Rumor: A lot of big east teams to leave

[upstater]

so slow?

I agree with his logic. If ND agreed to go to the ACC today, the Big10 would be severely limited.

I'm guessing that the Big10 feels it could pull in Maryland, Missouri, Texas, etc., any time it wants. I bet they're wrong. Missouri, for one, is permanently gone to the SEC if they join because you sign away your TV rights in that league. Just like the Big10. We're talking Hotel California here: you can check out any time you like, but you can't ever leave. Maybe if the Big10 loses ND, they're just fine with Maryland, Rutgers, Kansas and Kansas St. (or Texas and Texas Tech).

 

[Da_Aisijimo_Gou]

That's one vote (BC). Who are the other 2/3? Basketball is important, is it most important? No, it's not.

Joining all of the other conjecturers pulling speculative facts out of their collective back sides, one SWAG suggests FSU and Miami. Before the latter's dingleberry (BCU) clung along for the ride, Miami and FSU reportedly were in ACC cahoots. Along with speculative media reports and other rumors that FSU may have pushed for a historically traditional football program, it wouldn't be too surprising to learn Shalala's influence remains a factor. Yup, almost as definitive as most of the prior facts in this thread.

 

[BlueMAB]

What 2/3 are you talking about? UConn hasn't applied. We're talking about the expansion committee. Pay attention.

If you're going to be so smug, perhaps you can explain how one school has the power to veto a potential candidate that the rest of the committee wants as it's first choice.

Because you do realize that there are 12 schools in the expansion committee, right? How many schools are in the ACC? 12?

My logic sucks, but you seem to be arguing that BCU didn't want UConn, but the rest of the conference wanted UConn first. At least according to Blaudschun. However, BCU has enough power to prevent the rest from getting their first choice.

And MY logic leaves a lot to be desired?

 

[MTHusky]

The Big XII making a strong move to survive the shakeup can only push other conferences to act quickly. If 16 is a desireable number, and while I don't understand why it should be that seems to be what the networks are saying (because otherwise none of this would be happening), there are not enough tier one programs out there to have 5 sixteen team conferences. The Big XII was supposed to go away in this scenario. An attempt by the Big XII to move east (and if you're going to Morgantown and Cincinnati for the life of me I can't see why you wouldn't go to metro New York -- a long plane ride doesn't change with an extra few hundred miles on the end of it) forces the ACC, and to a lesser degree the SEC and Big Ten, to act now or find it much harder to expand in the future.

Of course, logic has been such a useless tool to explain how we are where we are now ....

Like the thinking and tend to agree that is the Big 12-11-10-9-8 whatever makes a push to expand then the ACC, Big 10 and the SEC will need to move fast

 

[tduconn]

No one is blocking UConn to the ACC or (name your poison) more than UConn itself.

Everyone has to do a gut check and realize these moves are for football. The ACC, no matter how good UConn basketball is, don't need them to upgrade the conference image of ACC BB. They have had their own brand recognition in BB for decades and there was never any talk about that side of the equation suffering. The first raid was to to put successful FB brands in their conference. The second raid was again for FB and megaconferences leading perhaps to a FB playoff system and "mega bucks".

UConn has never been a powerhouse in 1-A football. In fact quite the opposite in terms of offensive production. There was a posting concerning perception of Maryland football after its last loss to Temple. (I give credit to Temple because they have and continue to build a nice program under Golden and Addazio.....they are Not the old BE Temple) What was the perception stated on radio talk shows....."looks like High School football".

What do you think the perception of UConn FB is outside, and perhaps inside CT? I'm sorry to say, more than a handful of my neighbors, co workers, friends (all supporters of UC) do not consider UC a BCS caliber team. As far as offense goes, has it ever been (collectively) in the top 80% of BCS teams? (I'm not talking about the run game......I'm referencing the whole offensive scheme.) I don't think Joe Morehead has been able to assemble an exciting offense since he has been here. (Not criticizing Joe or the other coaches....you can only work with what you have)

Who is blocking UConn from getting an invite to a "super conference".......By the way we play football......it could be any number of the well established FB teams in any conference.......but I think UC's biggest roadblock is UC itself.

This is all about FB......no matter what any other sport brings to the table........and right now UConn will not come close to being in the upper tier of any BCS league other than BE FB.

I'm sorry. I get it....it's a young program. And its growing. As much as I hate to take off my rose colored glasses......UConn FB is not that good. ....... I don't think other conferences and their fans want and/or need an "up and coming" FB program.

And I'm extremely worried as a fan because of the national perception of UC FB. I trust in Herbst, and maybe Burton has influential contacts and "knows the national college FB scene". I hope Herbst can pull it off and get UC into a "mega conference"......it may really be a hard challenge

 

[HuskyHawk]

Good grief, how quickly do you think this can happen? It's not like these leagues are together in a room somewhere, with the SEC saying to the Big XII, I'll trade you an Arkansas for A&M, but I need an FSU from the ACC.

Take Missouri for example. Decent school. Decent athletics. Good markets. Their three biggest rivals are (1) Illinois (2) Kansas and (3) Arkansas. Three different leagues. So who wants them? Big XII does. Does SEC? Maybe? Does B1G? Who knows. Nebraska was a surprise. Would the B1G take Iowa St. or Kansas, or do they prefer UConn or Rutgers? Do they really still want ND? The ACC does, but are the Irish just stringing them along (probably). Would Penn St. defect to the ACC (doubtful)? Every conceivable scenario is in play, and we don't know what these conferences and schools really want. All of this is conjecture.

This is high stakes poker, and nobody wants to put their cards on the table. If you move suddenly you may do well, or you may box yourself in. The ACC made the first move. The Big XII called a bluff from the Pac 12. Why did the ACC make the move? What did they suspect? An SEC raid on FSU and GT? A move by the Big Ten for Pitt and Cuse? Both?

Eventually another domino will fall.

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

Bladschun has missed the mark or been behind on stories at multiple points throughout this realignment process, so I would not find it hard to believe that a story he wrote lacked complete truth or was blatantly false.

 

[upstater]

If you're going to be so smug, perhaps you can explain how one school has the power to veto a potential candidate that the rest of the committee wants as it's first choice.

Because you do realize that there are 12 schools in the expansion committee, right? How many schools are in the ACC? 12?

My logic sucks, but you seem to be arguing that BCU didn't want UConn, but the rest of the conference wanted UConn first. At least according to Blaudschun. However, BCU has enough power to prevent the rest from getting their first choice.

And MY logic leaves a lot to be desired?

When it comes to voting after a member has applied, that's when the 75% comes into force. As for the ways committees work, it operates on the veto principle. You support a fellow member's veto out of principle for fear that your veto would be disrespected in a similar circumstance. It's the way the world works. Even the EU puts up with crazy requests out of the same consideration. While policies are enacted with 2/3rds of the vote, vetoes are always respected even if they lead to big trouble. The EU has been talking forever about requiring that more than one member needs to support a veto, but they have never managed to get up the courage to actually enact that legislation.

Again, this is based on Blaudschun. The point is, there was never a vote that would have required 3/4s of the ACC to be in favor of UConn.

When I wrote that your logic leaves a lot to be desired, I was referring to how you twice wrote, after I quoted Blaudschun, that UConn was offered but rejected it. That's the logic I couldn't comprehend.

 

[jpm25]

I agree with his logic. If ND agreed to go to the ACC today, the Big10 would be severely limited.

I'm guessing that the Big10 feels it could pull in Maryland, Missouri, Texas, etc., any time it wants. I bet they're wrong. Missouri, for one, is permanently gone to the SEC if they join because you sign away your TV rights in that league. Just like the Big10. We're talking Hotel California here: you can check out any time you like, but you can't ever leave. Maybe if the Big10 loses ND, they're just fine with Maryland, Rutgers, Kansas and Kansas St. (or Texas and Texas Tech).

I agree too, actually, I just don't think this process is moving slowly. It's actually breakneck pace when you consider that decisions are being made by institutions with hundred-year histories.

 

[jpm25]

Actually, some of us are proud of our recent accomplishments, others tear them down becuase they don't like the former coach.

and yet a third group puts our accomplishments into a historical and fact-driven context, while at the same time being no less proud than any group.

 

[noeynox]

Since we are going to infer things no one said bizlaw, your right I am sure shalala is advocating for us as we type.

 

[BlueMAB]

upstater-

Again, I find it hard to believe that 11 of the 12 schools wanted UConn, and instead they took Quse/Pitt just because BCU was against it. And it has nothing to do with how the EU, or UN, or NATO, or your high school model UN operates.

 

[BlueMAB]

and yet a third group puts our accomplishments into a historical and fact-driven context, while at the same time being no less proud than any group.

8ullsh1t

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

You're all assuming an informal vote was taken on UConn and it was flatly unsuccessful, and that is the reason we were not invited. Another very real possibility could have been the ACC wanted to make a pre-emptive move to block the B1G and Big 12 from expanding east, so they took the two most logical B1G and Big 12targets that they (the ACC) was interested in themselves. UConn was never rumored to be a school either the B1G or the Big 12 was interested in, so the smart move in this scenario for the ACC is to take Pitt and SU, knowing that UConn very likely will be there for the picking if they decide to go further, whereas Pitt and SU may very well be in the B1g (SU) or Big 12 (Pitt). Don't forget the multiple reports that came out as saying the Big 12 was very, very close to moving on Pitt before the ACC swooped in. And SU had long been a target of the B1G to move into the NYC area.

 

[BlueMAB]

This was a great power play by the ACC on the B10. It is so simple to see that I don't understand why we have this discussion at this point.

When did I say this was a bad move by the ACC? This was a great power play. I never said otherwise. I'm not being dramatic, I'm being realistic, look at my first post in the thread (page 2) and maybe you'll understand where I'm coming from. Hartbeat Husky, IMO, couldn't defend his position with that information. If you agree with him, maybe you can.

 

[BlueMAB]

Another very real possibility could have been the ACC wanted to make a pre-emptive move to block the B1G and Big 12 from expanding east, so they took the two most logical B1G and Big 12targets that they (the ACC) was interested in themselves.

Which is why they are more valuable than UConn, and why we sit on the outside looking in. The wealth in the state of CT is completely irrelevant. (see my first post in this thread, page 2 if you don't understand the reference).

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

Which is why they are more valuable than UConn, and why we sit on the outside looking in. The wealth in the state of CT is completely irrelevant. (see my first post in this thread, page 2 if you don't understand the reference).

This scenario proves they're more valuable in terms of a timing perspective, not necessarily in terms of an overall value perspective. None of the Big East teams are/were slam dunk candidates for the ACC or anyone, so there isn't a school that another conference is going to say, we have to have them NOW, no questions asked.

 

[HuskyHawk]

8ullsh1t

How so? I'm proud of what we've done. Have we been as good as or better than say, University of Washington of late? Sure. Are we on even close to the same level as UDub? No way. They have 15 Pac Ten titles, 7 Rose Bowl titles. A 75,000 seat stadium. Four national championships. It's not just what have you done on the field the last five years. Putting our semi-success of late in historical context, it is an insignificant blip on the college football radar. It doesn't even register.

We're not even as far along as the basketball team was in 1990. They had far more historical success. I really hope we can continue to build the football tradition, but we've given most of these schools a 100 year head start.

Even looking at Syracuse, do we have anything like this on our resume? In 1959, Syracuse earned its first National Championship following an undefeated season and Cotton Bowl Classic victory over Texas. The team featured sophomore running back Ernie Davis, who went on to become the first African American to win the Heisman Trophy in 1961

 

[UConnJim]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sportsm...-big-east-schools-in-mens-basketball-revenue/

Orangehomer - You need to study the stats to see how flawed the article is. Each school uses different accounting, so the numbers aren't comparable. The top 5 sports men's sports revenue generators (total revenues is probably the least flawed number) in the BE are:

1) Louisville $63.5 mill.
2) UConn $58.5 mill.
3) Rutgers $55.6 mill.
4) Syracuse $49.3 mill.
5) Pittsburgh $49.2 mill.

According to this article, UConn's men's basketball generates $7.8 mill. in revenues and UConn's football generates $14.4 mill. in revenues for a total of $22.2 mill in revenues. Yet, UConn's total men's revenues are $58.5 mill.! Doesn't make any sense.

 

[jpm25]

8ullsh1t

which part?

 

[BlueMAB]

No matter the thread, FUCRE is a .500 coach with exactly one win against a ranked opponent, and losing record against BCS competition.

Yes, when you say he is a .500 coach without mentioning the program he took over, the challenges we faced in upgrading, in recruiting, in competing with more established programs, in playing teams when we had fewer scholarship players, etc, you are definitely putting our accomplishments into a historical and fact-driven context. Nothing says pride and historical, fact-driven context like criticizing a .500 record for a guy taking UConn from the Yankee Conference to a BCS conference, and winning two conference championships in the process. Something our peers in NJ have never done, despite the recruiting advantage and 30 year head start.

 

[upstater]

upstater-

Again, I find it hard to believe that 11 of the 12 schools wanted UConn, and instead they took Quse/Pitt just because BCU was against it. And it has nothing to do with how the EU, or UN, or NATO, or your high school model UN operates.

A veto is a veto. You find it hard to believe one program could blackball another. I don't.

 

[BlueMAB]

This scenario proves they're more valuable in terms of a timing perspective, not necessarily in terms of an overall value perspective. None of the Big East teams are/were slam dunk candidates for the ACC or anyone, so there isn't a school that another conference is going to say, we have to have them NOW, no questions asked.

They are more valuable to the ACC in an overall perspective because adding them hurt the Big 10's options for expansion. UConn wouldn't have done that.

"Timing" is but one aspect, along with football, basketball, location, market, academics....etc. They all add up to value. Picking and choosing which ones to rely on in making the argument we are more valuable is pointless. It's the whole of them that matters, and it's why we aren't in the ACC........ yet.

 

[Uptop]

It doesn't say "only" Louisville, it just says Louisville. I have to imagine that any Presidents interested in rebuilding are going to demand a commitment with some teeth in it, effectively almost immediately.

Waylon, Air Force plays at Navy Saturday and the Presidents meet Sunday. Any relation to possible bids being extended this weekend or strickly a coincidence?

 

[UConnJim]

Blaudschun has excellent contacts in the Big East, including Calhoun. Although he covers BC, I don't think he has the best ACC contacts, relative to reporters in North Carolina, and he is generally considered a pro-Big East guy by most BC fans. Thus, I would believe his comments related to the BE, but I would be skeptical of his comments related to what the ACC is thinking or doing.

 

[BlueMAB]

A veto is a veto. You find it hard to believe one program could blackball another. I don't.

If there was no vote, why was there a veto?

Don't put words in my mouth.

If UConn was so clearly the front runner, then I find it hard to believe the other 11 schools couldn't convince BCU that UConn was in the conference's best interest, and BCU would be wise to be a team player.

 

[BlueMAB]

How so? I'm proud of what we've done. Have we been as good as or better than say, University of Washington of late? Sure. Are we on even close to the same level as UDub? No way. They have 15 Pac Ten titles, 7 Rose Bowl titles. A 75,000 seat stadium. Four national championships. It's not just what have you done on the field the last five years. Putting our semi-success of late in historical context, it is an insignificant blip on the college football radar. It doesn't even register.

We're not even as far along as the basketball team was in 1990. They had far more historical success. I really hope we can continue to build the football tradition, but we've given most of these schools a 100 year head start.

Even looking at Syracuse, do we have anything like this on our resume? In 1959, Syracuse earned its first National Championship following an undefeated season and Cotton Bowl Classic victory over Texas. The team featured sophomore running back Ernie Davis, who went on to become the first African American to win the Heisman Trophy in 1961

That comment was not for you. It was for the guy who thinks he provides context by pointing out Edsall was a .500 coach at UConn, while ignoring the fact that record includes games played while we were upgrading and playing with fewer scholarship players.

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

How so? I'm proud of what we've done. Have we been as good as or better than say, University of Washington of late? Sure. Are we on even close to the same level as UDub? No way. They have 15 Pac Ten titles, 7 Rose Bowl titles. A 75,000 seat stadium. Four national championships. It's not just what have you done on the field the last five years. Putting our semi-success of late in historical context, it is an insignificant blip on the college football radar. It doesn't even register.

We're not even as far along as the basketball team was in 1990. They had far more historical success. I really hope we can continue to build the football tradition, but we've given most of these schools a 100 year head start.

Even looking at Syracuse, do we have anything like this on our resume? In 1959, Syracuse earned its first National Championship following an undefeated season and Cotton Bowl Classic victory over Texas. The team featured sophomore running back Ernie Davis, who went on to become the first African American to win the Heisman Trophy in 1961

You're right, sort of. All of this expansion has little to do with things that happened 25+ years ago, but about how you're doing now, and more importantly, how many people are going to tune in on TV and watch you.

Washington has four titles, only one of which is recognized by any real source - USA Today/Coaches, and none are recognized by the AP or other commonly accepted sources. By these standards of using obscure ranking sources, Oregon and TCU were also national champions last year, Missouri and USC were in 2007, and Boise State won in 2006. They also did not go to a bowl from 2002 until 2010, and have not won a Pac-10 title since 2000. Sure, we don't have such a resume in our past, but if you put us head to head over the last 10 years, it's a far more even comparison.

Syracuse, much the same, has success from even farther back. Sure, Ernie Davis is a legend, and his Heisman win is a huge accomplishment for the program. That Cotton Bowl win over Texas was also huge for the program - in 1959 when it happened. But the ACC did not say "Oh wow, they won a Heisman and a national title 50 years ago, we can't pass this team up." If that were the standard, the ACC and the Big 10 would be lining up to take Army.

In terms of success on the field, unless your program is legitimately a blue blood, your isolated year or two of success from 25 years ago is not going to be much of a factor in expansion. Syracuse was not taken by the ACC for their football accomplishments on the field. They were taken because of a large alumni base in NYC who will flip on the TV. And make no mistake, they're by and large no flipping on the TV to watch Syracuse football first.

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

Orangehomer - You need to study the stats to see how flawed the article is. Each school uses different accounting, so the numbers aren't comparable. The top 5 sports men's sports revenue generators (total revenues is probably the least flawed number) in the BE are:

1) Louisville $63.5 mill.
2) UConn $58.5 mill.
3) Rutgers $55.6 mill.
4) Syracuse $49.3 mill.
5) Pittsburgh $49.2 mill.

According to this article, UConn's men's basketball generates $7.8 mill. in revenues and UConn's football generates $14.4 mill. in revenues for a total of $22.2 mill in revenues. Yet, UConn's total men's revenues are $58.5 mill.! Doesn't make any sense.

You haven't been paying the $500 admission price to a hockey game?

 

[jpm25]

Yes, when you say he is a .500 coach without mentioning the program he took over, the challenges we faced in upgrading, in recruiting, in competing with more established programs, in playing teams when we had fewer scholarship players, etc, you are definitely putting our accomplishments into a historical and fact-driven context. Nothing says pride and historical, fact-driven context like criticizing a .500 record for a guy taking UConn from the Yankee Conference to a BCS conference, and winning two conference championships in the process. Something our peers in NJ have never done, despite the recruiting advantage and 30 year head start.

so then you are the type of guy that says USF's accomplishments taking a team from NO conference, 1AA or otherwise, to a similar place is due to, wait for it, the weather. Fewer scholarship players? Is that what you want to use?

Edsall is a .500 coach - I stand by that. He was a below average (actually the worst) defensive coordinator in the ACC and beat only one ranked opponent in his head coaching career - a team that started its program from scratch in 1997 IN TRAILERS. I have said many times that he was an above average evaluator of talent but an average coach, below average recruiter and spokesperson. My criticism of Edsall does not diminish how I view the program's strides. I did not expect to share two conference championships. I also did not expect our two conference co-champs to fire their coaches because of performance.

Luckily for my argument, Edsall is no longer tethered to the wastland that UConn emerged from with its infinate excuses challanges that you speak of. He now has a team with a history, equal number of scholarships and talented players. He's below .500 and just got his doors blown off by a MAC team, but wait, it has only been a few games - let's give him a chance to fully implement his "multiple" offense so we won't judge until after next year.