collapse

Resources

2024-2025 SOTG Tally


2024-25 Season SoG Tally
Jones, K.10
Mitchell6
Joplin4
Ross2
Gold1

'23-24 '22-23
'21-22 * '20-21 * '19-20
'18-19 * '17-18 * '16-17
'15-16 * '14-15 * '13-14
'12-13 * '11-12 * '10-11

Big East Standings

Recent Posts

[Cracked Sidewalks] Previewing Marquette's Schedule by MU82
[September 18, 2025, 12:05:43 PM]


Welcome, BJ Matthews by dgies9156
[September 18, 2025, 11:44:59 AM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address. We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or signup NOW!

Next up: A long offseason

Marquette
66
Marquette
Scrimmage
Date/Time: Oct 4, 2025
TV: NA
Schedule for 2024-25
New Mexico
75

GGGG

http://www.boston.com/sports/colleges/mens_basketball/articles/2011/10/09/power_move_by_acc/?page=1

While not the primary reason, it seems like it was most certainly the way they used to get Duke and UNC on board.  Oh, and BC openly brags about keeping UConn out, since they were the ACC's original choice ahead of Pitt.

Dr. Blackheart

And this from Street & Smith's Sports Business Journal...ACC can reopen ESPN deal for two added teams at a time. 

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2011/09/26/Colleges/ACC.aspx

brewcity77

I think this pretty much shows that basketball was the primary reason. Despite the guy from BC saying otherwise, it all seems to stem from the ACC being upset at dropping down to fifth in the conference ratings, and the Big East kicking their collective asses with 11 bids. And the only way UNC and Duke would do it was if the focus was on basketball powerhouses.

Just like in the Big East, basketball is driving the bus in the ACC.

GGGG

Well, I don't think it was the primary factor.  As Dr. Blackheart's article says, they needed two to re-open their football contract.  But the choice of schools was meant to passify the bball schools who were unhappy with the football-based choices of their last expansion.

muhs03

Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on October 09, 2011, 01:17:15 PM
Well, I don't think it was the primary factor.  As Dr. Blackheart's article says, they needed two to re-open their football contract.  But the choice of schools was meant to passify the bball schools who were unhappy with the football-based choices of their last expansion.

On top of that, it seems like BC blocking UConn was actually a good thing for the ACC. UConn fball is too young and they dont even have rivalries in the BE yet. Pitt at least has a history of playing BC, Miami and VTech prior to 2003.

forgetful

I find it interesting that the article states that ESPN told/advised them on what to do.  There seems to be a considerable conflict of interest there.

They were negotiating for Big East television rights and their initial deal was turned down.  So they go to the ACC and tell them to go after Big East teams to increase their TV deal.  I'm not certain that such actions are illegal, but they certainly are unethical.


brewcity77

Quote from: forgetful on October 09, 2011, 02:11:10 PMI find it interesting that the article states that ESPN told/advised them on what to do.  There seems to be a considerable conflict of interest there.

They were negotiating for Big East television rights and their initial deal was turned down.  So they go to the ACC and tell them to go after Big East teams to increase their TV deal.  I'm not certain that such actions are illegal, but they certainly are unethical.

I'd say it merits hiring a lawyer to find out. At the least, Pitt seems to have been the lead in those failed Big East/ESPN negotiations. Their tanking of that deal potentially robbed a billion dollars from the 14 remaining Big East members. That has to be some form of contract tampering and clearly is not negotiating in good faith.

muhs03

Quote from: brewcity77 on October 09, 2011, 02:20:37 PM
I'd say it merits hiring a lawyer to find out. At the least, Pitt seems to have been the lead in those failed Big East/ESPN negotiations. Their tanking of that deal potentially robbed a billion dollars from the 14 remaining Big East members. That has to be some form of contract tampering and clearly is not negotiating in good faith.

No one team can turn away a deal for an entire conference. WVU was against it also. GTown was against it. Seton Hall was against. ND was against it. Im not sure if Rutgers was against it or not but they sure seemed to be. Granted, Pitt's president provided the leadership...but who put him in charge of it? Did the schools vote to put him in that position? Furthermore, the commissioner kept talking about how turning down the deal was a good thing because the schools would get more money with a competitive offer. One could argue that the BE contract would have been more than the ACC's current deal (and maybe even their upcoming deal). Yet, they still left. With that said, maybe their move wasnt about the money. As I said, they can only cast one vote. What about Tagliabue? GTown voted it down... 

TedBaxter

TV is the best and worst thing to happen to college basketball with the shoe companies right along with them.  Both influence a great deal of the negatives surrounding the sport while also having some positives.
If You Aren't All In For Marquette Basketball, Move On

texaswarrior74

Calls "Cuse and Pitt to the ACC "predatory" and says that BC blocked a UConn move to the ACC.

Talks about the "Catholic" conference.

http://www.boston.com/sports/colleges/mens_basketball/articles/2011/10/09/power_move_by_acc/?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed2

MU Fan in Connecticut

After the State of Connecticut helps ESPN out they in turn thank the state university by imploding the Big East?

http://www.governor.ct.gov/malloy/cwp/view.asp?Q=484086&A=4010

Previous topic - Next topic