http://eye-on-college-basketball.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/26283066/29531857
On the bright side it looks like a great basketball league.
I think every old guy in the world thinks that crazy things are going to happen as soon as they lose their job.
I'm sure there's a word for it, like when a person thinks that the period of time that they're alive is most probably the most important time in history.
I'm not saying Calhoun's wrong. I'm just saying he's old and tired.
Quote from: ecompt on May 24, 2011, 10:53:40 AM
http://eye-on-college-basketball.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/26283066/29531857
Doesn't he say this every year?
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 24, 2011, 11:30:29 AM
Doesn't he say this every year?
Yes.
I guess he's ticked that he's lost 3 scholarship's already this year.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 24, 2011, 11:30:29 AM
Doesn't he say this every year?
He has and he is right. It is just a matter of time. Once football gets the numbers it wants they will say goodbye to hoops only.
He said the next couple of years or 4 or 5 years down the road. At least it is not imminent. I think if we get to 20 teams, it becomes a problem. Much easier for 12 football teams to go their own way than 9,10 or 11. The league is safe as long as we stay at 17 teams.
I wonder what the ultimate impact would be (will be?) when we are forced into a basketball-only league? Assuming all the Big East basketball-onlies join forces and poach another few teams...well, here's what possible new conferences would look like:
New Big East
Boston College
Central Florida
Cincinnati
Connecticut
Louisville
Miami (OH)
Pittsburgh
Rutgers
South Florida
Syracuse
TCU
West Virginia
Big East Refugees
Dayton
DePaul
George Mason
Georgetown
Marquette
Notre Dame
Providence
Seton Hall
St. John's
Temple
Villanova
Xavier
Just my thoughts, I think the New Big East would be fine. Perennial basketball powers like UConn, Louisville, Syracuse, Pittsburgh...while it won't be as good as the current Big East, there's plenty of quality at the top and it could still be a 6+ bid league per year. With the football profile and truly top-notch basketball programs, it should stay an elite league in basketball.
Looking at the Big East Refugees, I'm not sure how well it would go. Georgetown is clearly the elite program of the bunch, and a number of other teams there have experienced semi-regular success (Marquette, Villanova, Notre Dame, Xavier) but I wonder how well they would hold up. It seems like a league that initially would be a powerhouse, but could fall out of favor if at least 2-3 teams didn't max out each year.
I think there's a potentially very good conference out of the teams that would be left out in the cold by Big East football, but the future is obviously brighter for us the longer we can stay in this league.
The only outlier in the Refugees league is George Mason. A large public university amongst all privates. My guess is that you would see St. Louis before them.
I hate it when this talk comes up. Everyone that tries to project what a new conference would look like with the basketball only schools, comments how it would still be a very good conference. NO IT WOULDN'T. It would suck. Might as well be back in CUSA. Especially when people are throwing in Stl/Dayton et al. Any conference MU would be in now with the loss of Louisville, PITT, UCONN, Syracuse, would be a death knell. recruiting would go down terribly and MU would basically be just a step above a mid major IMO.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on May 24, 2011, 06:13:13 PM
The only outlier in the Refugees league is George Mason. A large public university amongst all privates. My guess is that you would see St. Louis before them.
Probably right...didn't realize they were public.
The other question is if Notre Dame would stick with their football independence or if they would finally wise up and join a conference. They'd be nice to have as a basketball-only, but I have to imagine they'll join a conference eventually.
Quote from: brewcity77 on May 24, 2011, 06:42:14 PM
The other question is if Notre Dame would stick with their football independence or if they would finally wise up and join a conference. They'd be nice to have as a basketball-only, but I have to imagine they'll join a conference eventually.
If they do join a conference for football, it will not be the Big East. The B10 (12?) will roll out the red carpet for them.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on May 24, 2011, 06:43:40 PMIf they do join a conference for football, it will not be the Big East. The B10 (12?) will roll out the red carpet for them.
I'm not so sure about that. If Notre Dame joins the Big Tweleventeen, they just become one more team amongst the Michigans, Ohio States, and Nebraskas of the conference. It would produce some nice games for them, but it would give ND a very tough road to get into a BCS game simply because the competition would be so high. If they joined the Big East they have a much clearer path to the BCS. TCU, Pitt, West Virginia, not nearly as daunting, and Notre Dame's inclusion in the conference would also guarantee the Big East remains as a BCS football conference.
I think ND making any move whatsoever is probably still 3-4 years off, it just seems like things are cooling down since Nebraska's move and they want to keep their independence for the time being, but when decision day does come, they'll likely have the option of being the biggest fish or a middle-sized fish. As much as the Big Numerology may have going for it right now, a potential Big East Network (by then) and the possibility of being the dominant team in the New Big East might prove enough of an allure to pull ND into the BEast full bore.
But enough about ND...what do people think about that as a possible basketball conference? Any thoughts on a twelfth team in lieu of George Mason? St. Louis? Butler? Someone else?
I feel like this has been talked about ad nauseam throughout Scoop's history, but what the hell...
I agree this is eventually going to happen. It won't be until the next major conference realignment, or when the Big East expands to 10+ football teams. At that point, the football teams will break away. This is why I have a hard time understanding why Nova wouldn't immediately accept the invite they got to join the Big East for football. It would keep them in the league.
But I agree with the Basketball-only conference you put out Brew, with the exception of George Mason already mentioned. I don't see ND joining a conference for football, so they'd join the new league and put it at 9 teams. I think they'd try to poach 3 from the A-10, probably Xavier, Dayton and one of either SLU, Temple or St. Joe's for a 12 team league.
I think the basketball only league would be pretty competitive, probably a 4 or 5 bid conference almost every year. Unfortunately, since we wouldn't be a "BCS" conference, we would undoubtedly be a "mid major." Would certainly be the best of the mid majors though. Would obviously have some SOS issues, but I think we could survive as a very relevant program in such a league.
Anyone who believes the Big E will last forever is wrong. As they said in Wall Street, "It's all about the money, everything else is just conversation."
We may all think that the Big East will keep MU just because we're nice people; but, nice is not alway profitable.
The Milwaukee TV market is not big enough to warrant eliminating football. As soon as they can find another Pitt, L'ville or WV; they will shed the "Catholic 8" as quickly as you can say ESPN4.
Quote from: vregan3 on May 24, 2011, 09:15:35 PM
Anyone who believes the Big E will last forever is wrong. As they said in Wall Street, "It's all about the money, everything else is just conversation."
We may all think that the Big East will keep MU just because we're nice people; but, nice is not alway profitable.
The Milwaukee TV market is not big enough to warrant eliminating football. As soon as they can find another Pitt, L'ville or WV; they will shed the "Catholic 8" as quickly as you can say ESPN4.
Pittsburgh at 23, Hartford at 30, Cincinnati at 34, Louisvile at 50, Charleston-Huntington at 65, Syracuse at 81, South Bend at 89 is the problem with BE Football. Ratings, baby. Bleed over TV markets is why BE basketball is more important and more profitable (and the NCAA annuity): Chicago, NY, Washington, Boston-Providence and yes, Milwaukee-Madison-Chicago--along with Chicago-South Bend hoops. ESPN is already moving on reupping the BE early. The long conference hoops schedule is competitive and an audience draw.
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/09/10/nielsen-local-television-market-universe-estimates/5037/
Quote from: vregan3 on May 24, 2011, 09:15:35 PM
Anyone who believes the Big E will last forever is wrong. As they said in Wall Street, "It's all about the money, everything else is just conversation."
How's this for conversation:
Based on recent performance, if the Big East eliminated non-football schools this year, the conference would lose roughly $10-12 million in annual revenue from the departing schools' NCAA tournament shares.
Calhoun is correct----the current big east is going to be toast shortly.
Football is going to drive the new tv deal----I am sure they are going for 12 football members and probably they will add Central Florida and probably Houston. Skip Holtz is endorsing Eastern Carolina and that probably makes sense.
The current tv deal expires in 2013----espn is aggressively negotiating a new deal predicated on football expansion.
Since the current big east provides fantastic basketball on espn I am sure they would interested in tv deal with the departing basketball members----it would be a great conference. Despair not----Marquette will be a key player in that new conference and it would be a good situation-----Notre Dame, Georgetown, St.Johns,
Marquette, De Paul, Seton Hall ect-----good conference especially if Xavier and one or two other programs from the Atlantic 10 bolt.
Quote from: jefffla01 on May 25, 2011, 12:33:37 AM
Calhoun is correct----the current big east is going to be toast shortly.
Football is going to drive the new tv deal----I am sure they are going for 12 football members and probably they will add Central Florida and probably Houston. Skip Holtz is endorsing Eastern Carolina and that probably makes sense.
The current tv deal expires in 2013----espn is aggressively negotiating a new deal predicated on football expansion.
Since the current big east provides fantastic basketball on espn I am sure they would interested in tv deal with the departing basketball members----it would be a great conference. Despair not----Marquette will be a key player in that new conference and it would be a good situation-----Notre Dame, Georgetown, St.Johns,
Marquette, De Paul, Seton Hall ect-----good conference especially if Xavier and one or two other programs from the Atlantic 10 bolt.
A competitive conference, yes. Great? No. And not even close to what we have now.
Quote from: jefffla01 on May 25, 2011, 12:33:37 AM
Calhoun is correct----the current big east is going to be toast shortly.
Football is going to drive the new tv deal----I am sure they are going for 12 football members and probably they will add Central Florida and probably Houston. Skip Holtz is endorsing Eastern Carolina and that probably makes sense.
Here is the problem though. Of the six BCS conferences, the Big East is clearly the weakest football product. Not only do they not produce on the field, they don't produce ratings. While they will likely get a better television contract, the thought that adding schools like Central Florida and Houston will make the *per school revenue* greater might be a long shot. Frankly, it makes the BE look more like a mid-major football conference than it does improve them from a BCS point of view.
Yeah, I think eventually the BE may break apart. But I wouldn't be surprised if the $$ don't work out in football's favor.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on May 25, 2011, 07:40:15 AM
Here is the problem though. Of the six BCS conferences, the Big East is clearly the weakest football product. Not only do they not produce on the field, they don't produce ratings. While they will likely get a better television contract, the thought that adding schools like Central Florida and Houston will make the *per school revenue* greater might be a long shot. Frankly, it makes the BE look more like a mid-major football conference than it does improve them from a BCS point of view.
Yeah, I think eventually the BE may break apart. But I wouldn't be surprised if the $$ don't work out in football's favor.
I totally agree. Eventually the BE will break apart. However, in order to get big money for football, and to be financially viable without the great basketball, the BE is going to have to win first.
The major drawback of most of the current BE tv markets, is a lot of People in New York and D.C. area are transplants and not necessarily huge BE football fans. So until the BE starts winning on a consistent basis, a lot of people in the BE's major markets aren't going to care if they see their games.
And it isn't just about large, metro television markets. The problem with BE schools is that they generally aren't public universities with large, passionate alumni bases like you see in the SEC, B10 and B12.
The only school that even remotely fits that description is West Virginia. The rest are either private schools without size, or public schools that lack a certain passion for football. (Rutgers, UConn, USF)
Someone please explain what the benefit would be for the football-schools to break away in the Big East? As I understand, the football money the Big East currently takes in is only distributed to the football schools, i.e. Marquette sees no benefit from the Big East's participation in the BCS bowl games.
So if the football money goes only to football schools... where's the sense in splitting the conference up? Financially, it already is.
Simply because as football revenues continue to grow in relation to basketball revenues, the importance of keeping the "basketball schools" around decreases. You don't need to have them around....you don't have to listen to them...you don't need to have extra mouths to feed.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on May 25, 2011, 09:05:10 AM
And it isn't just about large, metro television markets. The problem with BE schools is that they generally aren't public universities with large, passionate alumni bases like you see in the SEC, B10 and B12.
The only school that even remotely fits that description is West Virginia. The rest are either private schools without size, or public schools that lack a certain passion for football. (Rutgers, UConn, USF)
Generally agree, but I think Pitt and Syracuse (and maybe even Louisville) are much closer to WVU than they are Rutgers and UConn. While both programs have fallen on hard times of late, they have large, passionate alumni bases and solid (if not better) football traditions. No, they're not SEC level, but who is? They're no worse, especially in terms of passion and fanbases, than several Big 1? and Big 12 programs, i.e. Indiana, Northwestern, Purdue, Minnesota, Baylor, Kansas, Iowa State.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on May 25, 2011, 09:05:10 AM
And it isn't just about large, metro television markets. The problem with BE schools is that they generally aren't public universities with large, passionate alumni bases like you see in the SEC, B10 and B12.
The only school that even remotely fits that description is West Virginia. The rest are either private schools without size, or public schools that lack a certain passion for football. (Rutgers, UConn, USF)
I think Rutgers could be that kind of school if it started making solid bowls consistently. When they had a few good years, their fans really came out. Its a huge (52,000 students) state school. But they have to start winning consistently.
I also think Syracuse, although a private school and basketball school first, has a large passionate alumni base. But if their program were to start winning consistently I think you have all the necessary ingredients for a large TV audience. They have 20,000 students and a really good alumni network (at least in Chicago, where I live).
Also, USF has 45,000 students. I know most people in Florida are either Gators or Seminole fans, but its a big state school and I think could definitely win over some hearts in a state that cares a lot about football.
Same with Pitt. Large student population, very solid alumni base.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on May 24, 2011, 09:47:42 PMPittsburgh at 23, Hartford at 30, Cincinnati at 34, Louisvile at 50, Charleston-Huntington at 65, Syracuse at 81, South Bend at 89 is the problem with BE Football. Ratings, baby. Bleed over TV markets is why BE basketball is more important and more profitable (and the NCAA annuity): Chicago, NY, Washington, Boston-Providence and yes, Milwaukee-Madison-Chicago--along with Chicago-South Bend hoops. ESPN is already moving on reupping the BE early. The long conference hoops schedule is competitive and an audience draw.
http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2008/09/10/nielsen-local-television-market-universe-estimates/5037/
Well...yes and no. Hartford may be 30, but UConn draws attention from the entire New England region. Similarly, Syracuse may only be 81, but they also are the closest thing NYC has to a home college football team. And South Bend may be 89, but the South Bend market sure as hell isn't the reason NBC has pretty much given Notre Dame their own nationwide television contract.
If TCU could maintain their level of competitiveness, Notre Dame joined up, and 1-2 other teams emerged in a new Big East football league, it could very well have solid ratings drawing power. Not SEC drawing power, but still solid.
(http://scm-l3.technorati.com/10/01/22/3609/jim-calhoun.jpg) (http://i.huffpost.com/gen/129994/thumbs/s-HAROLD-CAMPING-large.jpg)
Quote from: Victor McCormick on May 25, 2011, 12:08:53 PM
I think Rutgers could be that kind of school if it started making solid bowls consistently. When they had a few good years, their fans really came out. Its a huge (52,000 students) state school. But they have to start winning consistently.
I also think Syracuse, although a private school and basketball school first, has a large passionate alumni base. But if their program were to start winning consistently I think you have all the necessary ingredients for a large TV audience. They have 20,000 students and a really good alumni network (at least in Chicago, where I live).
Also, USF has 45,000 students. I know most people in Florida are either Gators or Seminole fans, but its a big state school and I think could definitely win over some hearts in a state that cares a lot about football.
Same with Pitt. Large student population, very solid alumni base.
"Could...but....I think..."
Of course any of this might happen. I have a friend who grew up in Blacksburg, VA (home of Virginia Tech) and he is absolutely amazed that the school he knew is now a football power.
But that doesn't mean any of it *will* happen.
Quote from: brewcity77 on May 25, 2011, 12:12:04 PM
Well...yes and no. Hartford may be 30, but UConn draws attention from the entire New England region. Similarly, Syracuse may only be 81, but they also are the closest thing NYC has to a home college football team. And South Bend may be 89, but the South Bend market sure as hell isn't the reason NBC has pretty much given Notre Dame their own nationwide television contract.
If TCU could maintain their level of competitiveness, Notre Dame joined up, and 1-2 other teams emerged in a new Big East football league, it could very well have solid ratings drawing power. Not SEC drawing power, but still solid.
Bleed over is more critical and buying power of the audience (Syracuse, WV, KY are not exactly prime purchasing power targets) which is why I mentioned ND--who would join the B10 in football as the BE football markets don't deliver. NYC could give a rat's arse about Syracuse football...maybe Rutgers a little bit. You way overstate UCONN's drawing power for football. BC is far more important in the NE and they left. ESPN wants cable boxes for advertising dollars and BE basketball delivers that today--one that a national audience is interested in. There are much better football choices for ESPN.
Now, will ESPN offer up a BE Network? Or Will COMCAST? Google? Subscriptions can overcome advertising $$ shortfalls as the BTN showed. Basketball is just too profitable now in reality...which is why the BE is trying to shore up their football viewing markets via expansion (Dallas with VCU, Orlando next?).
Quote from: brewcity77 on May 24, 2011, 05:46:20 PM
I wonder what the ultimate impact would be (will be?) when we are forced into a basketball-only league? Assuming all the Big East basketball-onlies join forces and poach another few teams...well, here's what possible new conferences would look like:
New Big East
Boston College
Central Florida
Cincinnati
Connecticut
Louisville
Miami (OH)
Pittsburgh
Rutgers
South Florida
Syracuse
TCU
West Virginia
Big East Refugees
Dayton
DePaul
George Mason
Georgetown
Marquette
Notre Dame
Providence
Seton Hall
St. John's
Temple
Villanova
Xavier
Just my thoughts, I think the New Big East would be fine. Perennial basketball powers like UConn, Louisville, Syracuse, Pittsburgh...while it won't be as good as the current Big East, there's plenty of quality at the top and it could still be a 6+ bid league per year. With the football profile and truly top-notch basketball programs, it should stay an elite league in basketball.
Looking at the Big East Refugees, I'm not sure how well it would go. Georgetown is clearly the elite program of the bunch, and a number of other teams there have experienced semi-regular success (Marquette, Villanova, Notre Dame, Xavier) but I wonder how well they would hold up. It seems like a league that initially would be a powerhouse, but could fall out of favor if at least 2-3 teams didn't max out each year.
I think there's a potentially very good conference out of the teams that would be left out in the cold by Big East football, but the future is obviously brighter for us the longer we can stay in this league.
I'm not saying the Big East won't break up, but that is an ugly BCS football conference and not one i see attracting much fan interest.
Quote from: El Duderino on May 25, 2011, 04:35:23 PM
I'm not saying the Big East won't break up, but that is an ugly BCS football conference and not one i see attracting much fan interest.
That's why I think they need Notre Dame, to add some sex appeal. TCU is legit, West Virginia, Pitt, and Cincy are all decent, and UCF and Rutgers seem to really be on the rise, but at the end of the day, it's a one-team league. ND would give them some football legitimacy and really help the recruiting of the rest of the league. Add ND and give the league 4-5 years and you could see it actually becoming competitive, maybe not with the SEC or Big Numerology, but certainly with the ACC, PAC-12, and the Big<12.
Interesting views on this thread. If you pay close attention to what the footabll schools have been doing, there are exciting times ahead for them (at least they hope so).
Benny - The reason the football schools are entertaining the idea of leaving are for the same reasons BC decided to leave. I dont recall if it was their AD or President that said it, but (to paraphrase since I cant find the exact quote since the internet is overloaded with expansion stuff) he said the way the conference is constructed with full-time and part-time members "doesnt work." He found it increasingly difficult to work with so many different schools with different visions/objectives/resources/etc.Their decision wasnt even about the money since the BE countered with an offer that would give them a bigger piece of the pie than any other school and exceeded their ACC annual pay-out. Plus, I think they enjoy that academics of the ACC as well.
Anyways, I have been following BE football for awhile and there are more and more signs that a split will happen. When? Probably when the football schools feel comfortable with their football product. Right now, they obviously arent ready and need to leverage the bball-only markets/revenue/resources. But the football schools seem to be making a push and Calhoun may not be far off.
If you look around, the football schools are all either well positioned right now to improve or are on their way. WVU and Pitt's biggest problem were underwhelming coaching staffs. Wannstedt was a great recruiter but terrible game coach. Both schools' facilities are competitive. WVU is FINALLY looking into selling alcohol which would result in $6M added revenue per year for them. What took so long and why now? In a survey on one of the prep recruiting sites, Rutgers's new locker room and practice facilities were ranked by previous classes as being in the top 10 in the country. UConn was listed in the top 15. Syracuse is undergoing a major fundraising campaign to either build a practice bubble or a brand new bricks and mortar facility. They recently hired Floyd Little to coordinate the efforts. HC Marone seems to have them on track. USF is hoping to cash in on their new coach as well but he needs 2-3 classes to get his players in place. Slowly, the BE
Also, if you look at the scheduling of BE teams, they are all finally starting to ditching bottom-feeders and FCS teams (except for Rutgers which has a tradition of crappy OOC schedules). Everyone understands that BE teams arent going to suddenly sell-out every game but an overall improvement in facilities, stronger schedules and a wave of new coaches will make the next 3-4 years far more interesting than the previous 5 years. As for the markets, more and more teams are starting to play OOC games at neutral sites. I believe WVU, SU, Pitt and RU all have confirmed games with other top BCS teams (1 home, 1 away, 1 neutral). I read a Bennett article in which it is believed that SU will be playing two OOC games per year at Giants Stadium to rejuvenate their NYC metro area alumnin base. Again, Im not saying the next Penn State is going to be born in this new era of BE football, but I think it is obvious that the conference needs WVU, Pitt and SU to win and they are all on track. In my opinion, the image of the conference takes a hit every time UL or Cincy win it. The old guard is vital. I think a split is likely if those three teams can become regular top 25's in a few years (plus TCU). If you dont think so, then you have nothing to worry about and the conference will continue to be one big happy dysfunctional family.
Just remember: It was the bball schools that said last summer they would force a split if the conference added one more full-time member. You may not have to wait for the fball schools to act; the bball schools will initiate the split themselves. An idle threat?
Crazy thought:
Clearly there is going to be a conference realignment across the country in the next 5-7 years.
Could MU and Depaul get pick up by the Big Ten to round out their conference? I know it seems insane, but if the Big Ten goes to 16 or even 18 "football schools", they could easily add 2 BBall schools who compete in most sports other than football and hockey.
I guess the only real motivation for the Big Ten would be $$, which MU seems to be bringing, and DePaul has potential if they can ever get the program right.
To put it another way, could MU and Depaul end up being the basketball salt and pepper on the Big Ten football steak? Prob. not, but in a massive mad-dash realignment, if conferences look to maximize potential revenue, MU has some value.
Quote from: 2002MUalum on May 26, 2011, 06:43:31 AM
Could MU and Depaul get pick up by the Big Ten to round out their conference?
Not a chance in hell. The B10 is too big and too rich to have to deal with part-time members. And while MU has value, it is miniscule in the B10s view of the world.
Quote from: 2002MUalum on May 26, 2011, 06:43:31 AM
Crazy thought:
Clearly there is going to be a conference realignment across the country in the next 5-7 years.
Could MU and Depaul get pick up by the Big Ten to round out their conference? I know it seems insane, but if the Big Ten goes to 16 or even 18 "football schools", they could easily add 2 BBall schools who compete in most sports other than football and hockey.
I guess the only real motivation for the Big Ten would be $$, which MU seems to be bringing, and DePaul has potential if they can ever get the program right.
To put it another way, could MU and Depaul end up being the basketball salt and pepper on the Big Ten football steak? Prob. not, but in a massive mad-dash realignment, if conferences look to maximize potential revenue, MU has some value.
Not In A Million Years. We don't have enough NCAA violations to be considered
Quote from: brewcity77 on May 25, 2011, 09:33:30 PM
That's why I think they need Notre Dame, to add some sex appeal. TCU is legit, West Virginia, Pitt, and Cincy are all decent, and UCF and Rutgers seem to really be on the rise, but at the end of the day, it's a one-team league. ND would give them some football legitimacy and really help the recruiting of the rest of the league. Add ND and give the league 4-5 years and you could see it actually becoming competitive, maybe not with the SEC or Big Numerology, but certainly with the ACC, PAC-12, and the Big<12.
ND has a huge fanbase, and the Big East would be lucky to have them, but I don't see how that would give the conference more football legitimacy? They have 5 bowl game wins in the last 21 years, and haven't had a coach with any measure of success since Lou Holtz.
I guess my point is, when does Notre Dame cease to be part of the "Football Elite"? How bad does the record have to get? In my opinion, the school is valuable as a brand (academic; apparel; trite, cliche movies), but certainly not valuable as a football program.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on May 26, 2011, 07:35:25 AM
Not a chance in hell. The B10 is too big and too rich to have to deal with part-time members. And while MU has value, it is miniscule in the B10s view of the world.
You're probably right.
I'm just thinking about a conference trying to "maximize revenue" while still maintaining the appearance of academic integrity.
MU and Depaul (potentially) produce $ in hoops and won't take away any FB $. I mean, the B10 could structure the deal so MU and DePaul were clearly at a disadvantage, and MU and DePaul would still probably take it.
When the mad dash begins, I have no idea how the dominoes will fall. However, MU (provided hoops maintains it's high level), might not be as screwed as we think. It could be an attractive cherry on top of a new conference.
I mean, really, the B10 has nothing to lose in this scenario. They could make MU and DePaul probational members, and MU and DePaul would still probably jump at the chance.
or
MU might be hanging with Dayton and Xavier.
Quote from: 2002MUalum on May 26, 2011, 01:23:37 PM
I mean, really, the B10 has nothing to lose in this scenario. They could make MU and DePaul probational members, and MU and DePaul would still probably jump at the chance.
Northwestern (motto: "Chicago's Big 10 Team!") and Illinois both would have serious reservations with DePaul joining their conference, and I suspect Wisconson might feel the same way about Marquette.
While I'm in no way eager to join a conference with Dayton, St. Louis, etc., Xavier seems to have managed it. It's Option #2 by a long, long stretch, but it wouldn't relegate MU hoops to Loyola-Chicago status.
Based on the above should we be rooting for Big East to lose non-conference football games and bowl games.
Quote from: brewcity77 on May 24, 2011, 05:46:20 PM
Big East Refugees
Dayton
DePaul
George Mason
Georgetown
Marquette
Notre Dame
Providence
Seton Hall
St. John's
Temple
Villanova
Xavier
For Georgetown's sake, I hope that never comes to pass. Attendance would plummet and the cost of Verizon Center would not justify it. The alternative is a 60 year old, 2,000 seat gym with 100 surface parking spaces on campus. Any takers?
Quote from: Skatastrophy on May 24, 2011, 11:15:55 AM
I think every old guy in the world thinks that crazy things are going to happen as soon as they lose their job.
I'm sure there's a word for it, like when a person thinks that the period of time that they're alive is most probably the most important time in history.
I'm not saying Calhoun's wrong. I'm just saying he's old and tired.
Or how they think, Music, Movies, Sports, and People peaked when they were around 25.
Quote from: BEfootballview on May 25, 2011, 11:34:12 PM
Benny - The reason the football schools are entertaining the idea of leaving are for the same reasons BC decided to leave. I dont recall if it was their AD or President that said it, but (to paraphrase since I cant find the exact quote since the internet is overloaded with expansion stuff) he said the way the conference is constructed with full-time and part-time members "doesnt work." He found it increasingly difficult to work with so many different schools with different visions/objectives/resources/etc.Their decision wasnt even about the money since the BE countered with an offer that would give them a bigger piece of the pie than any other school and exceeded their ACC annual pay-out. Plus, I think they enjoy that academics of the ACC as well.
That's interesting because you're the first person on here to say this (it's refreshing to get an outside perspective once in a while). Up until now, everyone on this board who has forecast the "inevitability" of a BE split has either directly stated or strongly implied that it is all about the money.
[Excellent first post, BTW. Welcome.]
If the BE splits, money won't be the driver. The college football system as we know it today is not a sustainable model... the "big money" that fuels the system is not going to be around 10 years from now. In a society where any institution that receives taxpayer money - directly or indirectly - is becoming increasingly scrutinized, no longer will a system that filters tens of millions of dollars annually to private TV networks, bowl game promoters, and a handful of schools who happen to control the BCS system be tolerated when 80-90% of FCS and FBS school lose money on football.
If the BE football schools want to break off to form their own conference purely for money reasons, in 20 years such a move will be discussed in the same B-school case study alongside New Coke.
Quote from: Pakuni on May 26, 2011, 02:03:14 PM
Northwestern (motto: "Chicago's Big 10 Team!") and Illinois both would have serious reservations with DePaul joining their conference, and I suspect Wisconson might feel the same way about Marquette.
While I'm in no way eager to join a conference with Dayton, St. Louis, etc., Xavier seems to have managed it. It's Option #2 by a long, long stretch, but it wouldn't relegate MU hoops to Loyola-Chicago status.
Totally fair and you're probably right.
I guess I'm just banking on greed winning all arguments. If they can add revenue, they would do it, especially if the conference musical chairs happens quickly. There will be a mad grab for anything/everything that can produce $$. Rivalries and catchy slogans be damned.
Quote
The draw for the Big East traditionally has been its strength in basketball. The league sent 11 teams to the NCAA tournament this past season and its ninth-place squad, UConn, wound up winning the national championship. Football, on the other hand, has been a drag on the conference.
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2011/04/18/Media/ESPN-Big-East.aspx
Very good article outling the issues of the reup and differences over strategy between schools and stronger football conferences. The BE football schools may think it is more profitable to be on their own or elsewhere, but the reality (size of DMA and $$ Power) is that no one really wants them (TV or other conferences at this point). The BE needs to grow their football franchise first. COMCAST/NBC could be good leverage, especially if, somehow, they can get ND to go BE in football based on their long-standing NBC alliance.
Benny -- BC would not have left if it didnt make financial sense. After all, their travel expenses were going to increase by going to the ACC. They just chose to cite their issues with a conference made up of full-time and part-time members and that they prefered stability.
And Im going to have to disagree with you when you say that the "big money" from the networks wont be around in 10 years. Couple reasons: 1) Neither you nor the rest of the general public has complained about the rising costs of your monthly cable subscription. If you and the general public have complained, you certainly havent dropped service. 2) DVR!!!! The popularity of DVR's has made companies re-think how they want to advertise. Sitcoms (and all pre-recorded programming) are being recorded more and more often...to be watched at a later date/time. Do you watch commercials of programs you record? Probably not. So, more advertising dollars are flowing from pre-recorded programs into LIVE programs (sports and news). There arent a lot of people that say to themselves, "Im going to miss the news tonight so I better set my dvr to record it so I can watch it next week." People generally dont record sporting events unless they want to watch it a SECOND time.
The money is there right now and it will be there 10 years from now. It will be there until the cable providers start losing money due to falling subscriber numbers. And consumers always warm up to higher prices over time. Remeber when a really good cell phone used to cost under $100? Or when your monthly phone bill was under $50? Who would have thought 15 years ago that the average consumer would shell out $1-5K for a television? Are those same people going to cut out their cable subscriptions? Thats kind of like buying a car and not being able to afford the gas.
Quote from: sixstrings03 on May 26, 2011, 11:53:34 AMND has a huge fanbase, and the Big East would be lucky to have them, but I don't see how that would give the conference more football legitimacy? They have 5 bowl game wins in the last 21 years, and haven't had a coach with any measure of success since Lou Holtz.
I guess my point is, when does Notre Dame cease to be part of the "Football Elite"? How bad does the record have to get? In my opinion, the school is valuable as a brand (academic; apparel; trite, cliche movies), but certainly not valuable as a football program.
Whether we like it or not, Notre Dame is still Notre Dame. Their name still carries weight and they can still recruit. The results haven't been there, but they still carry weight football-wise. Honestly, I think their independence has helped them stay relevant, because even when they have a bad year, they still end up 6-6 or so and go to a bowl game, and their massive traveling support entices bigger bowl games than they probably deserve to take them.
What if they were in the Big Numerology right now? They'd probably be going 2-6 in conference (if they play 8 conference games, I don't pay enough attention to NCAA football to know) and be missing out on bowl games. Now that would kill their value as a football program. If they truly became some conference's DePaul, it would kill them, but independence has helped them survive and maintain some of their luster despite down years.
If they didn't have value as a football program, they wouldn't have been the Big Numerology's top choice, ahead of Nebraska and Missouri. And while Notre Dame might be down, they'd still compete for the top of the Big East right now, at least until TCU gets there. That would provide a road back to the BCS, which would keep them in recruiting spotlights and with the right coach, potentially lift them right back to where they once were within 3-5 years.
I don't know if any of that will happen, but ND still has football value. And honestly, I don't know what it will take to truly wipe all that away. Ironically, it's possible that making the move to survive (joining a conference) will be the thing that kills them (if they end up at the bottom of said conference). But other than that, they stay relevant as long as they can keep around .500 or just over and keep that NBC contract.
Quote from: BEfootballview on May 26, 2011, 06:58:32 PM
And Im going to have to disagree with you when you say that the "big money" from the networks wont be around in 10 years. Couple reasons: 1) Neither you nor the rest of the general public has complained about the rising costs of your monthly cable subscription. If you and the general public have complained, you certainly havent dropped service.
This is just flat wrong. First of all, I
have complained about the rising cost of cable, and I
have dropped my service. But that aside, your comment wasn't intended to be about me, it was about the general public. Even so, if you Google "declining cable subscriptions," "HTPC," "streaming television," and "over the air HD," you'll find that while I may be in the minority, the number of people like me are growing exponentially.
Quote from: BEfootballview on May 26, 2011, 06:58:32 PM
2) DVR!!!! The popularity of DVR's has made companies re-think how they want to advertise. Sitcoms (and all pre-recorded programming) are being recorded more and more often...to be watched at a later date/time. Do you watch commercials of programs you record? Probably not. So, more advertising dollars are flowing from pre-recorded programs into LIVE programs (sports and news). There arent a lot of people that say to themselves, "Im going to miss the news tonight so I better set my dvr to record it so I can watch it next week." People generally dont record sporting events unless they want to watch it a SECOND time.
I see your point, and it's well taken. However, I would point out that in the Big East, there were over 425 basketball games last year; there were less than 90 football games. Football more popular you say? Without a doubt, but popularity doesn't always equal viewership. The 2010-11 bowl games drew a combined 221 million viewers in 34 bowl games (6.5 million per game). The 2011 NCAA tournament drew an average of
10.2 million viewers per game. In other words, if it's live-sports opportunities you want, basketball - not football - is where it's at.
Quote from: BEfootballview on May 26, 2011, 06:58:32 PM
The money is there right now and it will be there 10 years from now. It will be there until the cable providers start losing money due to falling subscriber numbers. And consumers always warm up to higher prices over time. Remeber when a really good cell phone used to cost under $100? Or when your monthly phone bill was under $50? Who would have thought 15 years ago that the average consumer would shell out $1-5K for a television? Are those same people going to cut out their cable subscriptions? Thats kind of like buying a car and not being able to afford the gas.
Cable providers are as dead as the BCS. The distribution model is changing. MLB already markets its product directly to the consumer. ESPN3 does the same thing. Look for more content providers to cut out the middle man (the Comcasts, Time Warners, etc.) as more and more of the $1-5k televisions come with internet connectivity. Further, in 10 years, everything will be a la carte... people won't be forced into subscribing to ESPN, BTN, etc. if they don't want to. This is going to be a huge blow to the networks who won't be able to force 5 people to pay for their product for each person who truly wants the product.
I guess I don't understand any basis for the mutual attraction of the BE basketball schools and Xavier, Butler or Dayton.
Well, maybe Dayton, because its probably less humiliating to suck when you're in a conference with Georgetown, Villanova, Notre Dame and Marquette.
But Xavier has done quite well with 5 straight A10 championships and 8 NCAA bids in the last 9 years--all without being in a conference with MU, ND, VU, GU St. Johns, SHU, etc.
Butler has a similar record of success--5 straight Horizon championships, 6 NCAA bids (2 appearances in the championship game) in the last 9 years. Again, without being in a conference with BE teams like MU, GU, VU, ND, SJU and SHU.
The fundamental problem is that at the end of the season, half the teams have to be in the bottom half. We can't build the Lake Woebegone conference where all teams are above average, no matter how many "name" programs we try and load into it.
My guess is that Butler and Xavier will choose to stay where they are, and that the BE basketball teams will have to aim lower to fill out the bottom half of their new conference.
Read somewhere today that Boeheim is pushing for all 17 teams in NYC at the BET
Quote from: Marquette84 on May 27, 2011, 10:29:18 PM
I guess I don't understand any basis for the mutual attraction of the BE basketball schools and Xavier, Butler or Dayton.
I think MU fans often make the assumption that there would be an attraction to move into a better conference because MU has always jumped to greener pastures when given the chance. We were quite successful in Conference USA....a Final Four before jumping to the Big East. I don't think many people questioned the move. Good programs should be able to keep it going. I would expect Xavier and Butler to remain very strong programs in a more competitive league. They also would get much more exposure (and $$$).
Quote from: DomJamesToTheBasket on May 28, 2011, 01:08:51 AM
I think MU fans often make the assumption that there would be an attraction to move into a better conference because MU has always jumped to greener pastures when given the chance. We were quite successful in Conference USA....a Final Four before jumping to the Big East. I don't think many people questioned the move. Good programs should be able to keep it going. I would expect Xavier and Butler to remain very strong programs in a more competitive league. They also would get much more exposure (and $$$).
Okay. Lets accept your premise. Butler and Xavier remain at their competitive level, alternating the new conference championship for the foreseeable future.
In that case, what to ND, MU, GU and VU have to gain by aligning with Butler and Xavier? Its one thing to finish behind Syracuse, UConn and Pitt. Its quite another to be second fiddle to Xavier and Butler.
To me like it would be better for MU, Villanova, ND, St. Johns and Georgetown to stand on their own glory and current success--not try and ride on the backs of Xavier and Butler.
I said it once, I will say it one thousand times. ANY conference that people propose with current mid majors, whether that be Xavier, Dayton, Saint Louis, butler or whoever is a TERRIBLE conference for MU. And yet, when people propose their realigned conferences it always includes a couple of these teams, and it makes me sick to my stomach. If you for one second think it would be a good conference in any way shape or form for MU to be in, than I don't even know what to say. It would be the death knell for MU hoops, plain and simple.
Quote from: muguru on May 28, 2011, 09:30:56 PMI said it once, I will say it one thousand times. ANY conference that people propose with current mid majors, whether that be Xavier, Dayton, Saint Louis, butler or whoever is a TERRIBLE conference for MU. And yet, when people propose their realigned conferences it always includes a couple of these teams, and it makes me sick to my stomach. If you for one second think it would be a good conference in any way shape or form for MU to be in, than I don't even know what to say. It would be the death knell for MU hoops, plain and simple.
Are Xavier, Temple, or Butler that much different than Marquette was when we joined the Big East? Yes, we had a Final Four in recent memory, but not a lot more than that. The simple truth is that it's possible that the Big East will end up breaking apart. More than that, it seems likely. I would rather end up in a conference like this than simply crawling back to C-USA or hoping the A-10 can find room.
Butler
Dayton
DePaul
Georgetown
Marquette
Notre Dame
Providence
Seton Hall
St. John's
Temple
Villanova
Xavier
This is sillly. Bigger is better. Conferences are growing, not shrinking to 10 teams.
Quote from: muguru on May 28, 2011, 09:30:56 PM
I said it once, I will say it one thousand times. ANY conference that people propose with current mid majors, whether that be Xavier, Dayton, Saint Louis, butler or whoever is a TERRIBLE conference for MU. And yet, when people propose their realigned conferences it always includes a couple of these teams, and it makes me sick to my stomach. If you for one second think it would be a good conference in any way shape or form for MU to be in, than I don't even know what to say. It would be the death knell for MU hoops, plain and simple.
I think everyone would rather be in the BE because it would seriously harm MU basketball to no longer be part of that equation. That doesn't mean that people aren't going to suggest "best options otherwise."
Quote from: brewcity77 on May 28, 2011, 10:38:52 PM
Are Xavier, Temple, or Butler that much different than Marquette was when we joined the Big East? Yes, we had a Final Four in recent memory, but not a lot more than that. The simple truth is that it's possible that the Big East will end up breaking apart. More than that, it seems likely. I would rather end up in a conference like this than simply crawling back to C-USA or hoping the A-10 can find room.
Butler
Dayton
DePaul
Georgetown
Marquette
Notre Dame
Providence
Seton Hall
St. John's
Temple
Villanova
Xavier
So, basically you want MU to return to Mid major status?? This isn't a whole lot different than CUSA(When MU was in it). Losing Syracuse, Louisville, UCONN and Pitt, makes this a mediocre conference, at best. My hunch is, MU would be able to find it's place in another BCS conference, somehow, someway.
Quote from: muguru on May 29, 2011, 01:29:52 PM
So, basically you want MU to return to Mid major status?? This isn't a whole lot different than CUSA(When MU was in it). Losing Syracuse, Louisville, UCONN and Pitt, makes this a mediocre conference, at best. My hunch is, MU would be able to find it's place in another BCS conference, somehow, someway.
Actually, this conference significantly different than CUSA.
The first big difference is that there are no fewer than 7 teams that have been in at least 4 of the last five NCAA tournaments (MU, Villanova, Georgetown, ND, Temple, Butler & Xavier).
Next, the bottom half of CUSA was comprised of teams without a significant basketball history or winning reputation. Tulane, WCU, USF, and USM have a grand total of 5 NCAA wins in their combined history. Butler matched that in one season.
Compare that to this proposed conference, where the five teams not included above are either former NCAA Champions (St. Johns, DePaul) or Final Four participants (Seton Hall, Providence and Dayton).
So its wrong to say this proposed conference is just like CUSA--its not in any way shape or form similar.
There are two big drawbacks--first, going in, the two best team will be the former Mid Majors. Xavier and Butler have a combined 6 deep NCAA runs (Sweet 16 or deeper) over the last five years. The Big East members will have had 4 deep runs combined over the same period.
Second, there won't be enough NCAA bids to keep all the members happy. The 7 teams that are already perennial NCAA teams are currently spread across 3 different conferences. Putting them in one conference will pit them against each other. We also see the bottom teams making moves to try and move into the top division.
You can't have a "Lake Woebegone Conference" were all of the teams are above average. Someone has to finish last.
As a huge BE football fan and casual bball fan, what makes so many of you think that a bball-only conference wouldn't/couldn't be good? The parity would be excellent....much better than the current BE. You would rid yourselves of USF, TCU and who knows who else. Adding the likes of Xavier, Dayton and a few others would make for an interesting league. I dont know off the top of my head, but when was the last time a bball-only won a BE regular season championship? Im guessing Nova when they had the 3-headed monster but might be wrong.
The only thing that would be really bad for a BE conference with bball-onlies is the BE tournament (I grew up in NYC and have attended the last 15 tourneys and the tourney is pretty much my only interest in bball). Even if the conference was without UConn and Syracuse, there would be a HUGE void left by them to fill. Who would fill those seats? So many of the bball-onlies are not well-represented at MSG (including MU). Nova and GU are ok but they are WAY behind some of the football schools. Then, throw out Pitt and WVU and you have a huge problem. There is no way the BE could charge the same price for those tickets if even those schools left (nevermind RU, UL and the others). Would the casual college bball fan that lives in NYC still go to the tourney? Maybe. In the same numbers as before? No way. And at the same price of admission as now? Not a chance.
On top of that, what would happen if the new football conference set up shop at the new Nets arena in Brooklyn. Both tournaments would have to take place at the same time. Two tournaments, one city. The Brooklyn tourney would be the main attraction while MSG would be the sideshow. The support (and money) will go to the old BE schools. It would be like Mets support vs. Yankees support. Not close. So, while bball fans may actually enjoy a bball-only slugfest regular season, the conference tourney would be a nightmare (if Brooklyn was to host the other conference).
BUT....I HIGHLY doubt a split happens prior to the new contract. The fball schools arent ready to stand on their own feet yet and will need the new money to invest in their product. The NEXT contract is when it might happen....but thats a ways down the road. And there will NOT be a "no-confidence' vote on Marinatto. Not happening even if the AD's at WVU, RU and Pitt are incredibly pi$$ed off right now (especially RU's President).
Quote from: BEfootballview on May 29, 2011, 08:25:16 PM
As a huge BE football fan .....
I heard people like you existed but I honestly never thought I'd meet one.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on May 29, 2011, 09:26:30 PM
I heard people like you existed but I honestly never thought I'd meet one.
LOL! Nice. Well played, sir.
There are more of 'me' out there...you just have to live in the original BE footprint to notice. Most right now are hybernating. :( Morgantown is still solidly football. Rutgers is a 'sleeping giant!' ...at least that is what their fans have been saying for decades! Go ahead, take another decade-long Ambien, Rutgers. I'll admit, Ray Rice certainly helped them. The fact that they are No.1 in the country in scheduling FCS teams, on the other hand, does not help them. You can always spot someone who 'pretends' to know BE football when they say Rutgers is turning into a real "program." No, they are not. Just because Schiano has a helicopter to visit recruits does not make them legit. They are still.....Buttgers, Rutgirls, Snookie U. Ok, Ill admit it...I dont like them much.
Pitt is a fball school. They have fans though Wannstadt drove some away in recent years. They will come back.
Cuse is a football school as well. I guess it depends on who you ask though. Anyone under 30 will say its a bball school. Anyone over 30 will say its a football school. The Carrier Dome isnt nicknamed The Loud House because of bball. Not even close. I think their Pinstripe Bowl in Yankee Stadium really helped them. Btw, that call against KState for excessive celebration in the endzone was GARBAGE! Im pretty sure that call came down from the Steinbrenner family box. They paid the BE more money to steer Syracuse to their bowl because they wanted their tradition to be a part of the first Pinstripe bowl....a bowl that the Yankees want to turn into a BCS bowl. Im not sure I want to bet against the desires of the Yankess and their money. You?
And, it really wasnt hard to be a huge BE football fan with VTech, Miami and BC. I saw some unbelievable games. Da U was rolling. Mick Vick was unstoppable. McNabb was amazing. There were A LOT of great players in the old BE. No doubt about it.
Quote from: BEfootballview on May 29, 2011, 10:06:58 PM
LOL! Nice. Well played, sir.
There are more of 'me' out there...you just have to live in the original BE footprint to notice. Most right now are hybernating. :( Morgantown is still solidly football. Rutgers is a 'sleeping giant!' ...at least that is what their fans have been saying for decades! Go ahead, take another decade-long Ambien, Rutgers. I'll admit, Ray Rice certainly helped them. The fact that they are No.1 in the country in scheduling FCS teams, on the other hand, does not help them. You can always spot someone who 'pretends' to know BE football when they say Rutgers is turning into a real "program." No, they are not. Just because Schiano has a helicopter to visit recruits does not make them legit. They are still.....Buttgers, Rutgirls, Snookie U. Ok, Ill admit it...I dont like them much.
Pitt is a fball school. They have fans though Wannstadt drove some away in recent years. They will come back.
Cuse is a football school as well. I guess it depends on who you ask though. Anyone under 30 will say its a bball school. Anyone over 30 will say its a football school. The Carrier Dome isnt nicknamed The Loud House because of bball. Not even close. I think their Pinstripe Bowl in Yankee Stadium really helped them. Btw, that call against KState for excessive celebration in the endzone was GARBAGE! Im pretty sure that call came down from the Steinbrenner family box. They paid the BE more money to steer Syracuse to their bowl because they wanted their tradition to be a part of the first Pinstripe bowl....a bowl that the Yankees want to turn into a BCS bowl. Im not sure I want to bet against the desires of the Yankess and their money. You?
And, it really wasnt hard to be a huge BE football fan with VTech, Miami and BC. I saw some unbelievable games. Da U was rolling. Mick Vick was unstoppable. McNabb was amazing. There were A LOT of great players in the old BE. No doubt about it.
If this post had more crap than poor grammar, I wouldn't have finished reading it.
Syracuse a football school? The same school that had to start Greg Paulus at QB? How many BCS schools have to start a QB transfer with one year of eligiblity that hasn't played football in four years?
Pinstripe Bowl? Good joke, won't exist in four years.
Quote from: Benny B on May 27, 2011, 12:32:24 PM
This is just flat wrong. First of all, I have complained about the rising cost of cable, and I have dropped my service. But that aside, your comment wasn't intended to be about me, it was about the general public. Even so, if you Google "declining cable subscriptions," "HTPC," "streaming television," and "over the air HD," you'll find that while I may be in the minority, the number of people like me are growing exponentially.
This is a good point. I'm 26, I have a pretty good income (most of it going toward finishing off my student loans, at the moment) and I have no cable subscription. And I even have a brand new television in my apartment. I can't imagine any scenario under which I would buy cable (etc.) in its current forms. Every single person I know who has it says the price eventually balloons to $60/mo. or more.
I'd rather watch the 2-3 shows I'm interested in on Hulu etc. And get the free channels over the air.
Quote from: marqptm on May 30, 2011, 09:07:20 AM
If this post had more crap than poor grammar, I wouldn't have finished reading it.
Syracuse a football school? The same school that had to start Greg Paulus at QB? How many BCS schools have to start a QB transfer with one year of eligiblity that hasn't played football in four years?
Pinstripe Bowl? Good joke, won't exist in four years.
It's also the same school that produced the greatest running back in NFL history...Jim Brown. Also the same school that produced a Super Bowl QB in Donovan McNabb. 3 time SB winner Moose Johnston of the Cowboys, Super Bowl winner Marvin Harrison of the Colts, Super Bowl winner Dwight Freeney of the Colts, etc, etc. Ernie Davis, Floyd Little, Larry Csonka, etc, etc. The poster is exactly correct, depending on what era you are talking about, Syracuse was definitely a football school. All depends who you ask. Hell, they won a national title in football for crying out loud.
I'm done with my hand wringing.
Hey Big East football guy poster...careful...ners will accuse you of being my friend or 84's step son or something else....be careful with your "pattern" of posting. :o
Quote from: Benny B on May 27, 2011, 12:32:24 PM
This is just flat wrong. First of all, I have complained about the rising cost of cable, and I have dropped my service. But that aside, your comment wasn't intended to be about me, it was about the general public. Even so, if you Google "declining cable subscriptions," "HTPC," "streaming television," and "over the air HD," you'll find that while I may be in the minority, the number of people like me are growing exponentially.
I see your point, and it's well taken. However, I would point out that in the Big East, there were over 425 basketball games last year; there were less than 90 football games. Football more popular you say? Without a doubt, but popularity doesn't always equal viewership. The 2010-11 bowl games drew a combined 221 million viewers in 34 bowl games (6.5 million per game). The 2011 NCAA tournament drew an average of 10.2 million viewers per game. In other words, if it's live-sports opportunities you want, basketball - not football - is where it's at.
Cable providers are as dead as the BCS. The distribution model is changing. MLB already markets its product directly to the consumer. ESPN3 does the same thing. Look for more content providers to cut out the middle man (the Comcasts, Time Warners, etc.) as more and more of the $1-5k televisions come with internet connectivity. Further, in 10 years, everything will be a la carte... people won't be forced into subscribing to ESPN, BTN, etc. if they don't want to. This is going to be a huge blow to the networks who won't be able to force 5 people to pay for their product for each person who truly wants the product.
Sorry Benny, for about 6 months there everyone was jumping around in the media saying cable \ tv subscriptions were dropping. Now they flipped back. TV pay model growing like it has been. Cord Cutting is happening at a very small level. Cord shaving, a different phenomenon, is happening to some extent but then when people realize what they can't get from Netflix, Hulu, etc (mostly sports, first run, any HBO, etc, etc,) studies are finding people coming back again. No question the model is "changing" but it's not how you describe it.
The problem with your argument of everything being a la carte is simple....THE CONTENT PRODUCERS. ESPN right now gets $4.00+ from about 100million television households through the current model. Other channels get huge amounts guaranteed as well, and from those guarantees they produce content. Let's look at ESPN again, do 100 million television homes want ESPN? Nope. Yet they all pay for it because every MSO has to put ESPN into their packages because of the power they have. ESPN, HBO, etc, etc all have to decide if they want to kill the golden goose (the current model) and take a chance that people buy enough of their programming a la carte to make it work....in other words, people will be paying a lot more for each channel you choose then to get it bundled. I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand, but apparently it is.
HBO has already made their choice recently by telling Netflix to grab a tailpipe and inhale. A number of others are about to follow suit...look for STARZ \ Liberty to pull out in Q1 OR require Netflix to drop over a $1billion plus to keep them...that means Netflix pricing is going to go up. Then you factor in broadband media caps which will be here in ernest in the next 2 years, suddenly all that downloading you're doing just because as expensive as taking it in via the regular pipe.
The content providers are the key. It's going to be a wild ride. Some providers will go on their own, attempt to sell directly. Some will resist. The end of the day, the cost of television subscriptions is driven by the cost of the content providers and if you think they want to take it in the shorts you're kidding yourselves. Our programming costs have been rising 9% to 12% each year the last five years, but we only pass on price increases of about 4.5% meaning margin compression.
At the end of the day, very few people are using Netflix on it's own or Hulu on it's own...you are a rare breed. Even Netflix's own internal statements shed light on what is happening...they are supplemental services, not stand alone services because they cannot offer what people want, especially at those prices.
More specifically, Netflix stated that:
Since last year, online video use has more than doubled and the recession has receded somewhat. So, if online video use was driving cord cutting, the behavior would have intensified. On the other hand, if it was the recession that was driving people to drop MVPD [multichannel video programming distributor - ie. cable and satellite companies] subscriptions, cord cutting would have moderated. In fact, not only did cord cutting slow, it became cord mending with total U.S. MVPD households growing in the latest estimates. ((Netflix's Letter To Shareholders, Q1 2011, Document Available on Netflix's Website))
And more...
Simply put, the data show that Netflix is a supplemental channel to MVPD. While Netflix is likely to show huge growth again this year, we think MVPD cord cutting will be minimal to non-existent. We hear some stories from customers who have Netflix and no MVPD service, but these are generally people who rely on free broadcast TV (which is now in HD) and supplement with Netflix, rather than switching from MVPD to online. ((ref:1))
Quote from: marqptm on May 30, 2011, 09:07:20 AM
If this post had more crap than poor grammar, I wouldn't have finished reading it.
Syracuse a football school? The same school that had to start Greg Paulus at QB? How many BCS schools have to start a QB transfer with one year of eligiblity that hasn't played football in four years?
Pinstripe Bowl? Good joke, won't exist in four years.
6 years. I think you meant to say the Pinstripes Bowl "wont exist in six years." The Yankees have a contract with ESPN that will televise the game for 5 more years....
Also, I think you missed the part where I stated that it depends on your age as to whether you think Syracuse is a football school or not. Younger people were only exposed to the years of Greg Robinson and his 9-36 record as HC from 05-08 (or the last years of Pasqualoni in the early 2000's). Those people dont remember (or even know) that a freshman McNabb threw to Marvin Harrison (a senior). Remember 'The Missile' Quadry Ismail? Back when the Carrier Dome lived up to its name as The Loud House, people used to sell foam earplugs as you walked into the dome. Now? No. And I doubt they have ever done that for bball games.
I was at this game with some Pitt alums. Just drove up for the heck of it. Couldnt hear my friends sitting next to me for most of the game. After the last play, my ears rang for 2 days after (should have bought those earplugs, I guess).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awGdapqFiKI
At the end of the day, there are a lot of people like you. It's up to that athletic department to change its image back to what it used to be. Im guessing its tough to do when you lose your biggest football rival, Boston College and play in a bball centric conference. Their athletic department just made an interesting hire (and he's not a bball guy): http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/ncf/columns/story?columnist=cimini_rich&id=6596721
I seriously doubt a true split will ever happen with the football schools completely parting ways with all of the Basketball only schools. Guess what people never thought the big east would last this long. They didn't think we could have success. We proved them wrong. The fact is BE football will never be big time or solid enough to warrant breaking off. The football schools need the basketball schools. Not as much as the Basketball Schools need the football schools. But badly enough that making a true split would be stupid on their part.
A basketball only league no matter who you included in it would be bad for the current big east baskeball schools. Not in terms of on the court success necessarily or even recruiting. But in terms of money. ESPN would not pay for that league as much as they'd pay for the current big east. THe basketball only schools are mostly small private schools with small fan bases. In addition schools like Georgetown and Villanova would be devastated. They have huge athletic departments that support significantly more sports than the other Basketball schools. ND also would never want to join such a league these three teams need a conference that can support their non revenue sports.
Most likely scenario is this hodgpodge situation continues indefinitely in my opinion. It's working. Football coaches and fans may not be happy with the situation, but currently there's just not a better option for the football schools. They can't poach any established programs from major conferences anyone they add will most liely not make the league stronger nor add enough revenue to defer the cost of adding another member. Most Championship Games are not money Makers I believe the ACC's loses money and the B12 did not find their championship game worthwhile either.
but the most likely scenario after that would be for the football schools to break off, but include the top tier basketball schools to join them. This is where Marquette would really benefit from Villanova joining BE football. As it stands now assuming no nova football is most likely Georgetown, Nova, ND, and Probably St. John's for the NY market, tradition, and MSG. If Nova is already part of Football though the 4th team in would be Marquette. That league no matter if it's 10 or 12 football schools would be even stronger than the current BE set up would solve football's media markets problem and on the whole be the perfect solution. You lose providence, Depaul, Seton Hall which are currently at the bottom of the BE, but retain the strong basketball conference will great media markets.
Quote from: hoyasincebirth on June 05, 2011, 12:55:41 PM
I seriously doubt a true split will ever happen with the football schools completely parting ways with all of the Basketball only schools. Guess what people never thought the big east would last this long. They didn't think we could have success. We proved them wrong. The fact is BE football will never be big time or solid enough to warrant breaking off. The football schools need the basketball schools. Not as much as the Basketball Schools need the football schools. But badly enough that making a true split would be stupid on their part.
A basketball only league no matter who you included in it would be bad for the current big east baskeball schools. Not in terms of on the court success necessarily or even recruiting. But in terms of money. ESPN would not pay for that league as much as they'd pay for the current big east. THe basketball only schools are mostly small private schools with small fan bases. In addition schools like Georgetown and Villanova would be devastated. They have huge athletic departments that support significantly more sports than the other Basketball schools. ND also would never want to join such a league these three teams need a conference that can support their non revenue sports.
Most likely scenario is this hodgpodge situation continues indefinitely in my opinion. It's working. Football coaches and fans may not be happy with the situation, but currently there's just not a better option for the football schools. They can't poach any established programs from major conferences anyone they add will most liely not make the league stronger nor add enough revenue to defer the cost of adding another member. Most Championship Games are not money Makers I believe the ACC's loses money and the B12 did not find their championship game worthwhile either.
but the most likely scenario after that would be for the football schools to break off, but include the top tier basketball schools to join them. This is where Marquette would really benefit from Villanova joining BE football. As it stands now assuming no nova football is most likely Georgetown, Nova, ND, and Probably St. John's for the NY market, tradition, and MSG. If Nova is already part of Football though the 4th team in would be Marquette. That league no matter if it's 10 or 12 football schools would be even stronger than the current BE set up would solve football's media markets problem and on the whole be the perfect solution. You lose providence, Depaul, Seton Hall which are currently at the bottom of the BE, but retain the strong basketball conference will great media markets.
The question is really whether the reduction in revenue by losing the basketball schools is larger or smaller than the current payout to the basketball schools.
If the basketball schools bring in an extra $10 million per year on the revenue side, but their share of the cut is $12 million per year, guess what?
The goal of the football schools is not to maximize overall league revenue.
The goal is to maximize the payout to each football school.
The only way we'll stay part of the BE is if we are willing to accept less than our incremental value to the conference.
Quote from: Marquette84 on June 05, 2011, 08:15:58 PM
The question is really whether the reduction in revenue by losing the basketball schools is larger or smaller than the current payout to the basketball schools.
If the basketball schools bring in an extra $10 million per year on the revenue side, but their share of the cut is $12 million per year, guess what?
The goal of the football schools is not to maximize overall league revenue.
The goal is to maximize the payout to each football school.
The only way we'll stay part of the BE is if we are willing to accept less than our incremental value to the conference.
If I were John Nash, I would be slapping you silly right now. Then I'd wake up and wonder where the hell I was, and then I would probably start slapping you again.
Quote from: Marquette84 on May 29, 2011, 03:47:00 PMYou can't have a "Lake Woebegone Conference" were all of the teams are above average. Someone has to finish last.
?-( But I
did put DePaul in there...
Quote from: hoyasincebirth on June 05, 2011, 12:55:41 PM
but the most likely scenario after that would be for the football schools to break off, but include the top tier basketball schools to join them. This is where Marquette would really benefit from Villanova joining BE football. As it stands now assuming no nova football is most likely Georgetown, Nova, ND, and Probably St. John's for the NY market, tradition, and MSG. If Nova is already part of Football though the 4th team in would be Marquette. That league no matter if it's 10 or 12 football schools would be even stronger than the current BE set up would solve football's media markets problem and on the whole be the perfect solution. You lose providence, Depaul, Seton Hall which are currently at the bottom of the BE, but retain the strong basketball conference will great media markets.
I think that is exactly why MU pays their coach the way it has and has done things like add lacrosse. They have to make it hard for the BE to drop them.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on June 07, 2011, 08:01:40 AM
I think that is exactly why MU pays their coach the way it has and has done things like add lacrosse. They have to make it hard for the BE to drop them.
MU isn't just making it hard, but they're adapting & reacting - traits seen often amongst survivors.
Consider the investment that MU is making with the addition of LAX. I'll leave the math to someone who better understands accounting of university athletic departments, but we're probably talking an eight-figure investment in the first five years alone. Further, I would say that in a best-case scenario, the revenue generated would cover only 10%, maybe 15%, of that investment. Simply by adding LAX, MU has demonstrated its commitment to the Big East.
In my opinion, MU wouldn't be adding LAX unless it felt pretty damn assured that A) the Big East "brand" isn't going anywhere (i.e. a football split) and B) MU isn't in any danger of being dismissed from the conference.
Assuming the league splits up, what is the correct number for basketball schools? You need 12 football schools to have a playoff. For basketball I think the perfect league is 10. You would then play everytime twice in a home and home schedule for an 18 game conference season. While I would miss playing some of the football schools, the home and home schedule versus an unbalanced schedule is more attractive to me. Villanova, St. John's, Georgetown, DePaul, Notre Dame, Seton Hall, Providence, Marquette and two other teams is all you need. What would hurt MU, is Villanova upgrading football and/or Notre Dame going to Big 10. Removing either of those teams from this basketball league would be a hugh loss.
Quote from: bilsu on June 07, 2011, 09:22:59 AM
Assuming the league splits up, what is the correct number for basketball schools? You need 12 football schools to have a playoff. For basketball I think the perfect league is 10. You would then play everytime twice in a home and home schedule for an 18 game conference season. While I would miss playing some of the football schools, the home and home schedule versus an unbalanced schedule is more attractive to me. Villanova, St. John's, Georgetown, DePaul, Notre Dame, Seton Hall, Providence, Marquette and two other teams is all you need. What would hurt MU, is Villanova upgrading football and/or Notre Dame going to Big 10. Removing either of those teams from this basketball league would be a hugh loss.
If ND hasn't gone to the Big 10 yet, they probably won't be going for a long while.
Quote from: bilsu on June 07, 2011, 09:22:59 AM
Assuming the league splits up, what is the correct number for basketball schools? You need 12 football schools to have a playoff. For basketball I think the perfect league is 10. You would then play everytime twice in a home and home schedule for an 18 game conference season. While I would miss playing some of the football schools, the home and home schedule versus an unbalanced schedule is more attractive to me. Villanova, St. John's, Georgetown, DePaul, Notre Dame, Seton Hall, Providence, Marquette and two other teams is all you need. What would hurt MU, is Villanova upgrading football and/or Notre Dame going to Big 10. Removing either of those teams from this basketball league would be a hugh loss.
I love the unbalanced Big East schedule. Consistently playing unfamiliar elite opponents on the road (and at home) is awesome preparation for the tourney, when it really matters.
Quote from: bilsu on June 07, 2011, 09:22:59 AMAssuming the league splits up, what is the correct number for basketball schools? You need 12 football schools to have a playoff. For basketball I think the perfect league is 10. You would then play everytime twice in a home and home schedule for an 18 game conference season. While I would miss playing some of the football schools, the home and home schedule versus an unbalanced schedule is more attractive to me. Villanova, St. John's, Georgetown, DePaul, Notre Dame, Seton Hall, Providence, Marquette and two other teams is all you need. What would hurt MU, is Villanova upgrading football and/or Notre Dame going to Big 10. Removing either of those teams from this basketball league would be a hugh loss.
Scheduling-wise, ten is great. I'd be a fan of twelve with a 16-game schedule. Play the other five teams in your division twice in home-and-homes and each of the opposite division teams once. The drawback is that you have a bit more non-con scheduling to do.
I also like twelve because I think it sets up better for the conference tourney, especially in terms of marketing rights. It's easier to sell four games on the first day, which include a couple teams in the top-six overall of the league, than it is to sell two games on the first day that are simply the bottom four teams of the league.
I saw this article on Boston College's move to the ACC and noticed
QuoteStill, the BC-ACC marriage appears solid, despite the Big East's standing offer for BC to return. ACC commissioner John Swofford said BC has brought much more to the conference than simply a New England address.
http://articles.boston.com/2011-06-19/sports/29677378_1_acc-bc-president-frank-spaziani
Quote from: Homebrew101 on June 21, 2011, 08:54:24 AM
I saw this article on Boston College's move to the ACC and noticed
http://articles.boston.com/2011-06-19/sports/29677378_1_acc-bc-president-frank-spaziani
Interesting. When Pitt and Villanova played that regional final in Boston, it kinda highlighted the gap that was left for the Big East there. I wish they'd come back. Another football school, and another Catholic school to play.
Interesting. Although, it was a strange read. It wasn't, "Thank god we're in the ACC!" or "It was the greatest thing ever we could do for our sports programs." or "We've excited BC sports fans with this move". Instead it came across strictly as "the finances are good" and "oh yeah, the finances are good" and "we're stable for what we think the long term and BC fans should be excited that we're going to play Harvard, Holy Cross & UMass."