Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
What if: Big East signs new contract w/ ESPN in 2011
Author Message
orangefan Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,493
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation: 256
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: New England
Post: #41
RE: What if: Big East signs new contract w/ ESPN in 2011
(07-28-2020 09:09 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  
(07-28-2020 08:33 AM)orangefan Wrote:  
(07-27-2020 05:55 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  The entire premise of this entire thread rests on the idea that ACC expansion to 14 was inevitable. It wasn't. It was engineered by ESPN (per the BC president) to punish the Big East for going to the open market.

There's all sorts of scenarios that could play out (maybe the Big 12 goes back to 12 if they can get WVU + Pitt + UL together). Who knows, the most likely result is that WVU, Pitt, and UL are still in the Big East, with Syracuse having gone to the ACC to replace Maryland. I very much doubt the Big East with those three plus potentially TCU, UCF, and Houston, would have lost AQ/Power status.

I very seriously doubt that a conference made a permanent long term decision just out of spite for another conference. As I point out in one of my prior posts in this thread, the move to 14 for both the ACC and the SEC was likely driven by the Pac 12 TV contract announced in early May, 2011. That contract demonstrated that the then current TV deals for the SEC and ACC were well under market and would have placed both at a serious financial disadvantage until around 2023. Expansion provided the opportunity to reopen their TV deals at an increased base payouts and to develop conference TV networks.

With respect to the ACC, it is clear that by 2012, it understood that it needed to use the loss of Maryland as an opportunity to add a strong football program. It's not clear to me that they had reached this point yet in 2011. For instance, UConn was rumored to be the top runner up in 2011 behind Syracuse and Pittsburgh, ahead of both WVU and UL.

I didn't say a conference did that. I said ESPN did. The BC president admitted ESPN told the ACC to raid the Big East and that the result would be more money. So the ACC did. Whether there are potentially business reasons that would justify the expansion from the ACC's perspective (besides simply an increased ESPN payout) doesn't change the fact that ESPN engineered the death of the Big East for defying ESPN and going to the open market.

Ah, gotcha, that makes more sense. However, given my theory that the Pac 12 TV deal prompted the ACC (and SEC) to act, members of the Big East were the only obvious targets. There really wasn't anyone else for them to target. However, I do recall articles at the time stating that the ACC received guidance from ESPN regarding who to select based on who would bring the most additional value to the TV deal.
(This post was last modified: 07-28-2020 09:20 AM by orangefan.)
07-28-2020 09:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,772
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 984
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #42
RE: What if: Big East signs new contract w/ ESPN in 2011
(07-28-2020 09:09 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  I didn't say a conference did that. I said ESPN did. The BC president admitted ESPN told the ACC to raid the Big East and that the result would be more money. So the ACC did. Whether there are potentially business reasons that would justify the expansion from the ACC's perspective (besides simply an increased ESPN payout) doesn't change the fact that ESPN engineered the death of the Big East for defying ESPN and going to the open market.

I see some causal problems in this statement. There were reports at that time (Fall 2011) that ESPN had told the ACC that if it wanted more money for its TV deal, it had to expand. But that doesn't mean that (a) ESPN "told" the ACC to expand, as in against their will, nor that (b) it told them to expand so as to punish the Big East for going to market.

To me, the likely scenario is that once ESPN offered the Big East essentially the same deal that the ACC got in 2010, the ACC realized its deal was already under-valued, and they were trying to figure out how to increase that deal. So they asked ESPN, and ESPN told them well, you need to add schools that add more value. So the ACC did. If so, then the impetus for expansion wasn't ESPN, it was the ACC wanting more TV money. ESPN merely told them how that could be done.

I have never seen any evidence from that time that demonstrates that ESPN told the ACC to expand when the ACC didn't want to, nor that they encouraged the ACC to expand via Syracuse and Pitt so as to punish the Big East for refusing its offer. If you have it, please provide it.

IMO, the ACC had ample reasons of its own to raid the Big East, it didn't need ESPN involvement to motivate it.
(This post was last modified: 07-28-2020 10:21 AM by quo vadis.)
07-28-2020 10:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
cuseroc Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 14,333
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 417
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: Rochester/Sarasota

Donators
Post: #43
RE: What if: Big East signs new contract w/ ESPN in 2011
(07-27-2020 05:55 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  
(07-27-2020 03:40 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(07-27-2020 03:33 PM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  
(07-27-2020 10:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-27-2020 10:25 AM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  They really thought they could do better when the deal was turned down. In hindsight, had they signed the deal I think the exit penalties for the departing members would have been higher but I don’t think a GOR was ever on the table. I think most of the departing football members would have left anyway and I’m not sure what options ESPN would have had. I do think the C7 would have stayed and possibly WVU as long as ESPN had to mostly abide by the contract.

I think a realistic outcome is that Cuse and Pitt leave for the ACC. I think Rutgers and UMD still end up in the Big Ten. The ACC still takes UofL but WVU stays in the Big East and Houston, Memphis, UCF, and SMU are the only additions and the Big East gets an AQ tag.

If Rutgers, Pitt, Syracuse and Louisville all still leave, there is IMO no way the Big East gets AQ/Power designation in the CFP.

If the Big East contract that it turned down with ESPN remained intact even with departures, I think it would have been recognized as an AQ just based on the disparity of contract value alone. It would have been much closer to the now P5 in contract value than the current G5.

AQ still goes away, replaced by "contract bowls". Which the Big East wasn't able to secure after losing Miami and the Orange Bowl slot.

That's assuming that ESPN would have accepted UCF, SMU and Houston as equal-value replacements for Syracuse, Pitt, WVU. Which is a risky assumption--ESPN doesn't make a habit of playing hardball about haircuts, but this would be a different case.

EDIT: The Big EAst /AAC would have kept AQ until the end of the contract cycle. But that's just how that goes

The entire premise of this entire thread rests on the idea that ACC expansion to 14 was inevitable. It wasn't. It was engineered by ESPN (per the BC president) to punish the Big East for going to the open market.

There's all sorts of scenarios that could play out (maybe the Big 12 goes back to 12 if they can get WVU + Pitt + UL together). Who knows, the most likely result is that WVU, Pitt, and UL are still in the Big East, with Syracuse having gone to the ACC to replace Maryland. I very much doubt the Big East with those three plus potentially TCU, UCF, and Houston, would have lost AQ/Power status.

One thing that we have to keep in mind is that the first and most major step in securing AQ status is being aligned as an anchor with a major bowl (Fiesta, Sugar, Orange, Rose). Without that there is no AQ status. The BE did not have an agreement to anchor any major bowl during the last BCS era. There was an arrangement for the BE to have a roving opportunity to play in the major bowls, except the Rose Bowl, depending on how the other bowl choices worked out each season.

While setting up the current P5 system, there was not going to be any more major revolving bowl opportunities. Thus went the BE AQ status opportunity. You needed multiple current and unquestionable football powers that attract tv eyeballs and or fb powers with a history of traveling well for a major bowl to take a chance on giving anchor status to a conference. It was not a foregone conclusion that even the ACC, with the likes of Clemson, FSU, Miami and VT, would be an anchor to the Orange Bowl. I remember that whole Orange Bowl deal signing with the ACC well, because SU and Pitt had accepted an invitation to the ACC, and I was thinking that if the ACC didnt re-up with the OBowl, SU would have left one conference that lost AQ/BCS status to go to another that lost AQ status.

So even with the new additions, it doesnt seem likely that the BE would have gained AQ status
07-28-2020 10:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Michael in Raleigh Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,818
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation: 72
I Root For: App State
Location:
Post: #44
RE: What if: Big East signs new contract w/ ESPN in 2011
(07-28-2020 10:39 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(07-27-2020 05:55 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  
(07-27-2020 03:40 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(07-27-2020 03:33 PM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  
(07-27-2020 10:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  If Rutgers, Pitt, Syracuse and Louisville all still leave, there is IMO no way the Big East gets AQ/Power designation in the CFP.

If the Big East contract that it turned down with ESPN remained intact even with departures, I think it would have been recognized as an AQ just based on the disparity of contract value alone. It would have been much closer to the now P5 in contract value than the current G5.

AQ still goes away, replaced by "contract bowls". Which the Big East wasn't able to secure after losing Miami and the Orange Bowl slot.

That's assuming that ESPN would have accepted UCF, SMU and Houston as equal-value replacements for Syracuse, Pitt, WVU. Which is a risky assumption--ESPN doesn't make a habit of playing hardball about haircuts, but this would be a different case.

EDIT: The Big EAst /AAC would have kept AQ until the end of the contract cycle. But that's just how that goes

The entire premise of this entire thread rests on the idea that ACC expansion to 14 was inevitable. It wasn't. It was engineered by ESPN (per the BC president) to punish the Big East for going to the open market.

There's all sorts of scenarios that could play out (maybe the Big 12 goes back to 12 if they can get WVU + Pitt + UL together). Who knows, the most likely result is that WVU, Pitt, and UL are still in the Big East, with Syracuse having gone to the ACC to replace Maryland. I very much doubt the Big East with those three plus potentially TCU, UCF, and Houston, would have lost AQ/Power status.

One thing that we have to keep in mind is that the first and most major step in securing AQ status is being aligned as an anchor with a major bowl (Fiesta, Sugar, Orange, Rose). Without that there is no AQ status. The BE did not have an agreement to anchor any major bowl during the last BCS era. There was an arrangement for the BE to have a roving opportunity to play in the major bowls, except the Rose Bowl, depending on how the other bowl choices worked out each season.

While setting up the current P5 system, there was not going to be any more major revolving bowl opportunities. Thus went the BE AQ status opportunity. You needed multiple current and unquestionable football powers that attract tv eyeballs and or fb powers with a history of traveling well for a major bowl to take a chance on giving anchor status to a conference. It was not a foregone conclusion that even the ACC, with the likes of Clemson, FSU, Miami and VT, would be an anchor to the Orange Bowl. I remember that whole Orange Bowl deal signing with the ACC well, because SU and Pitt had accepted an invitation to the ACC, and I was thinking that if the ACC didnt re-up with the OBowl, SU would have left one conference that lost AQ/BCS status to go to another that lost AQ status.

So even with the new additions, it doesnt seem likely that the BE would have gained AQ status
I was honestly pretty surprised when the "Champions Bowl," which turned out to be the Sugar Bowl, arrangement between the SEC and the Big 12 was announced. I thought the ACC would have been in such an arrangement rather than the Big 12. The ACC had only lost one school compared to the four the Big 12 lost. It seemed more stable and deeper in terms of brand names (FSU, Miami, VT, and Miami as opposed to just Texas and Oklahoma). Not to mention that the ACC is home to many more major markets than the Big 12 has, which has pretty much Texas and a bunch of lightly populated states.

I guess the ACC paid a steep price for being down throughout the 2000's. Little did the college football world know that FSU and soon after Clemson become two of the most successful programs of the decade.
07-28-2020 10:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,772
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 984
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #45
RE: What if: Big East signs new contract w/ ESPN in 2011
(07-28-2020 10:39 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(07-27-2020 05:55 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  
(07-27-2020 03:40 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(07-27-2020 03:33 PM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  
(07-27-2020 10:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  If Rutgers, Pitt, Syracuse and Louisville all still leave, there is IMO no way the Big East gets AQ/Power designation in the CFP.

If the Big East contract that it turned down with ESPN remained intact even with departures, I think it would have been recognized as an AQ just based on the disparity of contract value alone. It would have been much closer to the now P5 in contract value than the current G5.

AQ still goes away, replaced by "contract bowls". Which the Big East wasn't able to secure after losing Miami and the Orange Bowl slot.

That's assuming that ESPN would have accepted UCF, SMU and Houston as equal-value replacements for Syracuse, Pitt, WVU. Which is a risky assumption--ESPN doesn't make a habit of playing hardball about haircuts, but this would be a different case.

EDIT: The Big EAst /AAC would have kept AQ until the end of the contract cycle. But that's just how that goes

The entire premise of this entire thread rests on the idea that ACC expansion to 14 was inevitable. It wasn't. It was engineered by ESPN (per the BC president) to punish the Big East for going to the open market.

There's all sorts of scenarios that could play out (maybe the Big 12 goes back to 12 if they can get WVU + Pitt + UL together). Who knows, the most likely result is that WVU, Pitt, and UL are still in the Big East, with Syracuse having gone to the ACC to replace Maryland. I very much doubt the Big East with those three plus potentially TCU, UCF, and Houston, would have lost AQ/Power status.

One thing that we have to keep in mind is that the first and most major step in securing AQ status is being aligned as an anchor with a major bowl (Fiesta, Sugar, Orange, Rose). Without that there is no AQ status. The BE did not have an agreement to anchor any major bowl during the last BCS era. There was an arrangement for the BE to have a roving opportunity to play in the major bowls, except the Rose Bowl, depending on how the other bowl choices worked out each season.

While setting up the current P5 system, there was not going to be any more major revolving bowl opportunities. Thus went the BE AQ status opportunity. You needed multiple current and unquestionable football powers that attract tv eyeballs and or fb powers with a history of traveling well for a major bowl to take a chance on giving anchor status to a conference. It was not a foregone conclusion that even the ACC, with the likes of Clemson, FSU, Miami and VT, would be an anchor to the Orange Bowl. I remember that whole Orange Bowl deal signing with the ACC well, because SU and Pitt had accepted an invitation to the ACC, and I was thinking that if the ACC didnt re-up with the OBowl, SU would have left one conference that lost AQ/BCS status to go to another that lost AQ status.

So even with the new additions, it doesnt seem likely that the BE would have gained AQ status

From 1998 - 2005, the Big East did have a quasi-tie, it shared the Orange Bowl with the ACC though this wasn't as set-in-stone as the SEC-Sugar and Rose-PAC-B1G ties were. The only thing that kept the SEC champ out of the Sugar Bowl or the B1G and PAC champs out of the Rose Bowl was participation by those teams in the BCS title game. The ACC/Big East deal with the OB was more along the lines of the Big 12's "tie" with the Fiesta Bowl, more like a "recommended" thing than something that had to happen.

But clearly, the OB wanted to be associated with the ACC and Big East, due to the presence of FSU in the former and Miami (at the time of the deal) in the latter.

2) From 2006 onwards**, the ACC alone had the Orange Bowl tie, the Big East was reduced to true "roving" status. This was clearly a result of the Big East losing Miami, a big brand name and an obvious anchor for the Orange Bowl, so that fits your narrative of a big brand being key to having a major bowl tie.

** Some forget that the BCS deal was not a single 16-year deal. It was originally an 8-year deal that ran from 1998 - 2005. In 2005, it was re-upped for another 8 years, 2006 - 2013, which created the opportunity for changes like the OB's tie solely with the ACC.

http://www.espn.com/abcsports/bcs/about/
(This post was last modified: 07-28-2020 11:06 AM by quo vadis.)
07-28-2020 11:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CitrusUCF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,386
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 175
I Root For: UCF
Location: NW Ark.
Post: #46
RE: What if: Big East signs new contract w/ ESPN in 2011
(07-28-2020 10:39 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(07-27-2020 05:55 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  
(07-27-2020 03:40 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(07-27-2020 03:33 PM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  
(07-27-2020 10:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  If Rutgers, Pitt, Syracuse and Louisville all still leave, there is IMO no way the Big East gets AQ/Power designation in the CFP.

If the Big East contract that it turned down with ESPN remained intact even with departures, I think it would have been recognized as an AQ just based on the disparity of contract value alone. It would have been much closer to the now P5 in contract value than the current G5.

AQ still goes away, replaced by "contract bowls". Which the Big East wasn't able to secure after losing Miami and the Orange Bowl slot.

That's assuming that ESPN would have accepted UCF, SMU and Houston as equal-value replacements for Syracuse, Pitt, WVU. Which is a risky assumption--ESPN doesn't make a habit of playing hardball about haircuts, but this would be a different case.

EDIT: The Big EAst /AAC would have kept AQ until the end of the contract cycle. But that's just how that goes

The entire premise of this entire thread rests on the idea that ACC expansion to 14 was inevitable. It wasn't. It was engineered by ESPN (per the BC president) to punish the Big East for going to the open market.

There's all sorts of scenarios that could play out (maybe the Big 12 goes back to 12 if they can get WVU + Pitt + UL together). Who knows, the most likely result is that WVU, Pitt, and UL are still in the Big East, with Syracuse having gone to the ACC to replace Maryland. I very much doubt the Big East with those three plus potentially TCU, UCF, and Houston, would have lost AQ/Power status.

One thing that we have to keep in mind is that the first and most major step in securing AQ status is being aligned as an anchor with a major bowl (Fiesta, Sugar, Orange, Rose). Without that there is no AQ status. The BE did not have an agreement to anchor any major bowl during the last BCS era. There was an arrangement for the BE to have a roving opportunity to play in the major bowls, except the Rose Bowl, depending on how the other bowl choices worked out each season.

While setting up the current P5 system, there was not going to be any more major revolving bowl opportunities. Thus went the BE AQ status opportunity. You needed multiple current and unquestionable football powers that attract tv eyeballs and or fb powers with a history of traveling well for a major bowl to take a chance on giving anchor status to a conference. It was not a foregone conclusion that even the ACC, with the likes of Clemson, FSU, Miami and VT, would be an anchor to the Orange Bowl. I remember that whole Orange Bowl deal signing with the ACC well, because SU and Pitt had accepted an invitation to the ACC, and I was thinking that if the ACC didnt re-up with the OBowl, SU would have left one conference that lost AQ/BCS status to go to another that lost AQ status.

So even with the new additions, it doesnt seem likely that the BE would have gained AQ status

If ESPN wanted the Big East to be part of a Power 6, they would have been. The Peach Bowl or another bowl would have become the anchor bowl. The Gator Bowl was willing for years to become the Big East anchor in the BCS, and I'd bet the Citrus Bowl would have taken that deal to become a NY6(7) bowl as well.

Under the above scenario, the Big East would have retained several of their brands and added some strong football programs in large markets. It all depends on how ESPN chose to value the conference and their prospects for supporting a major bowl game.
07-28-2020 11:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
usffan Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,889
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 463
I Root For: USF
Location:
Post: #47
RE: What if: Big East signs new contract w/ ESPN in 2011
(07-27-2020 08:09 PM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote:  
(07-27-2020 05:55 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  
(07-27-2020 03:40 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(07-27-2020 03:33 PM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  
(07-27-2020 10:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  If Rutgers, Pitt, Syracuse and Louisville all still leave, there is IMO no way the Big East gets AQ/Power designation in the CFP.

If the Big East contract that it turned down with ESPN remained intact even with departures, I think it would have been recognized as an AQ just based on the disparity of contract value alone. It would have been much closer to the now P5 in contract value than the current G5.

AQ still goes away, replaced by "contract bowls". Which the Big East wasn't able to secure after losing Miami and the Orange Bowl slot.

That's assuming that ESPN would have accepted UCF, SMU and Houston as equal-value replacements for Syracuse, Pitt, WVU. Which is a risky assumption--ESPN doesn't make a habit of playing hardball about haircuts, but this would be a different case.

EDIT: The Big EAst /AAC would have kept AQ until the end of the contract cycle. But that's just how that goes

The entire premise of this entire thread rests on the idea that ACC expansion to 14 was inevitable. It wasn't. It was engineered by ESPN (per the BC president) to punish the Big East for going to the open market.

There's all sorts of scenarios that could play out (maybe the Big 12 goes back to 12 if they can get WVU + Pitt + UL together). Who knows, the most likely result is that WVU, Pitt, and UL are still in the Big East, with Syracuse having gone to the ACC to replace Maryland. I very much doubt the Big East with those three plus potentially TCU, UCF, and Houston, would have lost AQ/Power status.

Thanks a lot Judy Genshaft 04-chairshot

Congratulations. We made it 34 posts and nearly 3 days before the false narrative of Judy Genshaft killing the Big East crept into the thread by a UCF fan. I'd like to think we're making progress, but frankly I know better...

USFFan
07-28-2020 11:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
cuseroc Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 14,333
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 417
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: Rochester/Sarasota

Donators
Post: #48
RE: What if: Big East signs new contract w/ ESPN in 2011
(07-28-2020 11:35 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  
(07-28-2020 10:39 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(07-27-2020 05:55 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  
(07-27-2020 03:40 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(07-27-2020 03:33 PM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  If the Big East contract that it turned down with ESPN remained intact even with departures, I think it would have been recognized as an AQ just based on the disparity of contract value alone. It would have been much closer to the now P5 in contract value than the current G5.

AQ still goes away, replaced by "contract bowls". Which the Big East wasn't able to secure after losing Miami and the Orange Bowl slot.

That's assuming that ESPN would have accepted UCF, SMU and Houston as equal-value replacements for Syracuse, Pitt, WVU. Which is a risky assumption--ESPN doesn't make a habit of playing hardball about haircuts, but this would be a different case.

EDIT: The Big EAst /AAC would have kept AQ until the end of the contract cycle. But that's just how that goes

The entire premise of this entire thread rests on the idea that ACC expansion to 14 was inevitable. It wasn't. It was engineered by ESPN (per the BC president) to punish the Big East for going to the open market.

There's all sorts of scenarios that could play out (maybe the Big 12 goes back to 12 if they can get WVU + Pitt + UL together). Who knows, the most likely result is that WVU, Pitt, and UL are still in the Big East, with Syracuse having gone to the ACC to replace Maryland. I very much doubt the Big East with those three plus potentially TCU, UCF, and Houston, would have lost AQ/Power status.

One thing that we have to keep in mind is that the first and most major step in securing AQ status is being aligned as an anchor with a major bowl (Fiesta, Sugar, Orange, Rose). Without that there is no AQ status. The BE did not have an agreement to anchor any major bowl during the last BCS era. There was an arrangement for the BE to have a roving opportunity to play in the major bowls, except the Rose Bowl, depending on how the other bowl choices worked out each season.

While setting up the current P5 system, there was not going to be any more major revolving bowl opportunities. Thus went the BE AQ status opportunity. You needed multiple current and unquestionable football powers that attract tv eyeballs and or fb powers with a history of traveling well for a major bowl to take a chance on giving anchor status to a conference. It was not a foregone conclusion that even the ACC, with the likes of Clemson, FSU, Miami and VT, would be an anchor to the Orange Bowl. I remember that whole Orange Bowl deal signing with the ACC well, because SU and Pitt had accepted an invitation to the ACC, and I was thinking that if the ACC didnt re-up with the OBowl, SU would have left one conference that lost AQ/BCS status to go to another that lost AQ status.

So even with the new additions, it doesnt seem likely that the BE would have gained AQ status

If ESPN wanted the Big East to be part of a Power 6, they would have been. The Peach Bowl or another bowl would have become the anchor bowl. The Gator Bowl was willing for years to become the Big East anchor in the BCS, and I'd bet the Citrus Bowl would have taken that deal to become a NY6(7) bowl as well.

Under the above scenario, the Big East would have retained several of their brands and added some strong football programs in large markets. It all depends on how ESPN chose to value the conference and their prospects for supporting a major bowl game.

If you think that ESPN has that kind of power, then its obvious that ESPN didnt want the BE to be part of a P6. But I dont think that ESPN has that much power and influence even though they do broadcast those bowl games. ESPN cant strongarm those bowls who to align with. Sure they could pay the bowls more to be aligned with this conference or that, but they dont. ESPN wasnt powerful enough to influence a major bowl to align with the BE after 2005, when it had Louisville, SU, Pitt and WV, along with Rutgers, Cincy, USF and Uconn.
07-28-2020 12:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 42,419
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1507
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #49
RE: What if: Big East signs new contract w/ ESPN in 2011
(07-28-2020 10:58 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  
(07-28-2020 10:39 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(07-27-2020 05:55 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  
(07-27-2020 03:40 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(07-27-2020 03:33 PM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  If the Big East contract that it turned down with ESPN remained intact even with departures, I think it would have been recognized as an AQ just based on the disparity of contract value alone. It would have been much closer to the now P5 in contract value than the current G5.

AQ still goes away, replaced by "contract bowls". Which the Big East wasn't able to secure after losing Miami and the Orange Bowl slot.

That's assuming that ESPN would have accepted UCF, SMU and Houston as equal-value replacements for Syracuse, Pitt, WVU. Which is a risky assumption--ESPN doesn't make a habit of playing hardball about haircuts, but this would be a different case.

EDIT: The Big EAst /AAC would have kept AQ until the end of the contract cycle. But that's just how that goes

The entire premise of this entire thread rests on the idea that ACC expansion to 14 was inevitable. It wasn't. It was engineered by ESPN (per the BC president) to punish the Big East for going to the open market.

There's all sorts of scenarios that could play out (maybe the Big 12 goes back to 12 if they can get WVU + Pitt + UL together). Who knows, the most likely result is that WVU, Pitt, and UL are still in the Big East, with Syracuse having gone to the ACC to replace Maryland. I very much doubt the Big East with those three plus potentially TCU, UCF, and Houston, would have lost AQ/Power status.

One thing that we have to keep in mind is that the first and most major step in securing AQ status is being aligned as an anchor with a major bowl (Fiesta, Sugar, Orange, Rose). Without that there is no AQ status. The BE did not have an agreement to anchor any major bowl during the last BCS era. There was an arrangement for the BE to have a roving opportunity to play in the major bowls, except the Rose Bowl, depending on how the other bowl choices worked out each season.

While setting up the current P5 system, there was not going to be any more major revolving bowl opportunities. Thus went the BE AQ status opportunity. You needed multiple current and unquestionable football powers that attract tv eyeballs and or fb powers with a history of traveling well for a major bowl to take a chance on giving anchor status to a conference. It was not a foregone conclusion that even the ACC, with the likes of Clemson, FSU, Miami and VT, would be an anchor to the Orange Bowl. I remember that whole Orange Bowl deal signing with the ACC well, because SU and Pitt had accepted an invitation to the ACC, and I was thinking that if the ACC didnt re-up with the OBowl, SU would have left one conference that lost AQ/BCS status to go to another that lost AQ status.

So even with the new additions, it doesnt seem likely that the BE would have gained AQ status
I was honestly pretty surprised when the "Champions Bowl," which turned out to be the Sugar Bowl, arrangement between the SEC and the Big 12 was announced. I thought the ACC would have been in such an arrangement rather than the Big 12. The ACC had only lost one school compared to the four the Big 12 lost. It seemed more stable and deeper in terms of brand names (FSU, Miami, VT, and Miami as opposed to just Texas and Oklahoma). Not to mention that the ACC is home to many more major markets than the Big 12 has, which has pretty much Texas and a bunch of lightly populated states.

I guess the ACC paid a steep price for being down throughout the 2000's. Little did the college football world know that FSU and soon after Clemson become two of the most successful programs of the decade.

Big 12 teams follow their teams to bowls better. And Texas and OU were 2 of the top 3 programs of the 2000-2009 decade along with Ohio St. Even though FSU and Miami have more titles than Texas and OU over the last 40 years, they just aren't nearly as big a national brand as those two. Neither is Clemson.
07-28-2020 01:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Michael in Raleigh Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,818
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation: 72
I Root For: App State
Location:
Post: #50
RE: What if: Big East signs new contract w/ ESPN in 2011
I have to say that the responses here have convinced me that very little would have changed even if the Big East had signed that ESPN deal in 2011. The ACC still would have seen the Pac-12 deal happen and decided to expand so that they could open up their contract for renegotiation. Pitt and Syracuse still would have left for the ACC to get more money. WVU would have left for the Big 12. And so on. Catholic 7 still leaves. Notre Dame, Rutgers, and Louisville, ditto.

It's amazing. Other than Cincinnati and USF, every single member of the 16-team Big East is apparently worth more separated than together.
07-28-2020 01:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 42,419
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1507
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #51
RE: What if: Big East signs new contract w/ ESPN in 2011
(07-28-2020 01:51 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  I have to say that the responses here have convinced me that very little would have changed even if the Big East had signed that ESPN deal in 2011. The ACC still would have seen the Pac-12 deal happen and decided to expand so that they could open up their contract for renegotiation. Pitt and Syracuse still would have left for the ACC to get more money. WVU would have left for the Big 12. And so on. Catholic 7 still leaves. Notre Dame, Rutgers, and Louisville, ditto.

It's amazing. Other than Cincinnati and USF, every single member of the 16-team Big East is apparently worth more separated than together.

I'm not sure the same isn't true of the ACC.
07-28-2020 01:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Michael in Raleigh Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,818
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation: 72
I Root For: App State
Location:
Post: #52
RE: What if: Big East signs new contract w/ ESPN in 2011
(07-28-2020 01:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(07-28-2020 01:51 PM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  I have to say that the responses here have convinced me that very little would have changed even if the Big East had signed that ESPN deal in 2011. The ACC still would have seen the Pac-12 deal happen and decided to expand so that they could open up their contract for renegotiation. Pitt and Syracuse still would have left for the ACC to get more money. WVU would have left for the Big 12. And so on. Catholic 7 still leaves. Notre Dame, Rutgers, and Louisville, ditto.

It's amazing. Other than Cincinnati and USF, every single member of the 16-team Big East is apparently worth more separated than together.

I'm not sure the same isn't true of the ACC.

I'm sure that's true. Each ACC member would make more money as a member of the SEC or the B1G than it would in the ACC. But several of them would not necessarily *add* value to those leagues, and some may even dilute the value.

Let me put it differently. The schools who left proved more valuable separated from the 16-team version of the Big East because each either increased the per-school value of their new conference's contract or, at worst, maintained it. When Syracuse and Pitt joined the ACC, they increased the per-school payout to ACC schools by a few million dollars. WVU replacing Missouri led to the same TV value for the Big 12. Notre Dame increases the value of the ACC by about a million per school. Rutgers helped increase the value of the B1G. Louisville replacing Maryland maintained the value of the ACC. And the Catholic 7 have made more by themselves than they would have made even in the 16-team Big East.

I suppose I should amend my earlier point that UConn, in addition to Cincinnati and USF, also did not increase its value from membership in the 16-team Big East to either AAC membership or Big East/FB independence.
07-28-2020 03:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DFW HOYA Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,129
Joined: May 2004
Reputation: 88
I Root For: The Hoyas
Location: Dallas, TX
Post: #53
RE: What if: Big East signs new contract w/ ESPN in 2011
If ESPN was involved, you can be sure they were looking to move schools out. How to do that? Close the conference.

They simply took their eyes off the story as Fox came in and changed the game.
07-28-2020 07:26 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BearcatJerry Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,532
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 290
I Root For: UC Bearcats
Location:
Post: #54
RE: What if: Big East signs new contract w/ ESPN in 2011
(07-28-2020 11:35 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  
(07-28-2020 10:39 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(07-27-2020 05:55 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  
(07-27-2020 03:40 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(07-27-2020 03:33 PM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  If the Big East contract that it turned down with ESPN remained intact even with departures, I think it would have been recognized as an AQ just based on the disparity of contract value alone. It would have been much closer to the now P5 in contract value than the current G5.

AQ still goes away, replaced by "contract bowls". Which the Big East wasn't able to secure after losing Miami and the Orange Bowl slot.

That's assuming that ESPN would have accepted UCF, SMU and Houston as equal-value replacements for Syracuse, Pitt, WVU. Which is a risky assumption--ESPN doesn't make a habit of playing hardball about haircuts, but this would be a different case.

EDIT: The Big EAst /AAC would have kept AQ until the end of the contract cycle. But that's just how that goes

The entire premise of this entire thread rests on the idea that ACC expansion to 14 was inevitable. It wasn't. It was engineered by ESPN (per the BC president) to punish the Big East for going to the open market.

There's all sorts of scenarios that could play out (maybe the Big 12 goes back to 12 if they can get WVU + Pitt + UL together). Who knows, the most likely result is that WVU, Pitt, and UL are still in the Big East, with Syracuse having gone to the ACC to replace Maryland. I very much doubt the Big East with those three plus potentially TCU, UCF, and Houston, would have lost AQ/Power status.

One thing that we have to keep in mind is that the first and most major step in securing AQ status is being aligned as an anchor with a major bowl (Fiesta, Sugar, Orange, Rose). Without that there is no AQ status. The BE did not have an agreement to anchor any major bowl during the last BCS era. There was an arrangement for the BE to have a roving opportunity to play in the major bowls, except the Rose Bowl, depending on how the other bowl choices worked out each season.

While setting up the current P5 system, there was not going to be any more major revolving bowl opportunities. Thus went the BE AQ status opportunity. You needed multiple current and unquestionable football powers that attract tv eyeballs and or fb powers with a history of traveling well for a major bowl to take a chance on giving anchor status to a conference. It was not a foregone conclusion that even the ACC, with the likes of Clemson, FSU, Miami and VT, would be an anchor to the Orange Bowl. I remember that whole Orange Bowl deal signing with the ACC well, because SU and Pitt had accepted an invitation to the ACC, and I was thinking that if the ACC didnt re-up with the OBowl, SU would have left one conference that lost AQ/BCS status to go to another that lost AQ status.

So even with the new additions, it doesnt seem likely that the BE would have gained AQ status

If ESPN wanted the Big East to be part of a Power 6, they would have been. The Peach Bowl or another bowl would have become the anchor bowl. The Gator Bowl was willing for years to become the Big East anchor in the BCS, and I'd bet the Citrus Bowl would have taken that deal to become a NY6(7) bowl as well.

Under the above scenario, the Big East would have retained several of their brands and added some strong football programs in large markets. It all depends on how ESPN chose to value the conference and their prospects for supporting a major bowl game.

Ok...so much wrong with your facts and premises. BUT...

1) It was the Boston College ATHLETIC DIRECTOR, Gene DiFillippo who "admitted" (said) that it was ESPN who told the ACC "what to do," NOT the BC president. (It was, however, the BC President who referred to UC as a "City College".)

2) The Big East had ALREADY lost its marquee bowl--the Fed-Ex, then Nokia--Orange Bowl...AND its second, major Bowl, the Gator Bowl...BEFORE the conference fell apart. That was with the "brands" of Pitt, Syracuse, AND the conference heavy: WVU. There is ZERO reason to think that a "BE" shorn of its major brands...especially the ND tie-in...would "attract" a "major bowl." None.

3) Let's remember why Notre Dame was included in the BE under the terms they were: BOWL ACCESS. With no ND tie-in, none of the bowls...even the bowls the BE created (Tire/Meineke/Belk and Pin Stripe)...wanted the BE tie-in.

4) The BE name had NO equity in the FB realm...actually it was a liability. That's why we sold it to the NBE.

You're completely in fantasy land. (Pun intended.)
07-28-2020 07:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,772
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 984
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #55
RE: What if: Big East signs new contract w/ ESPN in 2011
(07-28-2020 07:41 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  
(07-28-2020 11:35 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  
(07-28-2020 10:39 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(07-27-2020 05:55 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  
(07-27-2020 03:40 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  AQ still goes away, replaced by "contract bowls". Which the Big East wasn't able to secure after losing Miami and the Orange Bowl slot.

That's assuming that ESPN would have accepted UCF, SMU and Houston as equal-value replacements for Syracuse, Pitt, WVU. Which is a risky assumption--ESPN doesn't make a habit of playing hardball about haircuts, but this would be a different case.

EDIT: The Big EAst /AAC would have kept AQ until the end of the contract cycle. But that's just how that goes

The entire premise of this entire thread rests on the idea that ACC expansion to 14 was inevitable. It wasn't. It was engineered by ESPN (per the BC president) to punish the Big East for going to the open market.

There's all sorts of scenarios that could play out (maybe the Big 12 goes back to 12 if they can get WVU + Pitt + UL together). Who knows, the most likely result is that WVU, Pitt, and UL are still in the Big East, with Syracuse having gone to the ACC to replace Maryland. I very much doubt the Big East with those three plus potentially TCU, UCF, and Houston, would have lost AQ/Power status.

One thing that we have to keep in mind is that the first and most major step in securing AQ status is being aligned as an anchor with a major bowl (Fiesta, Sugar, Orange, Rose). Without that there is no AQ status. The BE did not have an agreement to anchor any major bowl during the last BCS era. There was an arrangement for the BE to have a roving opportunity to play in the major bowls, except the Rose Bowl, depending on how the other bowl choices worked out each season.

While setting up the current P5 system, there was not going to be any more major revolving bowl opportunities. Thus went the BE AQ status opportunity. You needed multiple current and unquestionable football powers that attract tv eyeballs and or fb powers with a history of traveling well for a major bowl to take a chance on giving anchor status to a conference. It was not a foregone conclusion that even the ACC, with the likes of Clemson, FSU, Miami and VT, would be an anchor to the Orange Bowl. I remember that whole Orange Bowl deal signing with the ACC well, because SU and Pitt had accepted an invitation to the ACC, and I was thinking that if the ACC didnt re-up with the OBowl, SU would have left one conference that lost AQ/BCS status to go to another that lost AQ status.

So even with the new additions, it doesnt seem likely that the BE would have gained AQ status

If ESPN wanted the Big East to be part of a Power 6, they would have been. The Peach Bowl or another bowl would have become the anchor bowl. The Gator Bowl was willing for years to become the Big East anchor in the BCS, and I'd bet the Citrus Bowl would have taken that deal to become a NY6(7) bowl as well.

Under the above scenario, the Big East would have retained several of their brands and added some strong football programs in large markets. It all depends on how ESPN chose to value the conference and their prospects for supporting a major bowl game.

Ok...so much wrong with your facts and premises. BUT...

1) It was the Boston College ATHLETIC DIRECTOR, Gene DiFillippo who "admitted" (said) that it was ESPN who told the ACC "what to do," NOT the BC president. (It was, however, the BC President who referred to UC as a "City College".)

2) The Big East had ALREADY lost its marquee bowl--the Fed-Ex, then Nokia--Orange Bowl...AND its second, major Bowl, the Gator Bowl...BEFORE the conference fell apart. That was with the "brands" of Pitt, Syracuse, AND the conference heavy: WVU. There is ZERO reason to think that a "BE" shorn of its major brands...especially the ND tie-in...would "attract" a "major bowl." None.

3) Let's remember why Notre Dame was included in the BE under the terms they were: BOWL ACCESS. With no ND tie-in, none of the bowls...even the bowls the BE created (Tire/Meineke/Belk and Pin Stripe)...wanted the BE tie-in.

4) The BE name had NO equity in the FB realm...actually it was a liability. That's why we sold it to the NBE.

You're completely in fantasy land. (Pun intended.)


Sadly, this is all basically correct.

07-coffee3
07-28-2020 08:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 34,772
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 984
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #56
RE: What if: Big East signs new contract w/ ESPN in 2011
(07-28-2020 10:58 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  
(07-28-2020 10:39 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(07-27-2020 05:55 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  
(07-27-2020 03:40 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(07-27-2020 03:33 PM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  If the Big East contract that it turned down with ESPN remained intact even with departures, I think it would have been recognized as an AQ just based on the disparity of contract value alone. It would have been much closer to the now P5 in contract value than the current G5.

AQ still goes away, replaced by "contract bowls". Which the Big East wasn't able to secure after losing Miami and the Orange Bowl slot.

That's assuming that ESPN would have accepted UCF, SMU and Houston as equal-value replacements for Syracuse, Pitt, WVU. Which is a risky assumption--ESPN doesn't make a habit of playing hardball about haircuts, but this would be a different case.

EDIT: The Big EAst /AAC would have kept AQ until the end of the contract cycle. But that's just how that goes

The entire premise of this entire thread rests on the idea that ACC expansion to 14 was inevitable. It wasn't. It was engineered by ESPN (per the BC president) to punish the Big East for going to the open market.

There's all sorts of scenarios that could play out (maybe the Big 12 goes back to 12 if they can get WVU + Pitt + UL together). Who knows, the most likely result is that WVU, Pitt, and UL are still in the Big East, with Syracuse having gone to the ACC to replace Maryland. I very much doubt the Big East with those three plus potentially TCU, UCF, and Houston, would have lost AQ/Power status.

One thing that we have to keep in mind is that the first and most major step in securing AQ status is being aligned as an anchor with a major bowl (Fiesta, Sugar, Orange, Rose). Without that there is no AQ status. The BE did not have an agreement to anchor any major bowl during the last BCS era. There was an arrangement for the BE to have a roving opportunity to play in the major bowls, except the Rose Bowl, depending on how the other bowl choices worked out each season.

While setting up the current P5 system, there was not going to be any more major revolving bowl opportunities. Thus went the BE AQ status opportunity. You needed multiple current and unquestionable football powers that attract tv eyeballs and or fb powers with a history of traveling well for a major bowl to take a chance on giving anchor status to a conference. It was not a foregone conclusion that even the ACC, with the likes of Clemson, FSU, Miami and VT, would be an anchor to the Orange Bowl. I remember that whole Orange Bowl deal signing with the ACC well, because SU and Pitt had accepted an invitation to the ACC, and I was thinking that if the ACC didnt re-up with the OBowl, SU would have left one conference that lost AQ/BCS status to go to another that lost AQ status.

So even with the new additions, it doesnt seem likely that the BE would have gained AQ status
I was honestly pretty surprised when the "Champions Bowl," which turned out to be the Sugar Bowl, arrangement between the SEC and the Big 12 was announced. I thought the ACC would have been in such an arrangement rather than the Big 12. The ACC had only lost one school compared to the four the Big 12 lost. It seemed more stable and deeper in terms of brand names (FSU, Miami, VT, and Miami as opposed to just Texas and Oklahoma). Not to mention that the ACC is home to many more major markets than the Big 12 has, which has pretty much Texas and a bunch of lightly populated states.

I guess the ACC paid a steep price for being down throughout the 2000's. Little did the college football world know that FSU and soon after Clemson become two of the most successful programs of the decade.

You have to remember that the "Champion's Bowl" was not a meeting of equals in the sense of being the joint formation of the SEC and Big 12. Rather, the SEC was and is the dominant partner and pretty much decided who its other partner would be. It also decided that the Sugar Bowl would play this role and not some bowl in the Big 12 footprint like the Cotton Bowl. In that regard, there are two good reasons that come to mind as to why the SEC would prefer the Big 12 over the ACC:

1) The ACC is more of a direct competitor to the SEC, overlapping much more of its footprint than does the Big 12, so the SEC would see no reason to boost the ACC by including it in a partner-bowl. A corollary to this is that because of overlap, ACC and SEC teams tend to play a lot of rivalry games in the regular season anyway, making bowl matchups less enticing.

2) In Texas and Oklahoma, the Big 12 has two true blue-chip brands that are clearly more valuable than any brands that existed in the ACC as of 2012, including FSU. In 2018, the Wall Street Journal valued the top 20 college football programs. Three of them were worth at least $1 Billion. Two of those were ... Texas and Oklahoma. In 2019, Forbes used revenues to value college football programs. Texas was #2, Oklahoma was #6. In neither ranking was any ACC program higher than #15.
(This post was last modified: 07-28-2020 09:00 PM by quo vadis.)
07-28-2020 08:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CitrusUCF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,386
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 175
I Root For: UCF
Location: NW Ark.
Post: #57
RE: What if: Big East signs new contract w/ ESPN in 2011
(07-28-2020 07:41 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  
(07-28-2020 11:35 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  
(07-28-2020 10:39 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(07-27-2020 05:55 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  
(07-27-2020 03:40 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  AQ still goes away, replaced by "contract bowls". Which the Big East wasn't able to secure after losing Miami and the Orange Bowl slot.

That's assuming that ESPN would have accepted UCF, SMU and Houston as equal-value replacements for Syracuse, Pitt, WVU. Which is a risky assumption--ESPN doesn't make a habit of playing hardball about haircuts, but this would be a different case.

EDIT: The Big EAst /AAC would have kept AQ until the end of the contract cycle. But that's just how that goes

The entire premise of this entire thread rests on the idea that ACC expansion to 14 was inevitable. It wasn't. It was engineered by ESPN (per the BC president) to punish the Big East for going to the open market.

There's all sorts of scenarios that could play out (maybe the Big 12 goes back to 12 if they can get WVU + Pitt + UL together). Who knows, the most likely result is that WVU, Pitt, and UL are still in the Big East, with Syracuse having gone to the ACC to replace Maryland. I very much doubt the Big East with those three plus potentially TCU, UCF, and Houston, would have lost AQ/Power status.

One thing that we have to keep in mind is that the first and most major step in securing AQ status is being aligned as an anchor with a major bowl (Fiesta, Sugar, Orange, Rose). Without that there is no AQ status. The BE did not have an agreement to anchor any major bowl during the last BCS era. There was an arrangement for the BE to have a roving opportunity to play in the major bowls, except the Rose Bowl, depending on how the other bowl choices worked out each season.

While setting up the current P5 system, there was not going to be any more major revolving bowl opportunities. Thus went the BE AQ status opportunity. You needed multiple current and unquestionable football powers that attract tv eyeballs and or fb powers with a history of traveling well for a major bowl to take a chance on giving anchor status to a conference. It was not a foregone conclusion that even the ACC, with the likes of Clemson, FSU, Miami and VT, would be an anchor to the Orange Bowl. I remember that whole Orange Bowl deal signing with the ACC well, because SU and Pitt had accepted an invitation to the ACC, and I was thinking that if the ACC didnt re-up with the OBowl, SU would have left one conference that lost AQ/BCS status to go to another that lost AQ status.

So even with the new additions, it doesnt seem likely that the BE would have gained AQ status

If ESPN wanted the Big East to be part of a Power 6, they would have been. The Peach Bowl or another bowl would have become the anchor bowl. The Gator Bowl was willing for years to become the Big East anchor in the BCS, and I'd bet the Citrus Bowl would have taken that deal to become a NY6(7) bowl as well.

Under the above scenario, the Big East would have retained several of their brands and added some strong football programs in large markets. It all depends on how ESPN chose to value the conference and their prospects for supporting a major bowl game.

Ok...so much wrong with your facts and premises. BUT...

1) It was the Boston College ATHLETIC DIRECTOR, Gene DiFillippo who "admitted" (said) that it was ESPN who told the ACC "what to do," NOT the BC president. (It was, however, the BC President who referred to UC as a "City College".)

2) The Big East had ALREADY lost its marquee bowl--the Fed-Ex, then Nokia--Orange Bowl...AND its second, major Bowl, the Gator Bowl...BEFORE the conference fell apart. That was with the "brands" of Pitt, Syracuse, AND the conference heavy: WVU. There is ZERO reason to think that a "BE" shorn of its major brands...especially the ND tie-in...would "attract" a "major bowl." None.

3) Let's remember why Notre Dame was included in the BE under the terms they were: BOWL ACCESS. With no ND tie-in, none of the bowls...even the bowls the BE created (Tire/Meineke/Belk and Pin Stripe)...wanted the BE tie-in.

4) The BE name had NO equity in the FB realm...actually it was a liability. That's why we sold it to the NBE.

You're completely in fantasy land. (Pun intended.)

1. Sorry my memory has failed me on a quote from 10 years ago. It changes not one thing about what I've argued in this thread.
2. No one has disputed that the Big East lost the Orange Bowl as an anchor. I never said anything to the effect. Rather, I said that if ESPN had wanted to maintain the Big East as part of the P6 in the CFP/contract bowl era, they would have arranged a contract bowl, whether it was the Peach or adding another bowl to create a NY7 (Gator, Citrus, etc.). The Gator Bowl was quite interesting in joining the BCS, and post-2005, they offered to be the Big East anchor bowl in order to achieve that. So there was interest from a major bowl game.
3. No one has disputed this, but likely a P6 Big East would have retained at least some of the bowls, but that also depends on which teams are in this alignment.
4. I disagree. The Big East was a well known brand for recruits in both FB and BB. No one has the slightest clue what The American is. The Big East brand may not have been SEC/B1G level, but it immediately told recruits and TV viewers that the conference was superior to the G4 conferences. The conference name was sold as part of a money grab by Cincy, UConn, and USF, who kept the spoils of that for themselves.
(This post was last modified: 07-29-2020 09:35 AM by CitrusUCF.)
07-29-2020 09:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoldenWarrior11 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,484
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 266
I Root For: Marquette, BE
Location: Chicago
Post: #58
RE: What if: Big East signs new contract w/ ESPN in 2011
(07-28-2020 07:41 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  
(07-28-2020 11:35 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  
(07-28-2020 10:39 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  
(07-27-2020 05:55 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  
(07-27-2020 03:40 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  AQ still goes away, replaced by "contract bowls". Which the Big East wasn't able to secure after losing Miami and the Orange Bowl slot.

That's assuming that ESPN would have accepted UCF, SMU and Houston as equal-value replacements for Syracuse, Pitt, WVU. Which is a risky assumption--ESPN doesn't make a habit of playing hardball about haircuts, but this would be a different case.

EDIT: The Big EAst /AAC would have kept AQ until the end of the contract cycle. But that's just how that goes

The entire premise of this entire thread rests on the idea that ACC expansion to 14 was inevitable. It wasn't. It was engineered by ESPN (per the BC president) to punish the Big East for going to the open market.

There's all sorts of scenarios that could play out (maybe the Big 12 goes back to 12 if they can get WVU + Pitt + UL together). Who knows, the most likely result is that WVU, Pitt, and UL are still in the Big East, with Syracuse having gone to the ACC to replace Maryland. I very much doubt the Big East with those three plus potentially TCU, UCF, and Houston, would have lost AQ/Power status.

One thing that we have to keep in mind is that the first and most major step in securing AQ status is being aligned as an anchor with a major bowl (Fiesta, Sugar, Orange, Rose). Without that there is no AQ status. The BE did not have an agreement to anchor any major bowl during the last BCS era. There was an arrangement for the BE to have a roving opportunity to play in the major bowls, except the Rose Bowl, depending on how the other bowl choices worked out each season.

While setting up the current P5 system, there was not going to be any more major revolving bowl opportunities. Thus went the BE AQ status opportunity. You needed multiple current and unquestionable football powers that attract tv eyeballs and or fb powers with a history of traveling well for a major bowl to take a chance on giving anchor status to a conference. It was not a foregone conclusion that even the ACC, with the likes of Clemson, FSU, Miami and VT, would be an anchor to the Orange Bowl. I remember that whole Orange Bowl deal signing with the ACC well, because SU and Pitt had accepted an invitation to the ACC, and I was thinking that if the ACC didnt re-up with the OBowl, SU would have left one conference that lost AQ/BCS status to go to another that lost AQ status.

So even with the new additions, it doesnt seem likely that the BE would have gained AQ status

If ESPN wanted the Big East to be part of a Power 6, they would have been. The Peach Bowl or another bowl would have become the anchor bowl. The Gator Bowl was willing for years to become the Big East anchor in the BCS, and I'd bet the Citrus Bowl would have taken that deal to become a NY6(7) bowl as well.

Under the above scenario, the Big East would have retained several of their brands and added some strong football programs in large markets. It all depends on how ESPN chose to value the conference and their prospects for supporting a major bowl game.

Ok...so much wrong with your facts and premises. BUT...

1) It was the Boston College ATHLETIC DIRECTOR, Gene DiFillippo who "admitted" (said) that it was ESPN who told the ACC "what to do," NOT the BC president. (It was, however, the BC President who referred to UC as a "City College".)

2) The Big East had ALREADY lost its marquee bowl--the Fed-Ex, then Nokia--Orange Bowl...AND its second, major Bowl, the Gator Bowl...BEFORE the conference fell apart. That was with the "brands" of Pitt, Syracuse, AND the conference heavy: WVU. There is ZERO reason to think that a "BE" shorn of its major brands...especially the ND tie-in...would "attract" a "major bowl." None.

3) Let's remember why Notre Dame was included in the BE under the terms they were: BOWL ACCESS. With no ND tie-in, none of the bowls...even the bowls the BE created (Tire/Meineke/Belk and Pin Stripe)...wanted the BE tie-in.

4) The BE name had NO equity in the FB realm...actually it was a liability. That's why we sold it to the NBE.

You're completely in fantasy land. (Pun intended.)

All very good points, especially the negative brand value that the Big East had as a football identity.
07-29-2020 09:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DFW HOYA Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,129
Joined: May 2004
Reputation: 88
I Root For: The Hoyas
Location: Dallas, TX
Post: #59
RE: What if: Big East signs new contract w/ ESPN in 2011
Big East football brand value >>> AAC football brand value
07-29-2020 09:55 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TexanMark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 21,901
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation: 899
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: Gulfport, FL
Post: #60
RE: What if: Big East signs new contract w/ ESPN in 2011
(07-28-2020 10:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-28-2020 09:09 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  I didn't say a conference did that. I said ESPN did. The BC president admitted ESPN told the ACC to raid the Big East and that the result would be more money. So the ACC did. Whether there are potentially business reasons that would justify the expansion from the ACC's perspective (besides simply an increased ESPN payout) doesn't change the fact that ESPN engineered the death of the Big East for defying ESPN and going to the open market.

I see some causal problems in this statement. There were reports at that time (Fall 2011) that ESPN had told the ACC that if it wanted more money for its TV deal, it had to expand. But that doesn't mean that (a) ESPN "told" the ACC to expand, as in against their will, nor that (b) it told them to expand so as to punish the Big East for going to market.

To me, the likely scenario is that once ESPN offered the Big East essentially the same deal that the ACC got in 2010, the ACC realized its deal was already under-valued, and they were trying to figure out how to increase that deal. So they asked ESPN, and ESPN told them well, you need to add schools that add more value. So the ACC did. If so, then the impetus for expansion wasn't ESPN, it was the ACC wanting more TV money. ESPN merely told them how that could be done.

I have never seen any evidence from that time that demonstrates that ESPN told the ACC to expand when the ACC didn't want to, nor that they encouraged the ACC to expand via Syracuse and Pitt so as to punish the Big East for refusing its offer. If you have it, please provide it.

IMO, the ACC had ample reasons of its own to raid the Big East, it didn't need ESPN involvement to motivate it.

If you take what the BC AD let out as evidence...I think the ACC already had Syracuse as their #1 realistic choice. Penn State was their ultimate east coast goal but that plan was exposed by Maryland. I'm sure ESPN worked up numbers for them. Outside of PSU: Cuse then Pitt offers highest TV value. Syracuse AD John Wildhack surely would know. He was a top Executive working conference contracts at the time for the WWL. I think #2 selection is where the mystery is.

Syracuse and Pitt supposedly didn't know each were being invited together until just before the announcement. I have no doubt Swofford put forth Cuse/UConn initially to appease Tobacco Road. He then got a dose of reality that Clemson/FSU could bolt. I wonder how long it played out to dump UConn. Days or weeks? I assume it came down to Pitt, Rutgers, Louisville and WVU as replacement choices. Pitt had the best academic profile and solid FB and BB. More importantly they were 4-6 hours drive to most schools. The others all had fatal flaws.

If the ACC had talked to Rutgers would they have taken the sure thing with the ACC? I don't see them coming unless PSU gave signals. Rutgers would have been a no-brainer to come in as PSU's Beta orbiter if the ACC went to 16.

Hopefully AD Wildhack can clear up the details after he retires unless an NDA is a problem.
(This post was last modified: 07-29-2020 10:01 AM by TexanMark.)
07-29-2020 10:00 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.