The View From Section 241 -- Realignment Update

[nelsonmuntz]

If the exit fee goes from 5 mil to 10 mil and the notice period is shortened from 27 months then hasn't the BE essentially told Pitt and SU what it will cost to get out early?

Because otherwise could get kinda weird if the exit fee goes up and less notice and then three months from now WVU or Louisville says they are leaving and they are able to get out before Pitt and SU.

Pitt and SU should have thought of that before they stabbed their conference partners in the back.

 

[businesslawyer]

If the exit fee goes from 5 mil to 10 mil and the notice period is shortened from 27 months then hasn't the BE essentially told Pitt and SU what it will cost to get out early?

Because otherwise could get kinda weird if the exit fee goes up and less notice and then three months from now WVU or Louisville says they are leaving and they are able to get out before Pitt and SU.

The Big East can not let Pitt and Syracuse out early. No matter what those schools would offer, they, and everyone else who leaves, have to play for two years after new schools are admitted so that the continuity rules are satisfied. No change is going to let schools out without 27 months notice.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I like the thought process in orignial mesasge. The key to everything moving forward for the big east, in my perspective, is a clear paradigm shift in the leadership of the conference. These folks over there in Rhode Island absolutely need to to get a grip on the importance of intercollegiate football in the national landscape of intercollegiate athletics. If they've finally learned their lesson, the big east is going to be just fine moving forward, and most likely, as before, will end up stronger in the long run.

I'm sure that there are some big wigs in the ESPN and ACC circles that are so very happy with Boston College and Defilippo right now......not. They almost had UConn.

I applaud the way that our president has handled herself. We are not going behind closed doors, we're not announcing one thing and doing another. We're looking out for our best interests, and we are very interested in remaining with our regular partners of te past 30 years in intercollegiate athletics, and renewing a new england rivalry that just makes sense to anyone outside of chestnut hill.

But we're also not in a position of weakness, not in the least, by remaining right where we are and making the big east stronger.

I look forward to a 12 team football conference in east/west divisions with a championship game to be televised out of Yankee stadium, and 16 team basketball conference, with a tournament to be played each march in madison square garden.

That's what I hope happens. I will miss the Syracuse games. I'm glad we got one football game out of it that had post season meaning, and maybe one more, I wish it could have been at home, but the game last year in the Carrier Dome was awesome. i will continue to enjoy going to madison square garden for basketball games in the spring.

 

[Uptop]

No. Five different schools playing in BCS bowls speaks to the evenness of the conference. But three different schools winning BCS games speaks to strength at the top. Again, even including Syracuse and Pitt as ACC teams, the ACC, I believe, has only one member who has won a BCS game in that period. The Pac Ten, without doing the research, certainly doesn't have more than 3 (assuming Oregon and USC have joined Stanford in winning in that time period).

Please do not fall into the trap of letting the outside world define us with non-objective criteria. Three different schools with BCS wins in five years by definition makes you a BCS league.

Case and point. Since the 2000 national championship that fsu won the acc is 1-33 vs the top ten. 1-33! But the media let's it slide.

 

[Dann]

HAVE TO SPLIT and take the bcs bid/get a new contract asap! comcast vs espn will get us good enough $$ for the situation were currently in.

12? quick fix lets go....
East: UConn, Ruty, WVU, Lville, Cincy, USF
West: Boise State, SMU, Houston, Air Force, Nevada and BYU
bosie/ no bball...

i like this more
16, more stable after further expansion, 15 mil buyout...
East: + Temple, UCF
West: + Fresno, SDSU
ECU/Navy/Tulsa/Tulane among others on deck...

2-nyc area schools
2-cali schools
2-fl schools
2-texas schools

dreaming at this point expansion wise of this conf-
The big question though before we add schools and go for it is??? are kan/kst/ist/bay really that happy now with the b12? yea they added tcu and it looks like mizzu might stay but really? your happy?

BE6 +Bay/Kan/Kst/Ist, TCU then comes right back...add UCF and ball game.

 

[RS9999X]

HAVE TO SPLIT .

They have split. There are Basketball only members and Football only members. Its a scheduling alignment to gather the best availabe teams for each sport with some core 2-sport programs.

SDSU, Nevada and Hawaii don't offer enough.

 

[gabect]

I just wanted to bring a few thoughts together in one place.

1. I really like the rumored expansion. If you bring in those six schools, you have maximized the value of the football conference with markets, national prestige and recent strength. Is it, to a large degree, making lemonaide out of lemons? Heck yes. But with Navy, Air Force and Boise for football only, and UCF, SMU and Houston for all sports, you now have a 12 team football conference that is light years ahead of any other non-BCS conference and, while without any traditional power schools, is not on a different plane than all BCS conferences not named the SEC and Big XII. The conference, in just five years, will have five members who played in BCS games and 3 who have BCS game victories. How does that compare to the ACC? The Pac Ten? Without any doubt, this would be a stronger conference on the field, and with more big markets, than what we have today. Is there a loss of prestige? Yes. Hoops? Yes. But not football on the field.

2. That having been said, this lineup, if we can pull it off, should get the Big East a TV contract in excess of what we're getting now and less than what the other 5 BCS conferences get. How close to them will we get? That will depend on how much some network other than Disney wants to be in the college sports business. But with a BCS berth, and the catholic schools markets, and still a major basketball league, this will be o.k.

3. Furthermore, look at what this does beyond rebuild. Now you're Swofford. You have twice tried to eliminate the Big East and, while you've probably reestablished yourself as the #1 hoops league, you still have a viable, BCS competitor in markets that overlap with yours more than ever with the additions of Navy and UCF to the Big East and the ACC's first real entry into the Northeast. The long term viability of a geographically rival conference, and a basketball competitor, has to, has to, hurt your long term value to ESPN. But, you can probably kill the Big East, once and for all, by pulling one more pick up stick from the pile and watching it collapse when the Catholics say we don't need you anymore and we are going to block expansion so take your football and go elsewhere.

4. We, ladies and gentlemen, are that pick-up-stick. EVen if adding us reduces the per team TV take a little (and it's hard to see how it would reduce it by much, as certainly we will provide material revenues), look what taking us accomplishes. It greatly increases basketball strength. It kills your geographic competitor in football, and for NYC markets in hoops, once and for all. It increases the chances that ND does come calling (whatever those chances are). And, it gets you off the hook with ESPN for whom you've solved a problem that one of your ADs created with its governmental partner. I don't know what the ACC will do. I don't know how much the southern tier is focused solely on football prestige. But this rebuild plan puts us in a position where our value to the ACC will almost certainly never be higher than it is at this moment.

So, for me, the rumored plan is a real win, win. If the Big East goes forward with it, we've done the best we can in a tough situation and I think it should be good enough to avoid real significant damage. If the ACC says no way, the way for it to block the rebuilding of the Big East is to offer us, which (despite speculation on this board) is what both the University President and the Governor have clearly stated they want. How much are we responsible for this, as opposed to it just being the concensus? Who knows.

I just hope that we have time to let this all sink in to Swofford's member institutions before we actually have to sign up for the increased exit penalty, but not so much time that the rumored expansion falls apart.

Real, real guts ball being played.

BL, I share your optimism on the recent proposals albeit cautiously. My main concern is that Chuck Neinas is the difference between last year and this year for the Big XII and they will poach L'ville and WVU to make it 12.

 

[gars44]

BL, I share your optimism on the recent proposals albeit cautiously. My main concern is that Chuck Neinas is the difference between last year and this year for the Big XII and they will poach L'ville and WVU to make it 12.

Yes, but if the B12 meanders on this, it gives rational thinking more of a chance to set in at places like WVU, Lou, RU and Uconn. We will all start to get that maybe the way to go is to cede rights for 6 years (or whatever the B12 and other conferences are doing), and agree that no matter what, we're hanging together for this period of time. Then it doesn't matter what Chuck Neinas wants to to do. We will be pretty secure for one more cycle, and won't see any major downgrade in the product. Some, but that is inevitable in the Big East and the Acc. Our goal is not to fall too far behind programs like North Carolina, Wake Forest, Boston College and Maryland. That has to be the goal.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

I'm baffled that neither SMU nor Houston is on the list. If the agreement was to add only one all sports member (to relace two who will depart) wouldn't adding a presence in Texas (in a top ten market no less with either school) make more sense? Also, would we be a bit more enticing to Airforce and Boise St (two football onlies we obviously want badly) if there was at least one more school closer to them than Cincinnati?

I'm not sure (if we were in a position where we didn't need to add anyone but wanted to add one member) that UCF would be a better addition than either Texas school. The overall incompetence is stunning.

 

[noeynox]

Im thinking smu/houston will replace Pitt/su once it is known when they are leaving. Im looking @ UCF as replacing TCU for all sports. If the Big East can pull this off, they may have a chance. Maybe they get 14/15 mil a year from comcast/nbc for football and they give the world wide leader the finger.

 

[Jimdish255]

I'll admit I don't get the whole service academy allure, but AFA over Houston? Marketplace? Recruiting? Ugh!!!

 

[gars44]

HAVE TO SPLIT and take the bcs bid/get a new contract asap! comcast vs espn will get us good enough $$ for the situation were currently in.

12? quick fix lets go....
East: UConn, Ruty, WVU, Lville, Cincy, USF
West: Boise State, SMU, Houston, Air Force, Nevada and BYU
bosie/ no bball...

i like this more
16, more stable after further expansion, 15 mil buyout...
East: + Temple, UCF
West: + Fresno, SDSU
ECU/Navy/Tulsa/Tulane among others on deck...

2-nyc area schools
2-cali schools
2-fl schools
2-texas schools

dreaming at this point expansion wise of this conf-
The big question though before we add schools and go for it is??? are kan/kst/ist/bay really that happy now with the b12? yea they added tcu and it looks like mizzu might stay but really? your happy?

BE6 +Bay/Kan/Kst/Ist, TCU then comes right back...add UCF and ball game.

This is how I'm thinking also. I disagree with a couple of your points, but the general theme is very good. The basketball conference definitely must be a separate corporation from the football. I would also go to 16 in football. I think the East has to include Navy, and that means that either Temple or UCF doesn't make the cut. Right now it looks like Temple is out. But Navy has to be in.

In the West, BYU is out. They want to be independent, and they have the religious following to get it done. Sort of like ND lite. The West has so many beautiful possibilities. SDSU. UNLV: c'mon, who doesn't want to go to Las Vegas? Are you serious? Las Vegas is as good as NYC, Miami, Chicago - it's a huge destination. UNLV - I don't care about their football program (but didn't they just beat BC last year?). Montana. New Mexico. These are the absolute most beautiful places in the planet. Plus, if you incorporate those states you incorporate their senators. It's just a no brainer. Just take whoever wants to come from the MWC plus Houston.

 

[BlueWhiteOrange]

I just wanted to bring a few thoughts together in one place.

1. I really like the rumored expansion. If you bring in those six schools, you have maximized the value of the football conference with markets, national prestige and recent strength. Is it, to a large degree, making lemonaide out of lemons? Heck yes. But with Navy, Air Force and Boise for football only, and UCF, SMU and Houston for all sports, you now have a 12 team football conference that is light years ahead of any other non-BCS conference and, while without any traditional power schools, is not on a different plane than all BCS conferences not named the SEC and Big XII. The conference, in just five years, will have five members who played in BCS games and 3 who have BCS game victories. How does that compare to the ACC? The Pac Ten? Without any doubt, this would be a stronger conference on the field, and with more big markets, than what we have today. Is there a loss of prestige? Yes. Hoops? Yes. But not football on the field.

2. That having been said, this lineup, if we can pull it off, should get the Big East a TV contract in excess of what we're getting now and less than what the other 5 BCS conferences get. How close to them will we get? That will depend on how much some network other than Disney wants to be in the college sports business. But with a BCS berth, and the catholic schools markets, and still a major basketball league, this will be o.k.

3. Furthermore, look at what this does beyond rebuild. Now you're Swofford. You have twice tried to eliminate the Big East and, while you've probably reestablished yourself as the #1 hoops league, you still have a viable, BCS competitor in markets that overlap with yours more than ever with the additions of Navy and UCF to the Big East and the ACC's first real entry into the Northeast. The long term viability of a geographically rival conference, and a basketball competitor, has to, has to, hurt your long term value to ESPN. But, you can probably kill the Big East, once and for all, by pulling one more pick up stick from the pile and watching it collapse when the Catholics say we don't need you anymore and we are going to block expansion so take your football and go elsewhere.

4. We, ladies and gentlemen, are that pick-up-stick. EVen if adding us reduces the per team TV take a little (and it's hard to see how it would reduce it by much, as certainly we will provide material revenues), look what taking us accomplishes. It greatly increases basketball strength. It kills your geographic competitor in football, and for NYC markets in hoops, once and for all. It increases the chances that ND does come calling (whatever those chances are). And, it gets you off the hook with ESPN for whom you've solved a problem that one of your ADs created with its governmental partner. I don't know what the ACC will do. I don't know how much the southern tier is focused solely on football prestige. But this rebuild plan puts us in a position where our value to the ACC will almost certainly never be higher than it is at this moment.

So, for me, the rumored plan is a real win, win. If the Big East goes forward with it, we've done the best we can in a tough situation and I think it should be good enough to avoid real significant damage. If the ACC says no way, the way for it to block the rebuilding of the Big East is to offer us, which (despite speculation on this board) is what both the University President and the Governor have clearly stated they want. How much are we responsible for this, as opposed to it just being the concensus? Who knows.

I just hope that we have time to let this all sink in to Swofford's member institutions before we actually have to sign up for the increased exit penalty, but not so much time that the rumored expansion falls apart.

Real, real guts ball being played.

I like what you're saying here, especially since I posted the same scenario about 2 weeks ago on this board. Some teams are different and you could nit-pick it, but basically the same idea. I'm glad you came around!

This is about the THREAT of adding UMass. The acc tried to destroy the big east in 2003, we found 3 good replacements and it did not work. They are trying again to destroy the big east again, but they haven't quite done it. If it was proposed that the big east was going to go to 12 schools and keep the catholics, adding rivalry schools for current members: Houston for TCU, Central FL for USF(competition for miami, fsu), ECU (competition for the carolina acc schools),UMass(competition for bc)Temple and Villanova(takes over philly), then perhaps the Big East retains its BCS. Does the acc want to wait for all of this to MIGHT happen and then pick off UCONN or Rutgers a few years down the road afterwards? It doesn't matter if the new schools are not good right at this moment, they could be in short order(UCONN, USF). The threat of keeping the basketball onlies keeps the big east very strong in basketball still.

This is all hypothetical that is leaked to the press by UCONN or Rutgers. The acc could dismiss it, but the big east is still around after 2 attempts to destroy it. If the acc takes UCONN and Rutgers now they destroy the big east for good. If the acc waits, they get a bunch more competition they didn't plan on. If they are waiting on ND,who says you have to stop at 16, take them as #17. It also makes ND decide quicker.

This is something UCONN does not want to do for real unless we don't get a seat at the super conference table. The problem is the longer we wait, the tougher it will be to recruit because all of the other coaches will tell the kids that the big east will be losing their BCS. If we have to wait 3-5 years to get in our product won't be very good and it would take much longer to build back up.​

BlueWhiteOrange, Oct 1, 2011​

Edit​

Delete​

Report​

​

 

[Adios]

The ACC destroyed itself. 4 teams in North Carolina. One of the biggest upsides of having the fluidity we've had in football was being able to add up-and-comers. The ACC now absorbed some programs that are not what they used to be. And have a lot more football dead-weight than we do. VT might even go back to being a "regular program" after Beamer leaves.

 

[zls44]

The ACC destroyed itself. 4 teams in North Carolina. One of the biggest upsides of having the fluidity we've had in football was being able to add up-and-comers. The ACC now absorbed some programs that are not what they used to be. And have a lot more football dead-weight than we do. VT might even go back to being a "regular program" after Beamer leaves.

Literally, everything, you think in terms of the future success of the Big East, demographics, competing with the ACC/SEC is 100% against proven history.

People are FLEEING the cities.
They are moving to warmer climates.
The Big East is going from name programs with little recent success to no-name programs (except Boise) with practically no history (SMU was good for a bit, but also had the death penalty).

They aren't going to cut into the SEC market.
They aren't going to cut into the ACC market.

The only thing they are going to do is hook a new battery up to the ventilator for a few years. If they do well, all that will happen is more poaching.

There is no long-term solution by adding these teams. It does not exist.

This was earlier today. A matchup of future Big East teams, already in the same conference. And nobody was there. Nobody was there because nobody gives a about UCF, or SMU...or anyone else they're adding, for that matter. Except Boise. Think they're going to go from 14,000 to 40,000 for Cincinnati in Dallas? For USF? For UConn? For Rutgers? They aren't, and they won't.

It is a temporary solution to a long-term problem. That is all it is.

 

[Adios]

Literally, everything, you think in terms of the future success of the Big East, demographics, competing with the ACC/SEC is 100% against proven history.

People are FLEEING the cities.
They are moving to warmer climates.
The Big East is going from name programs with little recent success to no-name programs (except Boise) with practically no history (SMU was good for a bit, but also had the death penalty).

They aren't going to cut into the SEC market.
They aren't going to cut into the ACC market.

The only thing they are going to do is hook a new battery up to the ventilator for a few years. If they do well, all that will happen is more poaching.

There is no long-term solution by adding these teams. It does not exist.

This was earlier today. A matchup of future Big East teams, already in the same conference. And nobody was there. Nobody was there because nobody gives a about UCF, or SMU...or anyone else they're adding, for that matter. Except Boise. Think they're going to go from 14,000 to 40,000 for Cincinnati in Dallas? For USF? For UConn? For Rutgers? They aren't, and they won't.

It is a temporary solution to a long-term problem. That is all it is.

Did you know Dallas, Houston, and Orlando are in warmer climates?

 

[zls44]

Did you know Dallas, Houston, and Orlando are in warmer climates?

In each of those cities, the Big East team doesn't even have the 2nd biggest COLLEGE following in town.

UT/TAMU are bigger in Dallas & Houston. TCU is bigger in Dallas. TT and OU even have big alumni followings in those cities, probably much larger than SMU and Houston.

UCF is behind Florida, FSU, maybe even Miami and USF. At least we've got USF. Since nobody else wants USF.

And the reason nobody want USF is that nobody gives a about USF football. You can't make up an 80 year head start.

BTW, are Boise, Annapolis or Colorado Springs in warm weather climates?

 

[noeynox]

+1. To ZLS. I like what the Big East is trying to do here, but lets not go overboard either. We are poaching non bcs programs in the hopes that the Big East/BCS forum gives em a boost (except for Boise). It has worked for every program in the Big East except for Temple when they were here. By going to at least 12, the league will survive the next poaching, if it comes.

 

[metsfan2323]

Think they're going to go from 14,000 to 40,000 for Cincinnati in Dallas? For USF? For UConn? For Rutgers? They aren't, and they won't

Totally disagree. Entering the Big East will generate alot of fan interest for SMU, Houston and UCF. SMU will draw 40,000 for their conference games, they just need to win. The Big East is a very good incubator for football programs. (see Virginia Tech, Cincy, UCONN, Rutgers)

 

[BlueMAB]

And the reason nobody want USF is that nobody gives a about USF football. You can't make up an 80 year head start.

I agree with most of the rest of your post, except this.

It wasn't that long ago that FSU was an all-girls school. It won't be easy, but USF has potential. I agree that the schools in the mix are a band-aid, but there aren't any schools that can save/stabilize the conference that are interested in joining.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

In each of those cities, the Big East team doesn't even have the 2nd biggest COLLEGE following in town.

UT/TAMU are bigger in Dallas & Houston. TCU is bigger in Dallas. TT and OU even have big alumni followings in those cities, probably much larger than SMU and Houston.

UCF is behind Florida, FSU, maybe even Miami and USF. At least we've got USF. Since nobody else wants USF.

And the reason nobody want USF is that nobody gives a about USF football. You can't make up an 80 year head start.

BTW, are Boise, Annapolis or Colorado Springs in warm weather climates?

We already know ESPN's position. Have any thoughts of your own?

 

[tzznandrew]

I agree with most of the rest of your post, except this.

It wasn't that long ago that FSU was an all-girls school. It won't be easy, but USF has potential. I agree that the schools in the mix are a band-aid, but there aren't any schools that can save/stabilize the conference that are interested in joining.

I hope you are right. But FSU has fielded a football team since the mid-1940s. That's still much longer than USF, so I think his point ultimately stands.

 

[BlueMAB]

I hope you are right. But FSU has fielded a football team since the mid-1940s. That's still much longer than USF, so I think his point ultimately stands.

Win and the fans will follow. Boise State seems to have done well for themselves without the head start. The teams with the largest fanbases got that way because they won a sh!tload of games, not because of their climate, or demographics. When you're building a national brand, you need to win lots of games and a few championships.

 

[Adios]

Winning within large population bases is what I am trying to get at. But many of you think tradition remains etched in stone.

 

[BlueMAB]

Winning within large population bases is what I am trying to get at. But many of you think tradition remains etched in stone.

You are vastly overstating the importance of population.

South Bend isn't what most would call a thriving a metropolis. Neither is Tuscaloosa. Storrs isn't really either, but people know UConn basketball on a national level.

Winning matters above all else. Having a huge alumni base helps, but if population size was as important as you think St. John's, Rutgers and Seton Hall would be bigger names than UConn, Syracuse, and West Virgina.