true tweener football league.

Perception is EVERYTHING. Yes, we would be viewed a bit larger if we had the name... If the Big East won the Fiesta (UCF) and Peach (Houston)... it would track better than the 'usurper' AAC winning those games we 'shouldn't have'... Simply because the Big East was a Power conference.