(06-25-2021 11:38 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-25-2021 09:54 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  ... The Big East fans are going to point out how good their conference is and how decrepit the AAC is, and obviously Uconn leaving the AAC for the BE is somehow a validation of the BE. The AAC fans are going to point out how Uconn never really fit into their conference, had different values than the rest of the AAC, and how they don't really "miss" Uconn...in fact how much happier they are that Uconn is gone. The Uconn fans are going to argue that they were the ones who dumped the AAC, how unhappy they were with the AAC opponents and the travel, and how much happier and better they're doing with their new girlfriend. ...

Yeah, that's how you get a ten page forum thread where it seems like 90%+ of people in the thread agree that the answer to the OP is "No".

_____________________

(06-25-2021 11:33 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  But I don't expect to see BE baseball ever be nationally relevant — at least as a collective whole.

Yes, among the second tier "break-even" sports, the Big East is never going to sponsor Hockey, their baseball exists because a majority of their schools play, but the better schools are always going to have to build their SOS on OOC games, and it's actually in Lacrosse where, despite only having five full member schools playing, there may be some opportunity to build some momentum as a conference.

I agree on the lacrosse theme. The Big East enjoyed a strong lacrosse season this past year, with Georgetown, Denver (a member of the league for the sport) and Nova each being ranked.

(06-26-2021 12:00 AM)VCE Wrote:  The ack! (And I will call it such until the Nbe nonsense stops) has a team that won a couple championships in the 60s. We have championships from 4 teams from the 80s and 90s too numerous to mention. People say but Villanova and I ask who in the Big 10 or PAC 10 and I get no answer.

To be fair, VCE, if Houston had won in 1983 (as it should have) and if Memphis had won in 2008 (as it should have), the narrative would be a bit different.

I don't fully understand your Nova comment. I assume you are referencing Big East detractors who argue that "if you don't include Villanova, the BE is (fill in the blank with something less than positive)."

Correct?

Also worth noting, there are various posters on this board who use the term "new Big East" and are very respectful of the league. They don't mean anything negative by it. But, yes, there are others who use it in a snarky and snide manner. I don't care for that.

(06-26-2021 08:06 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(06-26-2021 12:00 AM)VCE Wrote:  The ack! (And I will call it such until the Nbe nonsense stops) has a team that won a couple championships in the 60s. We have championships from 4 teams from the 80s and 90s too numerous to mention. People say but Villanova and I ask who in the Big 10 or PAC 10 and I get no answer.

To be fair, VCE, if Houston had won in 1983 (as it should have) and if Memphis had won in 2008 (as it should have), the narrative would be a bit different.

I don't fully understand your Nova comment. I assume you are referencing Big East detractors who argue that "if you don't include Villanova, the BE is (fill in the blank with something less than positive)."

Correct?

Also worth noting, there are various posters on this board who use the term "new Big East" and are very respectful of the league. They don't mean anything negative by it. But, yes, there are others who use it in a snarky and snide manner. I don't care for that.

Of course, I forgot that if Butler had beaten Duke on Hayward's heave in 2010, that would make the "AAC vs. BE in hoops" narrative different, too. My fumble.

(06-23-2021 10:20 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 09:52 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 06:43 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 05:50 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  Even when the old Big East splitted, they stayed with the football schools. So I guess UConn would consider BC, Cuse, or Rutgers as their peers rather than Villanova or Georgetown.

The rivals are Nova, Georgetown, and Syracuse. BC and Rutgers don't register because they were never any good for any length of time. Played a couple good football games against Rutgers at least, but BC was already gone by then.

UConn went with the AAC in the split because it was supposed to be a short layover before the next round of expansion. It became clear it was actually a 20+ year home when the Big 12 got threatened out of expanding by the networks, showing the money wasn't there anymore. That's when UConn cut their losses and went back to playing their rivals.

By peers, I didn’t mean rivals. Cuse and G’town are rivals to each other but their peer groups are different. IMO UConn’s current athletic profile is close to that of Syracuse, BC and Rutgers than that of Georgetown or Nova.

Agree fully. UConn's peers are the large universities in the Northeast that play football and big-time baseball and that are members of the ACC and Big Ten: Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse and Boston College (and, to a lesser extent, Maryland) — and not, as you note, Georgetown and Nova.

In many respects (and as I have previously posted), UConn is an odd fit in the Big East. But the university was even odder fit in the AAC.

The best home (all factors considered and if you are a UConn fan) would be the ACC. The second best home would be the Big Ten. The third best home is essentially a tie between either the Big 12 or the Big East/AAC football only. The fifth best arrangement is what UConn has: BE and indy football.

UConn being all-sports in the AAC was less ideal than the five situations I list.

I posted this on the ACC board, but I actually won’t mind seeing UConn joining the ACC as a non football member with a clear understanding that UConn may never join the football unless ND joins in full.

The football money will not be shared so the payout for each of the ACC school would slightly increase as UConn has soild basketball and olympic sports. As for the football, the ACC may arrange 3 or 4 annual football games with UConn.

(06-26-2021 12:00 AM)VCE Wrote:  The ack! (And I will call it such until the Nbe nonsense stops) has a team that won a couple championships in the 60s. We have championships from 4 teams from the 80s and 90s too numerous to mention. People say but Villanova and I ask who in the Big 10 or PAC 10 and I get no answer.

What a surprise a New Big East fan who doesn't like reality (sorry the original Big East is the Ack which is why we kept the history) and has an over inflated view of their importance on the college athletics landscape, I am shocked I tell you, shocked.

(06-26-2021 09:03 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(06-26-2021 12:00 AM)VCE Wrote:  The ack! (And I will call it such until the Nbe nonsense stops) has a team that won a couple championships in the 60s. We have championships from 4 teams from the 80s and 90s too numerous to mention. People say but Villanova and I ask who in the Big 10 or PAC 10 and I get no answer.

What a surprise a New Big East fan who doesn't like reality (sorry the original Big East is the Ack which is why we kept the history) and has an over inflated view of their importance on the college athletics landscape, I am shocked I tell you, shocked.

Basketball schools kept the non-football histories (i.e. sports that the Big East sponsored before the split). Football kept the football history. The AAC website only acknowledges championships from 13-14, the first year after the split. Big East history continues to go back to 1979, the first year of the conference. Even AAC Football history only goes back to 2013, as there is no acknowledgment of any prior conference winners or championships.

Thus, and this might anger some posters here, but the "New" Big East is very much a continuation of the original Big East in terms of history and organization. The present incarnation is as new as when the Big East added Miami, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, etc.

Thankfully, the powers that be for the Big East in 2012 didn't collectively decide to create a legitimate new brand that embodied and ripped off Conference USA, along with many of the same members. Creativity and originality at its finest.

(06-26-2021 08:35 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 10:20 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 09:52 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 06:43 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 05:50 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  Even when the old Big East splitted, they stayed with the football schools. So I guess UConn would consider BC, Cuse, or Rutgers as their peers rather than Villanova or Georgetown.

The rivals are Nova, Georgetown, and Syracuse. BC and Rutgers don't register because they were never any good for any length of time. Played a couple good football games against Rutgers at least, but BC was already gone by then.

UConn went with the AAC in the split because it was supposed to be a short layover before the next round of expansion. It became clear it was actually a 20+ year home when the Big 12 got threatened out of expanding by the networks, showing the money wasn't there anymore. That's when UConn cut their losses and went back to playing their rivals.

By peers, I didn’t mean rivals. Cuse and G’town are rivals to each other but their peer groups are different. IMO UConn’s current athletic profile is close to that of Syracuse, BC and Rutgers than that of Georgetown or Nova.

Agree fully. UConn's peers are the large universities in the Northeast that play football and big-time baseball and that are members of the ACC and Big Ten: Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse and Boston College (and, to a lesser extent, Maryland) — and not, as you note, Georgetown and Nova.

In many respects (and as I have previously posted), UConn is an odd fit in the Big East. But the university was even odder fit in the AAC.

The best home (all factors considered and if you are a UConn fan) would be the ACC. The second best home would be the Big Ten. The third best home is essentially a tie between either the Big 12 or the Big East/AAC football only. The fifth best arrangement is what UConn has: BE and indy football.

UConn being all-sports in the AAC was less ideal than the five situations I list.

I posted this on the ACC board, but I actually won’t mind seeing UConn joining the ACC as a non football member with a clear understanding that UConn may never join the football unless ND joins in full.

The football money will not be shared so the payout for each of the ACC school would slightly increase as UConn has soild basketball and olympic sports. As for the football, the ACC may arrange 3 or 4 annual football games with UConn.

Your hypothetical is interesting. But if I'm UConn, I would want only all-sports to the ACC. Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel the Husky men's hoops program will have a better shot at being fairly dominant in the Big East than it would in the ACC. So why give that up if you can't have, in exchange, a football home? Now, and as you note, having the three to four football games with ACC teams could be a sufficient enticement.

My gut feeling is that UConn will be a member of the Big East for many years and that its football program will be solid as an indy.

(06-26-2021 09:32 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(06-26-2021 09:03 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(06-26-2021 12:00 AM)VCE Wrote:  The ack! (And I will call it such until the Nbe nonsense stops) has a team that won a couple championships in the 60s. We have championships from 4 teams from the 80s and 90s too numerous to mention. People say but Villanova and I ask who in the Big 10 or PAC 10 and I get no answer.

What a surprise a New Big East fan who doesn't like reality (sorry the original Big East is the Ack which is why we kept the history) and has an over inflated view of their importance on the college athletics landscape, I am shocked I tell you, shocked.

Basketball schools kept the non-football histories (i.e. sports that the Big East sponsored before the split). Football kept the football history. The AAC website only acknowledges championships from 13-14, the first year after the split. Big East history continues to go back to 1979, the first year of the conference. Even AAC Football history only goes back to 2013, as there is no acknowledgment of any prior conference winners or championships.

Thus, and this might anger some posters here, but the "New" Big East is very much a continuation of the original Big East in terms of history and organization. The present incarnation is as new as when the Big East added Miami, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, etc.

Thankfully, the powers that be for the Big East in 2012 didn't collectively decide to create a legitimate new brand that embodied and ripped off Conference USA, along with many of the same members. Creativity and originality at its finest.

Big East 4.0 only had 5 of the traditional Big East members and only 7 of the Big East 3.0 members before UConn came back. There's no Syracuse. No Boston College. No Pitt. No Rutgers. Also, no Miami or Virginia Tech. And no Louisville, Cincinnati or South Florida.

(06-26-2021 11:28 AM)bullet Wrote:  Big East 4.0 only had 5 of the traditional Big East members and only 7 of the Big East 3.0 members before UConn came back. There's no Syracuse. No Boston College. No Pitt. No Rutgers. Also, no Miami or Virginia Tech. And no Louisville, Cincinnati or South Florida.

There's only 9 traditional members to begin with. They've got 2/3rds of the original group in-house. Lost 3, added 5.

(06-26-2021 11:44 AM)Bogg Wrote:  

(06-26-2021 11:28 AM)bullet Wrote:  Big East 4.0 only had 5 of the traditional Big East members and only 7 of the Big East 3.0 members before UConn came back. There's no Syracuse. No Boston College. No Pitt. No Rutgers. Also, no Miami or Virginia Tech. And no Louisville, Cincinnati or South Florida.

There's only 9 traditional members to begin with. They've got 2/3rds of the original group in-house. Lost 3, added 5.

I had to go back and look at the timeline to get it straight in my head but to your point...

1979 BE Members:
Boston College
UConn
Georgetown
Providence
St. John's
Seton Hall
Syracuse

Villanova [added 1980]

Pitt [added 1982]

Current BE Members [traditional in bold]:
Butler
UConn
Creighton
DePaul
Georgetown
Marquette
Providence
St. John's
Seton Hall
Villanova
Xavier

Basketball doesnt matter

(06-26-2021 09:38 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(06-26-2021 08:35 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 10:20 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 09:52 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 06:43 PM)Bogg Wrote:  The rivals are Nova, Georgetown, and Syracuse. BC and Rutgers don't register because they were never any good for any length of time. Played a couple good football games against Rutgers at least, but BC was already gone by then.

UConn went with the AAC in the split because it was supposed to be a short layover before the next round of expansion. It became clear it was actually a 20+ year home when the Big 12 got threatened out of expanding by the networks, showing the money wasn't there anymore. That's when UConn cut their losses and went back to playing their rivals.

By peers, I didn’t mean rivals. Cuse and G’town are rivals to each other but their peer groups are different. IMO UConn’s current athletic profile is close to that of Syracuse, BC and Rutgers than that of Georgetown or Nova.

Agree fully. UConn's peers are the large universities in the Northeast that play football and big-time baseball and that are members of the ACC and Big Ten: Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse and Boston College (and, to a lesser extent, Maryland) — and not, as you note, Georgetown and Nova.

In many respects (and as I have previously posted), UConn is an odd fit in the Big East. But the university was even odder fit in the AAC.

The best home (all factors considered and if you are a UConn fan) would be the ACC. The second best home would be the Big Ten. The third best home is essentially a tie between either the Big 12 or the Big East/AAC football only. The fifth best arrangement is what UConn has: BE and indy football.

UConn being all-sports in the AAC was less ideal than the five situations I list.

I posted this on the ACC board, but I actually won’t mind seeing UConn joining the ACC as a non football member with a clear understanding that UConn may never join the football unless ND joins in full.

The football money will not be shared so the payout for each of the ACC school would slightly increase as UConn has soild basketball and olympic sports. As for the football, the ACC may arrange 3 or 4 annual football games with UConn.

Your hypothetical is interesting. But if I'm UConn, I would want only all-sports to the ACC. Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel the Husky men's hoops program will have a better shot at being fairly dominant in the Big East than it would in the ACC. So why give that up if you can't have, in exchange, a football home? Now, and as you note, having the three to four football games with ACC teams could be a sufficient enticement.

My gut feeling is that UConn will be a member of the Big East for many years and that its football program will be solid as an indy.

I would say UConn has zero bargaining power with the ACC, especially if the ACCBBS fans are the ones calling the shots. If the ACC offers UConn an all but football membership, UConn can try to negotiate but the ACC has little reason or incentive to accommodate.

As for whether Big East or ACC men's basketball is better, Villanova won two national championships since 2016 but they're not Duke and North Carolina. And for women's basketball the ACC is miles better. Even if UConn doesn't get any football games, ACC in all other sports is an upgrade. Any Big East school that gets called up to the ACC should take it.

Comical. I already know the answer, but why are there zero references in the eight years to the New Big 12, a conference that has lost Texas A&M, Missouri, Nebraska and Colorado - a third of its original members? Nothing about the new MWC, the new WAC, new Conference USA.

Puzzling (but not really).

(06-26-2021 02:39 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Comical. I already know the answer, but why are there zero references in the eight years to the New Big 12, a conference that has lost Texas A&M, Missouri, Nebraska and Colorado - a third of its original members? Nothing about the new MWC, the new WAC, new Conference USA.

Puzzling (but not really).

This isn't being honest. People have been using CUSA 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, etc for 10 years. Everyone also recognizes the WAC has several different iterations.


# of new members added since forming:

Quote:XII: 2 (TCU, WVU)
MWC: 6 (TCU, USU, Boise, UNR, UNLV, SJSU, Fresno)

Big East: 13 (post-'82 & non-FB -- Miami, RU, WVU, VT, ND, UC, DPU, UL, MU, USF, XU, BU, CU)
CUSA: 16 (ECU, TCU, UCF, SMU, Tulsa, MU, RU, UTEP, FIU, FAU, LT, MTSU, UNT, ODU, UTSA, WKU)

*For consistency's sake:
- Didn't count founding members UConn (Big East) & UNCC (CUSA) rejoining
- Didn't count FB-only members Temple (Big East) & Hawai'i (MWC)

So it's not hard to see why people differentiate eras in the lower group and don't do so with the upper group -- the lower group has seen far more changes than the upper group. It's simply people applying common sense.

(06-26-2021 02:39 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Comical. I already know the answer, but why are there zero references in the eight years to the New Big 12, a conference that has lost Texas A&M, Missouri, Nebraska and Colorado - a third of its original members? Nothing about the new MWC, the new WAC, new Conference USA.

Puzzling (but not really).

The simplest reason would be, none of your other examples had a period where they split into two separate conferences that created an extended period where one the two conferences had no name. After the split, the C7 conference had no name---but the old Big East still existed. Then, the C7 purchased the name from the old Big East---and at that point---lol---the Old Big East then had no name. The nomenclature began in that period and can still be useful to this day when discussing the two conferences in various time periods (or the same conference in various era comparisons). I dont think the term itself is an attack or a slight---though the post it happens to be in could be an attack or slight (the term could just as easily be found in a complimentary post).

(06-26-2021 02:39 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Comical. I already know the answer, but why are there zero references in the eight years to the New Big 12, a conference that has lost Texas A&M, Missouri, Nebraska and Colorado - a third of its original members? Nothing about the new MWC, the new WAC, new Conference USA.

Puzzling (but not really).

Because it's the same organization with new members, not a new organization formed by a group that broke away from another organization and traded for the name with the organization that they broke away from?

If talking about the period when the C7 broke away or its immediate aftermath, "old Big East" and "new Big East" simply keeps straight what you are talking about. It's not necessary when talking about current events. If talking about UConn's decision to stay in the old Big East when it became the American, rather than breaking away with the new Big East, it's one clear way of talking about what was going on.

If simply talking about UConn's decision to leave the American for the Big East because they saw it as a superior basketball conference with teams their alumni and especially boosters would rather see them play, without reference to the breakup period, it would be redundant.

As I have posted many times, there are posters on this board who use "New Big East" in a respectful manner. And others ... who use it as a pejorative. I make every attempt to differentiate. I'm OK with the "NBE" moniker in some contexts and from some posters.

I would hope/expect that the pro-BE posters on this board realize that the Big East of today is not the Big East of its glory days. No league (realistically) will ever be as strong (in terms of sheer number of high-level programs) as was the BE of, say, 2010. Conversely, I would also ask that the anti-BE posters on the board acknowledge that the "current" BE is a very strong men's hoops league.

And, again, as I have posted previously ... the Big East and AAC are more similar than many on this board want to admit.