Big East at Crossroads?

[GGGG]

but there was no point in what Dana was saying. Yes, the sky is blue. I thought Val did a great job in her speech. Her job is different in what Mike had to deal with.

OK...so you simply want sunshine blown up your ass. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

I was under the impression that many of you were "boycotting" espn. It's interesting that so many of their articles are linked here while almost none from foxsports are linked. Strange.

Nah, peeps just boycotting Thursday night football....ESPN is still in the target acquired mode.

[Galway Eagle]

OK...so you simply want sunshine blown up your ass. 

That'd be the Worst sunburn ever

[JakeBarnes]

Meet me at the crossroads.

[Tums Festival]

The article is typical ESPN in that it paints the Big East as "at a crossroads" in an attempt to build up its beloved ACC without offering any alternative solution to what the C7 schools could have done differently. Obviously the college sports landscape is light years different than it was back in 1979. And the day the Big East got into the football business was the day Dave Gavitt's "vision" started to slowly die. The conference will continue to improve and find its way, it just takes a bit of time.

[Dish]

People are boycotting Thurs night football? This is a thing?

Weird.

[Johnny B]

At least the Big East was on the front page.

[Dawson Rental]

At least the Big East was on the front page.

"The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about."
                                                         ---Oscar Wilde

[Dawson Rental]

That is technially correct. Legally speaking, the AAC is the actually successor to the Big East. They sold us the name. 99.9% of the population does not know the difference or care, but we are technically a new conference.

That is actually what occurred.  

Do either of you guys -or anyone else for that matter- know whether either The (new) Big East or the American Athletic is keeping the records for the (old) Big East?  In other words, did Villanova just win its first conference regular season championship?

[Litehouse]

Big East keeps the historical records.  The American is starting fresh.

[GoldenWarrior11]

If anything, I would consider the AAC at a crossroads.

They have 5 teams in football that have 3 or fewer wins, 3 of which have 1 or fewer wins (SMU still has zero).  They are 3-17 against P5 teams this season, in addition to having an 8-26 record against other conferences.  They have 7 schools that average below 30,000 people at home games. including 4 schools that average under 60% capacity. 

In basketball, they had 5 schools in 2013-14 that had a 140 RPI or lower (Houston-143, Temple-179, Rutgers-196, UCF-215, and USF-227).  This year, by replacing Louisville (19) and Rutgers with ECU and Tulane, they will now be adding the 219th and 223rd ranked teams in RPI last year.  They really lucked out by piggy-backing the success of UCONN's championship season.

The AAC used the exact same colors, imagery and former schools of Conference USA, doing absolutely nothing to displace public opinion that the AAC is not a power conference, and nothing more than just a best-of-the rest conference.  The league has a mixture of Southern, Midwestern and Northeastern schools that are public and private, with some focusing on basketball and others football.  The AAC, not the Big East, is in much more trouble long term IMHO.

[TheBurrEffect]

Lists Providence and Seton Hall as heavy lifters. Fails to mention Marquettes Ncaa tournament runs since 2010.

[chapman]

Lists Providence and Seton Hall as heavy lifters. Fails to mention Marquettes Ncaa tournament runs since 2010.

Apparently the first 26 years matter but not the last nine, so what we do doesn't matter since nobody associates us with the Big East.  All eyes are on Seton Hall to champion the conference. 

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

If anything, I would consider the AAC at a crossroads.

They have 5 teams in football that have 3 or fewer wins, 3 of which have 1 or fewer wins (SMU still has zero).  They are 3-17 against P5 teams this season, in addition to having an 8-26 record against other conferences.  They have 7 schools that average below 30,000 people at home games. including 4 schools that average under 60% capacity. 

In basketball, they had 5 schools in 2013-14 that had a 140 RPI or lower (Houston-143, Temple-179, Rutgers-196, UCF-215, and USF-227).  This year, by replacing Louisville (19) and Rutgers with ECU and Tulane, they will now be adding the 219th and 223rd ranked teams in RPI last year.  They really lucked out by piggy-backing the success of UCONN's championship season.

The AAC used the exact same colors, imagery and former schools of Conference USA, doing absolutely nothing to displace public opinion that the AAC is not a power conference, and nothing more than just a best-of-the rest conference.  The league has a mixture of Southern, Midwestern and Northeastern schools that are public and private, with some focusing on basketball and others football.  The AAC, not the Big East, is in much more trouble long term IMHO.

+1

The AAC is gonna be the east coast WCC. A crappy conference with three really strong programs at the top

[GGGG]

+1

The AAC is gonna be the east coast WCC. A crappy conference with three really strong programs at the top

But those three programs are much better than Gonzaga.  And the quality of a conference, fairly or unfairly, is judged in part by the quality at the top.

[77ncaachamps]

God am I tired of the "blame ESPN" approach to everything.  You see it with PSU fans and Sandusky...you see it with FSU fans and Winston...and here.

That article is 100% fair.

Not questioning the fairness of the article as much as ESPN seems to attack and question non-ESPN entities more than their own. Rather, they say more positive things about their own than others.

[Atticus]

Not questioning the fairness of the article as much as ESPN seems to attack and question non-ESPN entities more than their own. Rather, they say more positive things about their own than others.

Is this post sarcasm? I hope it is...but I'm not really sure it is.

[WarriorInNYC]

I don't find the article particularly heinous, but ESPN has an agenda in everything it does.  I think a lot of fanbases go too far with it or overhype it but ESPN has a slant to everything it does.

It is not a media organization, it is an entertainment organization.  They own the SEC network and have a vested interest in it's success.....plug in the hype machine.  ESPN is a competitor to the Big Ten Network, hence a bias against the Big Ten.  Same goes with the Big East.  Etc.  The revenue dollars color the coverage.

They are financially invested in hyping some things and down playing others.  I don't think it's huge by any stretch of the imagine but to dismiss it as not a thing is disingenuous.

+1

I think some of the "Blame ESPN" on here is a little overdone, and sometimes people seem to seek it out.  But to discard that they have a slant to suit their interests is a bit naive and it can be noticed in pieces they write.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I don't find the article particularly heinous, but ESPN has an agenda in everything it does.  I think a lot of fanbases go too far with it or overhype it but ESPN has a slant to everything it does.

It is not a media organization, it is an entertainment organization.  They own the SEC network and have a vested interest in it's success.....plug in the hype machine.  ESPN is a competitor to the Big Ten Network, hence a bias against the Big Ten.  Same goes with the Big East.  Etc.  The revenue dollars color the coverage.

They are financially invested in hyping some things and down playing others.  I don't think it's huge by any stretch of the imagine but to dismiss it as not a thing is disingenuous.

It has a news division and an entertainment division.  I have many friends that work in the business\entertainment division and they don't talk to the news \ editorial side.   Church and state.  If you read all the negative articles on Goodell and the NFL during the Ray Rice stuff, that would come out pretty clearly.  The business guys were wincing every time the editorial side did a piece.  Let's just say I find it a lot less agenda driven than say the agenda driven stuff around policies, etc...see Sheryl Attkisson's book release over the weekend as an example.

It's college basketball season, the Big East wasn't particularly good last year and articles get written about things like this.  No one at ESPN business side is ordering hit pieces on the Big East or the Big Ten, etc.  The Big Ten gets skewered because it isn't very good, they're just reporting the reality of it.  Last year, the Big East wasn't very good, quite frankly.

[ChicosBailBonds]

+1

I think some of the "Blame ESPN" on here is a little overdone, and sometimes people seem to seek it out.  But to discard that they have a slant to suit their interests is a bit naive and it can be noticed in pieces they write.

I don't see it.....every fan base rips ESPN, do they have a slant against every single conference, league, team? 

[Eldon]

Keep in mind that the article was written by Dana O'Neil, who, if I remember correctly, graduated from Villanova (and also covered them as a local beat reporter for some Philly newspaper).

I read the article and it didn't come off as super anti BE or anything.  However, I didn't like that she basically claimed that MU and DePaul were never essential BE programs, but Louisville was.  I get that Louisville did more in the BE than we did, but still, I read it as her trying to have it both ways--the BE has been fully dismantled, in part by the addition of new programs (e.g., Butler, MU, Depaul, etc), and in part by the loss of key programs (eg, Syracuse, UCONN, and Louisville, etc).  Which is it?  Were the CUSA expats key programs that helped the BE brand, or were they new programs that really did nothing to add to the BE brand.  But I think this quasi-cherry picking is just her trying to fit the narrative of her story qua author not qua ESPN employee.  Furthermore, keep in mind that I call this cherry-picking because I am an MU fan.

[slingkong]

I don't think people, in general, are blaming ESPN for anything. They're criticizing clearly slanted writing. Specifically regarding this article, O'Neil may have previously covered Nova but she writes like she hasn't seen a thing from the BE since then or, at least, since the league grew almost 10 years ago. I don't know if she was covering Nova then, but she definitely writes in this article as if she was not and hasn't paid any attention since then, either.

[GGGG]

I hardly would call this "clearly slanted writing."  By and large I think people are over-sensitive when things have a negative tone, and blame the source and some sort of perceived bias.

[Atticus]

Not questioning the fairness of the article as much as ESPN seems to attack and question non-ESPN entities more than their own. Rather, they say more positive things about their own than others.

I just a commercial that advertised motor oil. The company said it was superior to "other brands." So shameful.

Remember the PC vs Apple commercials? The fat, nerd in a suit said he was good at spreadsheets. The cool hipster that represented Apple said he liked photos, videos and super cool things. I thought to myield, can't we all get along? Why does there have to be competition?

I walked to a nearby Italian restaurant tonight and asked the owner what his thoughts were on the new Italian restaurant that opened two blocks away. He said, "I love everything about it. The menu, the service, and the atmosphere are wonderful. In fact, if you can't find me here at my restaurant, I'm probably down the street at my competitors place eating dinner with my family."



I thought I would add to the stupidity of this thread.

[Pakuni]

Suggesting a league is "at a crossroads" after one year is stupid.
Suggesting that stupid word choice is a result of some ESPN conspiracy is equally stupid.
It's a stupid story, something ESPN produces regularly almost by its very nature. Nothing more.