The first order of business for the New New Big East

[gars44]

I agree with that statement 100%. It's time for the remaining football schools in the Big East get together with like minded schools in the North and start a completely new all sports conference. Notre Dame only has a couple years left on their current TV contract. If an attractive enough conference was formed they may look at it as a positive and join up. Having the prestige to be an original/charter member of a exciting new league that makes sense travel/fan wise, competition wise, but most importantly financially wise might be the carrot that makes the deal. Penn ST & Temple should have no lingering resentment if the new league cut all ties to the Big East completely. Hell, even BC & MD might take the bait. Add Navy if you need to get to 12 or 14 or some even number in football only if it makes sense because a new league would be run by the all sports schools, not the basketball onlies. It's time folks!

Good concept, but no one leaves the ACC for the unknown, experimental conference you are talking about. ND does not join. It has to be done with less desirable constituents. It will look a little uglier than what you are proposing.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Basketball may make UConn attractive to Coach K, however without football there is a zero chance of joining the ACC. It is football that holds the key. The problem continues to be that this league has too many members influencing decisions without any interest in the survival of a few members football programs. The basketball-onlies could not care less what happens to football. They will always survive as basketball programs whether the Big East remains together or splits. To the football schools, because of what is invested, the future of football is absolutely crucial. People can call UConn a basketball school all they want but like it or not the future of UConn athletics is tied to football.

Back to 's question. How does leaving the a great basketball league for a mediocre one make UConn more attractive? If anything, the departure of Pitt and Syracuse makes it harder to split. Why would we want to be in a basketball league with just TCU, USF, WVU, Cincinnati, Louisville, Rutgers, Houston, ECU and UCF? That is a terrible basketball league. You will see 6k in the Civic Center for a league like that.

 

[SubbaBub]

Right now, today, which institutions would your rather have as partners to share long term common interests athletically AND academically that can reasonably be counted on to share those interests 25 years from now?

Group 1: Rutgers, Louisville, WVU, USF, Cinncinati, TCU, GTown, Nova, PC, St. John's, Depaul, Marquette, Seton Hall, (ECU, Navy, et al.)
Group 2: Duke, UNC, Ga Tech, UVA, Va Tech, NC State, Wake, FSU, BCU, Miami, Clemson, Maryland, Pitt, Cuse, (Rutgers/ND)
Group 3: Penn State, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio St., Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Northwestern, Minnesota, Nebraska, (RU/ND)
Group 4: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas St., Baylor, Iowa St., Rutgers, Louisville, WVU, USF, Cincinnati, (Missouri/Texas Tech)

It depends on priorities of course, geographically the ACC is best since it has the highest concentration of Northeastern teams. If the top priority is associating with like-minded state flagship universities and $$$, then the B1G is best. If the top priority is to continue to dominate in basketball, well the new Big East looks nice and soft. If you are desparate to keep a seat at the BCS AQ table and the B12 schools listed have truly had enough of Bevo, then Group 4 might work in the absence of other options.

 

[toppencil]

No New York market? What about Rutgers

Yes Rutgers does have some fans in NYC but only 20% of the market according to this article. http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/20...-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/

 

[Carl Spackler]

The basketball only schools have never held back the football schools. That's why you have TCU, that's why Miami and VT were added years ago only to leave, and Rutgers, Louisville, Cinn and USF etc.. When has football been held back? Which school was not allowed in by the basketball schools?

The problem is not the basketball schools, it's the lack of success on the football field. Last year was embarassing for the whole league. This nonsense about trouble adding schools is ridiculous. Go form your own football league, no New York market, no Philadelphia market, no Chicago market, good luck.

The success of basketball in the Big East has carried the conference, football has twice caused the league to look foolish. There is only one school left that has a long standing tradition of football and it's not UConn. If they go, say goodbye to the BCS.

This is a load of crap. Miami won a national championship as a big east team officially in 2001, and in 1991, when the basketball colleges finally realized they needed to attach football. Virginia Tech was #2 in the country in 1999. West Virginia has been within one game of playing for national championships on more than one occasion. Syracuse was the third team, fnishing in the top 25 in the polls 5 out of 7 years bw/ 1995-2002

The question was asked: how dropping 7 big market, basketball schools with lots of history makes the football conference better?
It was answered nicely by another poster, but I'll just add that dropping the basketbal colleges doesn't make the conference better. What dropping the basketball colleges, and more specifically, their leadershp (i wouldn't mind keeping them) but dropping their leadership in favor of a conference leadership that values the concepts of an intercollegiate athletic conference at the BCS level of football? That would be ideal. I don't see Providence letting go of anything though.

So,dropping the basketball schools, doesn't make the conference better, what it does - is make the conference STABLE. And even if the new conference were to lose out on some revenue in a frst year or two minus the catholics, BCS conferences are where the money is at - more profitable. I"m not posting the reference again, I"ve done it before here, but last year - BCS football onference schools divvied up approx $750 million in revenue, while non BCS conferences got approx $35 million.

Big east basketall, at the height of it's power cannot approach that kind of revenue annually for a prolonged period. Big east basketball, without BCS football revenue, will quickly fall down the revenue scale.

I asked the question in response: please explain to me why Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Boston College, Miami, Virginia Tech are in the ACC and not Georgetown, Villanova, St. John's, Seton Hall and Providence?

Haven't gotten an answer yet.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

This is a load of crap. Miami won a national championship as a big east team officially in 2001, and in 1991, when the basketball colleges finally realized they needed to attach football. Virginia Tech was #2 in the country in 1999. West Virginia has been within one game of playing for national championships on more than one occasion. Syracuse was the third team, fnishing in the top 25 in the polls 5 out of 7 years bw/ 1995-2002

The question was asked: how dropping 7 big market, basketball schools with lots of history makes the football conference better?
It was answered nicely by another poster, but I'll just add that dropping the basketbal colleges doesn't make the conference better. What dropping the basketball colleges, and more specifically, their leadershp (i wouldn't mind keeping them) but dropping their leadership in favor of a conference leadership that values the concepts of an intercollegiate athletic conference at the BCS level of football? That would be ideal. I don't see Providence letting go of anything though.

So,dropping the basketball schools, doesn't make the conference better, what it does - is make the conference STABLE. And even if the new conference were to lose out on some revenue in a frst year or two minus the catholics, BCS conferences are where the money is at - more profitable. I"m not posting the reference again, I"ve done it before here, but last year - BCS football onference schools divvied up approx $750 million in revenue, while non BCS conferences got approx $35 million.

Big east basketall, at the height of it's power cannot approach that kind of revenue annually for a prolonged period. Big east basketball, without BCS football revenue, will quickly fall down the revenue scale.

I asked the question in response: please explain to me why Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Boston College, Miami, Virginia Tech are in the ACC and not Georgetown, Villanova, St. John's, Seton Hall and Providence?

Haven't gotten an answer yet.

The basketball side has nothing to do with the football side of the conference. Pitt and Syracuse leave for the ACC whether we are associated with the basketball school or not. How does playing basketball with 8 programs make the football teams more or less stable? The Big East fails to be a stable conference because the programs, as a whole, lack the national names, tv cache, and historical significance compare to the other conferences. The basketball schools don't have any impact on that at all. Split from the basketball schools tomorrow...still not stable. Why? Because leaving the basketball schools doesn't suddenly turn UConn, Rutgers and USF into Alabama, USC and Ohio State.

You probably haven't gotten an answer because it's a stupid fcuking question. What point are you trying to make? Why other conferences don't have hybrid models? Other conferences are stable because of the their stronghold in BCS football. They don't need basketball onlies to add value, because they are in a position of strength with huge football money. The Big East doesn't have that luxury. If you can increase any value, you have to do it.

 

[toppencil]

This is a load of crap. Miami won a national championship as a big east team officially in 2001, and in 1991, when the basketball colleges finally realized they needed to attach football. Virginia Tech was #2 in the country in 1999. West Virginia has been within one game of playing for national championships on more than one occasion. Syracuse was the third team, fnishing in the top 25 in the polls 5 out of 7 years bw/ 1995-2002

The question was asked: how dropping 7 big market, basketball schools with lots of history makes the football conference better?
It was answered nicely by another poster, but I'll just add that dropping the basketbal colleges doesn't make the conference better. What dropping the basketball colleges, and more specifically, their leadershp (i wouldn't mind keeping them) but dropping their leadership in favor of a conference leadership that values the concepts of an intercollegiate athletic conference at the BCS level of football? That would be ideal. I don't see Providence letting go of anything though.

So,dropping the basketball schools, doesn't make the conference better, what it does - is make the conference STABLE. And even if the new conference were to lose out on some revenue in a frst year or two minus the catholics, BCS conferences are where the money is at - more profitable. I"m not posting the reference again, I"ve done it before here, but last year - BCS football onference schools divvied up approx $750 million in revenue, while non BCS conferences got approx $35 million.

Big east basketall, at the height of it's power cannot approach that kind of revenue annually for a prolonged period. Big east basketball, without BCS football revenue, will quickly fall down the revenue scale.

I asked the question in response: please explain to me why Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Boston College, Miami, Virginia Tech are in the ACC and not Georgetown, Villanova, St. John's, Seton Hall and Providence?

Haven't gotten an answer yet.

I noticed there are a number of indiduals on this site living under the delusion that UConn is a big time football power. If you think throwing away 30 years of tradition playing in the best basketball conference in the country is a good idea, I think you're full of crap. Thankfully the people running the school aren't completely delusional. They realize that ACC membership isn't happening and the Big East positives outweigh any negatives.

The schools who left, all left for football, everyone knows that. Miami and VT were the heart of Big East football, they were brought in to appease Pitt, Syracuse and BC, but they left to form a "super conference", remember. It was a flop, IMO. But tell me what the league should have done to differently? The recent defections are a vestage of the first one. Fear of losing BCS status.

The answer to your question has nothing to do with basketball. It's no different than coaches who leave one school to move up. The perception is the Big East is the bottom BCS conference. The one most likely to lose it's BCS status. So teams "move up" if they can. Syracuse and Pitt jumped ship even though they haven't done on the football field in years. Would you be surprised if some ACC schools move to the SEC? Florida State and Clemson would go in a heartbeat. Is there a basketball problem in the ACC? Three Big 12 schools have moved, was basketball the problem there?

But go ahead, form a conference made up of schools that play football. IMO UConn's sports programs will suffer for it.

 

[SAMCRO]

toppencil, the conference is crumbling around you/us. It's done. It may still be a good BB league, but it will be so w/out the likes of Pitt, SU, WVU, L'ville, Cinci, and at some point UConn. You're continually posting about how insignificant UConn football is nationally, get a grip. No one here has delusions that UConn is equal to Oklahoma, Alabama, etc... in football. Thats not the point. The University made a commitment to compete in FB at the BCS level. The state of CT made an investment in significant tax dollars to compete in football at the BCS level. And, now that we are playing the at this level, no FB fans want to go back to the Yankee/A10 days, or to even go to the MAC or CUSA leagues. As much as you want to shout out how bad our FB program is b/c that notion supports your interest (which is keeping the BE BB league together) it doesn't make it so. We were beaten soundly by OU, and spit the bit v. Michigan. Okay. We also won shares of 2 BE titles over the past 4 years. We have a winning bowl record, beaten the likes of SCe, ND, WVU, Pitt, SU (you know, all these traditional teams that are so much more superior to us), we are competitive at this level. Not dominant, but competitive (granted, it could be a long year this year, but that happens to everybody).

Carl, you asked toppencil for an explanation as to why Nova, SJU, PC, Gtown, aren't in the ACC. The answer is they don't need to be. They are in a great league today, playing long time regional rivals at the highest level of their primary sport (BB). It would make no sense for them to be in the ACC.

 

[toppencil]

I have not said UConn FB is bad. I am familiar with the history and I support the program. But what happens if everyone else finds a home and the Huskies are the last of the Mohicans? What then? You seem pretty sure that UConn is not going to be the odd man out. I hope you're right.

 

[coachcap]

I have not said UConn FB is bad. I am familiar with the history and I support the program. But what happens if everyone else finds a home and the Huskies are the last of the Mohicans? What then? You seem pretty sure that UConn is not going to be the odd man out. I hope you're right.

Your Chicken Little act is wearing thin.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Carl, you asked toppencil for an explanation as to why Nova, SJU, PC, Gtown, aren't in the ACC. The answer is they don't need to be. They are in a great league today, playing long time regional rivals at the highest level of their primary sport (BB). It would make no sense for them to be in the ACC.

True, that's a good answer. But why don't they need to be? Football. They need us more than we need them.

Another question would be - and I know it's been asked by others ad naueseum without decent answer, but that question would be:

If the 7 catholics metro schools are so valueable - why has the ACC gone after and acquired Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Miami, Virginia Tech and Boston College.....instead of Georgetown, Villanova, St. John's, Seton Hall and Providence? Depaul and Marquette don't really count in this, because they woldn't be in the big east, if it wasn't for football.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I said it earlier in the thread, but replacing the hoops only programs with ECU, UCF and Houston and splitting off would destroy the basketball league. It would be the stupidest move possible. You don't turn a mild loss on the football side into a massive loss on the basketball side. That is idiotic.

 

[Carl Spackler]

The bottom line is that a STABLE all sports BCS conference based on the 6 remianing big east all sports schools, TCU and whatever other program they can find will be more profitable long term than remaining in the mess the big east has created.

You have to remember the scheduling, travel time, rivalry and academics around scholarship athletes is actually a pretty important thing in recruiting.

THere's a ton of money that's involved in all of that, and it's going down the tubes in this mess of a conference right now.

I think the schools would take a hit initially becase the basketball revenue in a new broadcasting contract would be less, but they'd have football, and the BCS income to distribute, and less schools.

 

[uconnric]

The basketball only schools have never held back the football schools.

Are you serious?

 

[SubbaBub]

What the BB apologistas (I think we can now use that term) should explain is how much value do the BBonlies really bring beyond GTown, ND and Nova.

Should the BE split, any hit in TV revenue would be largely due to the departure Of Pitt and Cuse, plus whomever else (Uconn, Wvu, UL) might find a more stable situation. SH, PC, Depaul, and St. Johns have only provided an inventory of filler games. Few of which have been picked up nationally. Pitino might be whining about which teams get home and home dates, but he knows its driven by TV.

An argument can be made that a FB split could up the TV contract for BB because it would provide more marquee conference and OOC matchups.

But, splitting is only an option if all of the FB schools agree to stick together. That can't happen right now as only USF and Cincy are willing to do that right now and only because they are not being considered by other conferences.

The ground has shifted beneath the Big East. It is time for every school to reassess its position. To not do so would be foolish. We'll just have to wait to see if a new BE makes any sense.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I have said a dozen times in other threads, this round of expansion is about MARKETS not football, as most of you seem to think. If it was about football, Oklahoma would be in another conference right now, and Colorado would be grasping on for dear life. Instead, Colorado and Utah are appealing expansion candidates and BYU is the current crown jewel, whereas schools like Oklahoma and WVU don't get their calls returned despite lots of football success.

So how does cutting New York City x2, DC, Philly, Chicago, Marquette and Providence from the league help us?

 

[Carl Spackler]

I have said a dozen times in other threads, this round of expansion is about MARKETS not football, as most of you seem to think. If it was about football, Oklahoma would be in another conference right now, and Colorado would be grasping on for dear life. Instead, Colorado and Utah are appealing expansion candidates and BYU is the current crown jewel, whereas schools like Oklahoma and WVU don't get their calls returned despite lots of football success.

So how does cutting New York City x2, DC, Philly, Chicago, Marquette and Providence from the league help us?

Are you serious? Who is us? If you're talking about the small colleges w/ basketball and no football as "us", then removing UConn, Rutgers, West Virginia, Louisville, Cincinatti and USF fromt he league is potentially devastating for revenue streams. It's got nothing to do with markets - for the big east/acc, it's about stability and revenue and costs of running major college athletic programs. Out west, midwest, the markets and broadcasting are driving things, not in the east. Your premise is flawed.

If those basketball schools are so valueable, and the markets are so valueable? the ACC as a predator to the big east would have been going after them instead of the schools they did take - Miami, Virginia Tech, Boston College, Syracuse and Pittsburgh.

For some reason, you don't want to be able to accept that. I don't get it.

 

[freescooter]

The problem, really, is that the big East needed to split before this happened. Now I'm not sure you can put together a league that will work as a basketball league, at least for a while. Much like the aftermath of the last raid, the big East football schools need the basketball ones for stability right now. They did in 2004 as well. What really needed to happen then, was that there needed to be a plan for seperating football from basketball and creating two leagues. The football schools need to be able to make decisions that benefit them in the long run, be it media deals, or additonal members. Who knows whether a seperate league would have kept Pitt and Syracue in the fold. No way to say for sure, but what we do know is that the existing setup has resulted in 5 of the original BE football members leaving for the ACC.

 

[toppencil]

What the BB apologistas (I think we can now use that term) should explain is how much value do the BBonlies really bring beyond GTown, ND and Nova.

Should the BE split, any hit in TV revenue would be largely due to the departure Of Pitt and Cuse, plus whomever else (Uconn, Wvu, UL) might find a more stable situation. SH, PC, Depaul, and St. Johns have only provided an inventory of filler games. Few of which have been picked up nationally. Pitino might be whining about which teams get home and home dates, but he knows its driven by TV.

An argument can be made that a FB split could up the TV contract for BB because it would provide more marquee conference and OOC matchups.

But, splitting is only an option if all of the FB schools agree to stick together. That can't happen right now as only USF and Cincy are willing to do that right now and only because they are not being considered by other conferences.

The ground has shifted beneath the Big East. It is time for every school to reassess its position. To not do so would be foolish. We'll just have to wait to see if a new BE makes any sense.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

Your post and some others here are about as factual as a tea party flyer. And since we're name calling now; I think the FB tards (I think we can use that term now) should explain how a football only league would have prevented Syracuse and Pitt from jumping to the ACC. They left for a conference with a stronger hold on a BCS bid; that's what they mean by "stability".

Maybe Cuse and Pitt left because their alums were embarressed to be playing newcomers like USF and UConn. Kind of the attitude some here have towards a potential Villanova or UMass opponent. Where does that arrogance come from? From years and years of IAA failure? From playing IA ball for almost 11 years? Or maybe from going to one major bowl and getting obliterated?

So good luck splitting off, go for it.

 

[HartbeatHusky]

The problem, really, is that the big East needed to split before this happened. Now I'm not sure you can put together a league that will work as a basketball league, at least for a while. Much like the aftermath of the last raid, the big East football schools need the basketball ones for stability right now. They did in 2004 as well. What really needed to happen then, was that there needed to be a plan for seperating football from basketball and creating two leagues. The football schools need to be able to make decisions that benefit them in the long run, be it media deals, or additonal members. Who knows whether a seperate league would have kept Pitt and Syracue in the fold. No way to say for sure, but what we do know is that the existing setup has resulted in 5 of the original BE football members leaving for the ACC.

This is exactly the situation we find ourselves in once again. Once again the Big East doesn't have to die and hopefully it won't, whether we remain in it or not. However, right now the first order of business has to be making sure we have enough football teams to make an attempt to keep our BCS bid. The good thing is that we already have it and will have it for the next few years . However that will change if we do not add teams that are already beating BCS level competition. It's really pretty simple guys.

We do need the basketball schools in essence to prop up the football league right now as they honestly have been doing since 2003. I don't have a problem with trying to make the hybrid model work since it really is our only option and does add value to the league, really it's our only value right now, but they have to let us add more all sport members. If we can add Temple and UCF and keep TCU, Louisville, WVU, and Cinci that will be a victory as far as I'm concerned. That will put us back at the number nine we all expected to have going into 2012. After that my preference would be to add Houston and ECU because on field success is going to matter when BCS evaluation time comes. After that I don't really care. Navy, Air Force, and Army would get us to 14 FB schools and 19 basketball schools.

The service academies would bring prestige and tradition along with national followings, so that would really be helpful and make sense. If Army won't come then we should seriously look at bringing in Memphis, who could help bolster the basketball conference and could improve in football by getting into a BCS league. They do have that FedEx guy willing to throw money at their situation as well so that wouldn't hurt. If we do stay in the Big East I really hope that we can still be perceived as the best basketball conference ever and that the ACC won't be able to take that from us. Unless or until we make our way over there.

 

[The Funster]

Your post and some others here are about as factual as a tea party flyer. And since we're name calling now; I think the FB tards (I think we can use that term now) should explain how a football only league would have prevented Syracuse and Pitt from jumping to the ACC. They left for a conference with a stronger hold on a BCS bid; that's what they mean by "stability".

I think the time to split has long since passed. However, I'm not crazy about UConn working hard to rebuild the BE while it looks for a softer landing place. The BE has always been headed down this path. anyone and everyone said this day would come and it has. I have more thoughts on this but have already posted them. It's water under the bridge at this point.

Maybe Cuse and Pitt left because their alums were embarressed to be playing newcomers like USF and UConn. Kind of the attitude some here have towards a potential Villanova or UMass opponent. Where does that arrogance come from? From years and years of IAA failure? From playing IA ball for almost 11 years? Or maybe from going to one major bowl and getting obliterated?

Villanova can't even get a decent sized stadium to play in and I can't help but feel that they have been pushed into this. UMass? The school that can't draw flies anymore? Bad choice there.

So good luck splitting off, go for it.

I don't see splitting off as option anymore. I'd like to see the bb only schools have some consideration for the football schools and make Cuse and Pitt meet the 27 month obligation. That would be a clear sign that those schools care about someone other than themselves.

 

[freescooter]

Your post and some others here are about as factual as a tea party flyer. And since we're name calling now; I think the FB tards (I think we can use that term now) should explain how a football only league would have prevented Syracuse and Pitt from jumping to the ACC. They left for a conference with a stronger hold on a BCS bid; that's what they mean by "stability".

Maybe Cuse and Pitt left because their alums were embarressed to be playing newcomers like USF and UConn. Kind of the attitude some here have towards a potential Villanova or UMass opponent. Where does that arrogance come from? From years and years of IAA failure? From playing IA ball for almost 11 years? Or maybe from going to one major bowl and getting obliterated?

So good luck splitting off, go for it.

this is an example of what the apologistas don't get. the stabiltiy issue has very little to do with BCS. The Big East as it was structured was in no danger of losing its BCS bid, regardless of what a bunch of so called experts blathered on ESPN. The problem was exactly what happened. With only 8 members, losing any one puts the whole league's existance in jeopardy. The B-12 lost two and carried on with 9-10. If the ACC loses two, it carries on with 10-12. If the Big East loses two, it is left scambling to get to some reasonable number. Lose 3 like the B-12 and you're done. The opposition to Villanova was driven by the fact that they were not interested in developing a serious program. They wanted to play their home games in an 18500 seat stadium with no expansion plan. They wanted a financial deal that put them at no risk.The worry Syracuse and Pitt had is that by staying in the Big East, it would be they, not UCONN who would be dealing with the whole question of what is next. There is no way to say that a 10 or 12 team all-sports league would have kept them in the fold, but it is clear that the hybrid model failed to keep them, just as it failed ot keep BC, Miami, Virginia Tech before them. It won't keep UCONN or Rutgers or West Virginia or probably Louisville either. What is it they call doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

 

[Vuce]

Maybe Cuse and Pitt left because their alums were embarressed to be playing newcomers like USF and UConn.
.

They were embarrassed by playing Uconn or getting beaten several times by the Huskies? LOL

 

[SubbaBub]

The faith of some that the BE can survive a second and potential more crippling shots is I think dated and fails to recognize the current landscape. It reminds me of the scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail where the lords father tells of continually rebuilding his after it keeps sinking into the swamp. Noble yes, but misguided.

We are six years into the new league. Should we have split then? I think the facts then said sticking was a better option due to the lack of viable schools. We took the best remaining teams in the east and were doing OK. I doubt we can do it again. Especially since the ACC beating, hoped for, TV deal looks dead.

Maybe the 7 can make it work by staying with the basketball schools. That would require the 7 to commit. If you think anyone other than USF and Cincy would do that as anything other than a fallback position, you're just wrong. At least one team is leaving for the Big 12 or the ACC because the SEC will add #14 if not this year than soon thereafter.


Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

 

[SubbaBub]

The available options and the short timeline I think prevented any split. They only thing I can think of that would have prevented this would have been for someone smart to develop a media rights academic research consortium similar to the CIC that would have been attractive to AQ schools in the NE that may not have been completely happy with there current arrangement.

I have to believe there is a number that would have attracted kept BC, UM, and VT, in the fold and attracted UConn,Maryland, and on a wild heave Penn State to the league in the 90's. That's about the only time frame I can think of that a split would have made sense other than 2003. But, it would have been pretty scary to add 6 Non-Aqs and one FCS (us).

Subsequent history is just the inevitable runout. The FB side of the league was never strong enough to split. In 2-3 years maybe the FBs would have announced UCF Navy or whoever to get to 12 once they had a better TV deal. We'll never know.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk