If the defense of Catholicism is the basis for maintaining a unified Big East under one umbrella, then depicting the detractions to this assertion is fair game.
Of course no one suggested any such thing.
Regardless, if someone like SEC03 is going to assert such detractions, then it is fair game to disagree with him & to challenge his assertions. There was nothing legitimate in anything he asserted. Notre Dame has nothing in its approach to education & research in common with the so-called "faith based" institutions with which he compared them. Their Engineering & Physics departments would never sponsor the kinds of junk science that those institutions offer. The Big Ten would be very comfortable collaborating witht their professors in research exchanges.
To identify that UCONN is the only complete Big East member is absurd. That is similar to saying the Universities of Kentucky and South Carolina are not complete SEC members because they affiliate with C-USA for men's soccer. The SEC does not sponsor men's soccer. If they did, they would be playing soccer in the conference.
You'd better check the participation of the football schools - including Louisville - in the sports that the Big east actually does sponsor. UConn is the only one that participates in all Big East sports. This is not
the same as the SEC comparison. Fans of the football schools can't go around calling their schools "all sports" if they don't compete in all sports which the conference sponsors.
This analogy is way different as to Notre Dame's choice. The Big East sponsors football and Notre Dame WITHHOLDS their football from Big East or any other conference participation.
Villanova & Georgetown also withhold their football from Big East participation. The conference directly solicited their participation & they refused. Why not complain about them?
Notre Dame was accepted as a member without football - same as the other 7 members that don't participate in football. That was by mutual agreement. They're not withholding anything. That was the deal agreed to by both parties a dozen years ago. The Big East said that they wanted Notre Dame without football
. A little late to start whining about it now. ND is living up to its contract & is withholding nothing that was promised. Period.
The Big East was formulated initially on men's basketball. It did not originate based on women's gymnastics. If it did, the historical configurations would look much different.
Exactly. By the way, the Big East doesn't offer competition in men's or women's gymnastics.
Louisville won the Big East football representation to the BCS this year. That was done without playing Notre Dame. If Notre Dame and Louisville play some future football as attempts are being explored, that may prove delightful. Louisville, as well as the other seven football members, certainly have their choices for OOC games as interests, resources, availability, and strategy permits.
Really? Could you please tell me who Louisville had on its schedule this year of the caliber of Notre Dame? Louisville was turned down by every member of the SEC except Kentucky in an effort to upgrade its OOC schedule this year. Obtaining ranked teams as OOC opponents is very, very difficult. It is critical for the success of the Big East that they schedule such games both to improve the perception of the conference & to compensate for the fact that they only play 7 in-conference games when everyone else playes 8 or 9. Getting Notre Dame on the schedule would be an enormous asset both in strength of schedule & in revenue.
To lock in Notre Dame as a required opponent when the game would not count toward conference rankings, should be a choice, not a mandate. Notre Dame, with all their popularity and lucrative incentives, are not the only option for high profile games OOC.
No one cares about conference rankings. What the BCS cares about is strenth of schedule & strength of teams. Notre Dame on the schedule would help with both.
Of course it should be a strength. What has been proposed here is that it is a choice the conference should make. Of course they don't have to.
Since you have repeated that ND is not the only choice for high profile games, I ask you again. Who are the other choices? If the Big East wants to get a 1-loss champions like Louisville picked over a 1-loss champions like Florida, they must
improve SOS by adding more challenging opponents to their schedules. Florida was picked because they beat 3 ranked teams & their only loss was to a ranked team. Louisville beat only one ranked team & lost to one other. That kind of schedule won't get it done.
Too many Notre Dame enablers are around who want to create arrangements that benefit Notre Dame disproportionately. To bring Notre Dame into a potentially split Big East football conference based on promised games, but not full conference participation, with the HOPE they will eventually join in full; is lame and flawed judgment.
Enablers?? Aren't we getting high & mighty? "Enabler" is defined as a family member who facilitates an alcoholic's or drug addict's addiction. We're talking about college football here, not addiction. wrong use of the term.
The suggestion of bringing in ND on a part time basis was made with the stated intention of helping the Big East, not for the intention of helping ND. Feel free to disagree with the merits of that argument, but don't make claims about the proposal that were never stated. Nor was it stated that there was a hope that ND would join. They want to be independent & I agree that it would be a mistake to base any future plans on the hope that they would join.
Notre Dame and the 7 basketball oriented schools just happen to be Catholic. The issue is not religion, but the sponsorship of 1A football in the conference. Boston College's secular identity was not a problem. But they left the Big East along with others for an all-sports conference.
If those that want a split are portrayed with denominational or theological bias, then it is the anti-splitters, Notre Dame lovers, and bb loners that are injecting religion as a factor into the equation to maintain the status quo.
Did you actually read any of the posts on this thread? ::) SEC03 was the one who injected religion into the discussion.
I for one have steadfastly maintained for years that I am in favor of a split. Who are the anti-splitters that you are referencing?
Your problem is that you are a Notre Dame hater. There is little of anything that supports the allegations constantly thrown at Notre Dame. You don't have to be a "Notre Dame lover" to want to have discussions based on fact rather than bias.
Because of all the Notre Dame haters out there, there are constant misstatement of facts, distortions, & complete misrepresentations. This is unfortunate for anyon who actually wants to have a rational discussion of the issues.
I cheer for UConn first & foremost. I also enjoy rooting for Providence & BC because my kids went to those schools. I also feel that I can enjoy & appreciate the quality of play from any school that plays the game the right way.