Globe: BE expansion candidates

[TRest]

Pretty much the usual suspects, although going to 18 teams in hoops is somewhat unexpected. Despite the discussed higher penalties for leaving, no price would be too high to pay to get into a better conference, IMO.

http://www.boston.com/sports/colleges/extras/colleges_blog/2011/10/_a_day_after_ho.html

 

[noeynox]

Start up a kitty for the exit fee now. If an offer comes along the exit fee CANNOT be an obstacle.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I know this board struggles with this concept, but if the league members are never committed to each other, why would any other institution commit to this league? Why would any program join this league, or any network sign a contract with it? Why would any coach take a job here or any recruit come to one of its member institutions?

I don't understand why people have so much trouble understanding that other entities will also act in their own self interest, and without a commitment to the league, we will rapidly find ourselves in a worst case situation.

 

[coachcap]

I disagree with Blaudschun's statement that Temple would like to get back into the Big East by any means possible, even if it means accepting football only membership. Because of their past history, they'd want in for all sports. Their hoops teams are representative. The Temple of today is very different from Temple of a decade ago.

 

[Rumrunner]

I see Marinatto's mouthpiece has started chirping. All basketball teams, all the time. Powerhouses Providence, Seton Hall, St. John's control this conference, lock, stock and barrel.

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

how does anything he said support that theory?

 

[CL82]

...the Big East is strongly considering the rule implemented by the Big Ten, which allows conferences to keep the television shares from schools that leave the conference for a specified amount of years. Thus if schools such as Louisville or West Virginia or Rutgers or UConn, who have also looked to switch, wanted to leave, they would not get their share of any television money from their home games for a number of years after they leave.

Does anyone know what the value is to our home games? I'd consider walking before I'd give up our TV rights. That provision is aimed right smack at us. I'd make it clear that we would not accept that change, of course that assumes, perhaps too optomistically, that we'd have a place to which to go.

 

[upstater]

Does anyone know what the value is to our home games? I'd consider walking before I'd give up our TV rights. That provision is aimed right smack at us. I'd make it clear that we would not accept that change, of course that assumes, perhaps too optomistically, that we'd have a place to which to go.

That's a non-starter.

Start up a kitty for the exit fee now. If an offer comes along the exit fee CANNOT be an obstacle.

If it's TV rights, the ACC never bothers offering UConn ever.

 

[Fishy]

There is nothing they can, no one they can add and no rules they can devise that will keep this conference from dying.

It will either die quickly when/if programs are poached by other conferences or it will die slowly in the marketplace as most inferior products do.

If anyone thinks that we're going to build a football conference by adding UCF, Temple or any of the other scrapple that's being proposed, they live in Fairyland. It doesn't matter how committed the current programs are, bottom suckers like UCF would still leap at the Big East because even in its misery, it's still better than what they have.

 

[uconNYC]

Best solution is to just agree to a rotating four year commitment to the league. So any school can walk away every 4th year (2015, 2019, 2023...). It gives decent stability, but also some flexibility

 

[upstater]

Best solution is to just agree to a rotating four year commitment to the league. So any school can walk away every 4th year (2015, 2019, 2023...). It gives decent stability, but also some flexibility

And if that timeline doesn't fit the ACC's expansion needs?

 

[nelsonmuntz]

There is nothing they can, no one they can add and no rules they can devise that will keep this conference from dying.

It will either die quickly when/if programs are poached by other conferences or it will die slowly in the marketplace as most inferior products do.

If anyone thinks that we're going to build a football conference by adding UCF, Temple or any of the other scrapple that's being proposed, they live in Fairyland. It doesn't matter how committed the current programs are, bottom suckers like UCF would still leap at the Big East because even in its misery, it's still better than what they have.

The hand-wringing over the loss of an above average and terrible football program is a little baffling. Pitt and Syracuse are gone, and now everyone wants to give up on the athletic program. On the basketball side, there is plenty of depth so the league can handle a departure or two.

As for the marketplace, it is a big world out there, and we can't all work at Goldman Sachs or McKinsey, yet somehow people manage to figure out a way to survive without hurling themselves off tall buildings. In fact, those who develop the most long-term wealth and have the highest job satisfaction generally work for smaller companies.

The Big East can be a very good conference for UConn, even with the loss of Pitt and Syracuse. Of course there are a few swaps I would like to do, but we are where we are.

 

[1husky]

I know this board struggles with this concept, but if the league members are never committed to each other, why would any other institution commit to this league? Why would any program join this league, or any network sign a contract with it? Why would any coach take a job here or any recruit come to one of its member institutions?

I don't understand why people have so much trouble understanding that other entities will also act in their own self interest, and without a commitment to the league, we will rapidly find ourselves in a worst case situation.

I think everyone understands the concept. The problem is, you are talking about the 5 – 10 year plan of building this league and our fanbase up to make us worthy of acquisition. Unfortunately, what almost everyone else understands but you seem to fail to grasp is that in 2 years there will no longer be any fans coming to watch UConn play UCF hoops let alone our developing football program which will officially be dead on the vine by that time. Calhoun will no longer be here thus making us officially stuck in Conference Big East 20 USA MidWest forever.

 

[gars44]

There is nothing they can, no one they can add and no rules they can devise that will keep this conference from dying.

It will either die quickly when/if programs are poached by other conferences or it will die slowly in the marketplace as most inferior products do.

If anyone thinks that we're going to build a football conference by adding UCF, Temple or any of the other scrapple that's being proposed, they live in Fairyland. It doesn't matter how committed the current programs are, bottom suckers like UCF would still leap at the Big East because even in its misery, it's still better than what they have.

Well, good morning to you too! Now go take your Prozac . . .

 

[HuskyHawk]

The hand-wringing over the loss of an above average and terrible football program is a little baffling. Pitt and Syracuse are gone, and now everyone wants to give up on the athletic program. On the basketball side, there is plenty of depth so the league can handle a departure or two.

As for the marketplace, it is a big world out there, and we can't all work at Goldman Sachs or McKinsey, yet somehow people manage to figure out a way to survive without hurling themselves off tall buildings. In fact, those who develop the most long-term wealth and have the highest job satisfaction generally work for smaller companies.

The Big East can be a very good conference for UConn, even with the loss of Pitt and Syracuse. Of course there are a few swaps I would like to do, but we are where we are.

I disagree that the BE can be a very good conference for UConn. It's not that a good and poor football team left. It's that thus far, the 3 of the 4 football playing schools that are in the vicinity of UConn both geographically and academically have left. Don't lose sight of the fact that a conference is about associating a school with schools like itself. BC, Pitt, SU and Rutgers were the schools most like UConn. Only Rutgers is left. We have nothing in common with Seton Hall, St. Johns or PC. Nothing in common with USF, Louisville or TCU. Other than RU Cincinnati is the only school left in the league that is even in the ballpark.

Now look at the schools being discussed that are entirely unlike UConn. UCF, ECU, Temple. Can you play the game, one of these things is not like the others (or two in this case)? I keep saying this, but in 1995 UConn implemented UConn 2000 with the expressed goal of becoming like UVA, UNC and Michigan. The jump to FBS announce in 1997 was because of this institutional goal. We wanted to change our associations. We still do. Stabilizing a conference with membership that is in conflict with the institutional goals is not going to get us there.

My .02 on the academies is that they are a UConn and Rutgers request. I suspect that Louisville and USF would prefer Houston, ECU etc. I am positive that UConn wants the prestigious academic military academies not just for TV value but for the academic value of association with them. SMU makes sense as they are a solid university. In summary, the only reason we're even playing FBS football is to raise our overall academic and research profile by hanging out with big research institutions with good academics. Joining up with UCF and ECU does not help the university achieve its goals.

 

[gars44]

I think everyone understands the concept. The problem is, you are talking about the 5 – 10 year plan of building this league and our fanbase up to make us worthy of acquisition. Unfortunately, what almost everyone else understands but you seem to fail to grasp is that in 2 years there will no longer be any fans coming to watch UConn play UCF hoops let alone our developing football program which will officially be dead on the vine by that time. Calhoun will no longer be here thus making us officially stuck in Conference Big East 20 USA MidWest forever.

Except that any other available option than "Conference Big East 20 USA MidWest" is far, far worse. The doomsday scenario you present is guaranteed to happen if we do not commit to and build up our league. The Mountain West, the WAC, others have had to do just that even without an AQ, which we most certainly will retain. And those conferences do have teams that would beat us handily, right now. Nevada beat up on BC pretty good in a bowl last December. And I still think we would struggle against BC, although it would be close. So, we have to attend to today's assignments and not only dream about tomorrow.

 

[gars44]

I disagree that the BE can be a very good conference for UConn. It's not that a good and poor football team left. It's that thus far, the 3 of the 4 football playing schools that are in the vicinity of UConn both geographically and academically have left. Don't lose sight of the fact that a conference is about associating a school with schools like itself. BC, Pitt, SU and Rutgers were the schools most like UConn. Only Rutgers is left. We have nothing in common with Seton Hall, St. Johns or PC. Nothing in common with USF, Louisville or TCU. Other than RU Cincinnati is the only school left in the league that is even in the ballpark.

Now look at the schools being discussed that are entirely unlike UConn. UCF, ECU, Temple. Can you play the game, one of these things is not like the others (or two in this case)? I keep saying this, but in 1995 UConn implemented UConn 2000 with the expressed goal of becoming like UVA, UNC and Michigan. The jump to FBS announce in 1997 was because of this institutional goal. We wanted to change our associations. We still do. Stabilizing a conference with membership that is in conflict with the institutional goals is not going to get us there.

My .02 on the academies is that they are a UConn and Rutgers request. I suspect that Louisville and USF would prefer Houston, ECU etc. I am positive that UConn wants the prestigious academic military academies not just for TV value but for the academic value of association with them. SMU makes sense as they are a solid university. In summary, the only reason we're even playing FBS football is to raise our overall academic and research profile by hanging out with big research institutions with good academics. Joining up with UCF and ECU does not help the university achieve its goals.

I think this is very well written and interesting. But I still have to ask, what point are you trying to make? That the situation is not what we have striven for the past 12 years? The teams you and we desire to associate with have been at this for 70 and more years. Not just 10 or 12. We spent money to build. Uh, they didn't? Didn't we build to match what they had built generations before? What have we done that Syracuse, BC, Pitt, Virginia, North Carolina (name the school) hasn't already done, already spent, already built - two generations ago? I guess I'm trying to tell you that we must have patience, continue to strive, and perhaps, pay some dues. We never paid our dues. We just got in.

And finally, you have take a step back and look in. Certain programs you mention (those with whom you desire to associate) don't perceive the great distinctions you are drawing between Uconn and some of the programs you now disparage. This is the kind of stuff posted all day long on the BC, Pitt and Syracuse boards - about us.

 

[junglehusky]

I know this board struggles with this concept, but if the league members are never committed to each other, why would any other institution commit to this league? Why would any program join this league, or any network sign a contract with it? Why would any coach take a job here or any recruit come to one of its member institutions?

I don't understand why people have so much trouble understanding that other entities will also act in their own self interest, and without a commitment to the league, we will rapidly find ourselves in a worst case situation.

Nelson, I don't completely disagree with your point of view, but you do realize you are making the argument that Uconn should decide NOT to act in its self-interest, while acknowledging that all the other institutions in the picture ARE going to act in their own self-interest?

 

[HuskyHawk]

We never paid our dues. We just got in.

And finally, you have take a step back and look in. Certain programs you mention (those with whom you desire to associate) don't perceive the great distinctions you are drawing between Uconn and some of the programs you now disparage. This is the kind of stuff posted all day long on the BC, Pitt and Syracuse boards - about us.

UConn rankings have soared of late. No question we're a new arrival. As for Pitt, Syracuse and BC. They are all in the "national universities" category. All are respected. BC is #31 right now in US News. UConn #58. Pitt also #58. Syracuse #62. SMU also #62. Purdue #62. Clemson #68. Rutgers #68. Minnesota #68. GT #38, Miami #38, Wisconsin #42. Penn St. #45 as is Illinois. Ohio St. #55, UMD #55.

My point is, we are smack in the middle of the ACC and B1G schools. If you look at "regional" schools, Villanova and PC are good schools. No shame there. Georgetown is considered "national" and is superb #22. The Old Big East was fine for the most part.

So let's look at the new version. Still have Georgetown, Nova and PC. Good ones there. Marquette a new one, is pretty good at #82. Still have the weaker long time members, St. Johns #152, Seton Hall, #132. Newer members, Louisville #164, WVU #164, Cincy #143, USF #181, DePaul #132. So let's add ECU #194, UCF #177, Houston unranked at #200+, Memphis unranked at #200+.

So is we take our "how good is your football team" blinders off, we can see why SMU at #62, and TCU #97, along with the academies, are in the discussion. Army and Navy are tied at #14 among national "colleges" and is #33. Rice will be invited long before Houston or Memphis.

I'm not disparaging the schools by the way, I think these rankings are largely BS. I am pointing out that they matter a lot to presidents and regents. They matter in recruiting students, faculty and research grants (which dwarf the money from football).

 

[gars44]

UConn rankings have soared of late. No question we're a new arrival. As for Pitt, Syracuse and BC. They are all in the "national universities" category. All are respected. BC is #31 right now in US News. UConn #58. Pitt also #58. Syracuse #62. SMU also #62. Purdue #62. Clemson #68. Rutgers #68. Minnesota #68. GT #38, Miami #38, Wisconsin #42. Penn St. #45 as is Illinois. Ohio St. #55, UMD #55.

My point is, we are smack in the middle of the ACC and B1G schools. If you look at "regional" schools, Villanova and PC are good schools. No shame there. Georgetown is considered "national" and is superb #22. The Old Big East was fine for the most part.

So let's look at the new version. Still have Georgetown, Nova and PC. Good ones there. Marquette a new one, is pretty good at #82. Still have the weaker long time members, St. Johns #152, Seton Hall, #132. Newer members, Louisville #164, WVU #164, Cincy #143, USF #181, DePaul #132. So let's add ECU #194, UCF #177, Houston unranked at #200+, Memphis unranked at #200+.

So is we take our "how good is your football team" blinders off, we can see why SMU at #62, and TCU #97, along with the academies, are in the discussion. Army and Navy are tied at #14 among national "colleges" and is #33. Rice will be invited long before Houston or Memphis.

I'm not disparaging the schools by the way, I think these rankings are largely BS. I am pointing out that they matter a lot to presidents and regents. They matter in recruiting students, faculty and research grants (which dwarf the money from football).

Uconn is certainly comparable to all those schools. This is not about "qualifications" because those we have. This is about: The Acc is Not Inviting Us Right Now and We Can't Just Cry In Our Beer. We have to play football in a league. We have to have someone to play against. Same with basketball. So, we can't just beat our breasts and wail at the moon, and cry, "Why me, O Lord, Why Me?" This is all I'm saying. Grab a coffee can and start bailing or this is going down. And that's what we are going to do.

 

[RS9999X]

UCF and USF are doing the types of things that could move them ahead of Miami on the Florida and National landscape. A this point the two of them together = Miami but that changes with success. Give me the two upstarts instead of the dying mastodon trapped in the tar pits

 

[1husky]

Except that any other available option than "Conference Big East 20 USA MidWest" is far, far worse. The doomsday scenario you present is guaranteed to happen if we do not commit to and build up our league. The Mountain West, the WAC, others have had to do just that even without an AQ, which we most certainly will retain. And those conferences do have teams that would beat us handily, right now. Nevada beat up on BC pretty good in a bowl last December. And I still think we would struggle against BC, although it would be close. So, we have to attend to today's assignments and not only dream about tomorrow.

University presidents do not want their conference to be held responsible for killing off a league which is why PAC, SEC, B1G, ACC (Swofford seems to care the least about his reputation and even he will not pull the trigger) are not going through the final steps to get where they want to end up. But if a majority of Big East schools vote to dissolve the conference and walk away and let the hoops schools take the name and go and form their own conference it gets the wheels in motion. Notre Dame is forced out of the driver's seat and finally makes a decision on where they are going to end up - could be with the hoops schools. Either way it takes them out of the equation. UConn, RU, UWV, and Louisville will end up somewhere. Worst case scenario is you form a new conference with USF, UCF, ECU, etc. and choose new leadership not based in Providence and led around by hoops schools. Maybe no BCS bid but it's worth the gamble - 3 - 4 years of SMU, UCF, whoever getting trounced in a BCS game that no one watches and we are going to lose it anyway. UConn, UWV, Louisville, RU have too much to offer to not end up in a better situation. There is a window of opportunity that is closing fast and we need to make something happen or we will be mired in mediocrity for a long long time. Just my opinion.

 

[Pudge]

There is nothing they can, no one they can add and no rules they can devise that will keep this conference from dying.

It will either die quickly when/if programs are poached by other conferences or it will die slowly in the marketplace as most inferior products do.

If anyone thinks that we're going to build a football conference by adding UCF, Temple or any of the other scrapple that's being proposed, they live in Fairyland. It doesn't matter how committed the current programs are, bottom suckers like UCF would still leap at the Big East because even in its misery, it's still better than what they have.

With all due respect ... this is not the way the world always works.

This is a little oligarchy cartel that has locked out the Up&Coming. There is nothing that speaks more loud to this than the last 7 years in the BE. Syracuse? Pitt? Underachieving Big Names from a by-gone era. Cincinnati? USF? Louisville? UConn? even Rutgers? Boise State? TCU? (even Oregon) The TV eyeballs do not always want to see Michigan. Mississippi? Texas A&M? I think there has been a sea-change in the last decade & the pointy squeaky poobahs from down south have repeatedly made a Power-play ... and left a Big Black Hole. Frankly, this was what the Big East Basketball was in 1980. We stormed the barricades because WE could. WE took advantage of the ESPN climb. And, I don't think the "bottom sucker" League is such a bad place to be.

Why?

Cause we will work harder than the Orange. Cause we won't make truly monstrous Market mistakes like thinking BC brings Boston OR Syracuse makes the ACC relevant in NYC. OR Miami is a power forever? USF AND UCF are going to prove that they can elbow out a lot of Programs for talent. Of course, each of these Programs has very little room for error. Paul Pasqualoni has to be good. (not great) Kragthorpe can set you back 5 years. (as did GROB ... only 3 really) The Dukes, Wazzou, Northwestern, Vandy ... seemingly are on easy street. But, the landscape of decent Programs is far wider than it was in 1998.

Basketball? I agree with the recent Grantland article: We are a Power as long as we have Calhoun. And unlike lots of miscreants, I do believe we are going to roll into a succession far more successful than a K, Boeheim, Olsen, Knight, Thompson, Tarkanian. I have to believe that.

 

[HuskyHawk]

UCF and USF are doing the types of things that could move them ahead of Miami on the Florida and National landscape. A this point the two of them together = Miami but that changes with success. Give me the two upstarts instead of the dying mastodon trapped in the tar pits

You're talking about football success. That's irrelevant. Miami is an excellent school. Florida is an excellent school. UCF and USF are overgrown versions of Central Connecticut State. They will never come close to Miami or Florida, and probably not FSU. Miami football may never come back, but it doesn't matter.

 

[upstater]

You're talking about football success. That's irrelevant. Miami is an excellent school. Florida is an excellent school. UCF and USF are overgrown versions of Central Connecticut State. They will never come close to Miami or Florida, and probably not FSU. Miami football may never come back, but it doesn't matter.

With the money USF is raking in in terms of research, don't be surprised if it starts coming up in the world. It's outdrawing all of the schools you mention except Florida.