One of the fine folks at TheNewBigEast.com posted the following links to (purportedly) copies of meeting minutes and memos from BE conference meetings held in 2003 during the whole expansion/realignment process. It is believed these are authentic documents made public as part of the lawsuits concerning BC's exit fee, though I've not yet been able to confirm.

If they prove authentic they are enlightening on several levels:

- Carouthmel and BC's initial reluctance to enter into a 16 team model;
- Original intentions to dissolve the league;
- Initial listing of schools considered for candidacy;
- Early indications of special arrangements with ND (TS2 would've loved having these months ago!);
- ND consistently being referred to as a seperate entity, not regarded in same light as either the football or the basketball camp.

There's nothing too new or shocking, but it is interesting to think this is the actual scope of conversations, many facets of which confirm our line of thinking here.

Take it with a grain of salt, but it is interesting.

http://mysite.verizon.net/fethrs/Minutes%20July%202003.pdf

http://mysite.verizon.net/fethrs/Minutes%20October%202003.pdf

Gunner, fascinating links, to say the least. I have only had time to skim it, but a couple of things jump out:

1. Much of our speculation at the time was on target.

2. Father Leahy (BC) was harsh in his criticism of the Big East as far back as the summer meeting.

3. Issues with the loss of an automatic bid for the basketball-only schools was part of the discussion from the beginning. I think that future decisions speak for themselves in this regard.

4. The shocker is that South Florida was on the "Dismiss" list of candidates back in the summer. After Louisville & cincy, the only other candidate considered for all-sports was Temple. Something changed by the fall. This also suggests that Temple is next in line if the conference splits. Of couse things may change by that time.

5. There was clearly tension in the air with re BC/ACC at the October meeting.

Very interesting stuff.

I wonder what was the thought of was for UCF over USF in the inital consideration. Perhaps it was becuase originally UCF would only be a FB-only invite? UCF was a FB-only member of the MAC so they would have experience with it.

USF must have been deemed a better all sports candidate than USF but I'm not sure what criteria they used.

When the conference decided to stick together, Temple was probably no longer considered because the conferece would have the Phily market with Villanova. In addition, by sticking together, the BB schools would probably vote against Temple.

Also, lets be honest here... Once the ACC came calling, there would be no way BC would be staying in the BE even with teh $5 million and 27 month notice with the 8/9 configuration.

One more issue, the new 8/9 conference was going to have more 'equitable' pay scale. I wonder what that would be and will the new 'payouts' be incorporated this year when UC, UL, and USF join the conference.

My understanding of the USF/UCF issue: At first glance UCF had the larger market and potential to tie into the (now) Champs Sports Bowl on a permanent basis. Once Louisville and Cincy were approached for membership the Cardinals pushed for USF as the better option due to their relationship with the Bulls and deeper knowledge of program potential.

Friar:


Panther:


Obviously I can't say for certain what BC had planned, but I read these notes and saw a general discontent with the direction the BE was taking. Carouthmel himself originally dismissed the 16 team model, so clearly there were larger political issues in the managment of the BE. These probably contributed to Miami's interest in leaving and it appears they weren't the only ones uncomfortable.

Had the actions suggested in the July meeting been followed through might BC have stayed as part of an 8/9 member all sports conference? Quite possibly. But the costs of such a divorce became too much for the 1-A schools to execute and now here we are.

Gunner,

I never blamed BC for moving to the ACC. There were alot of uncertainies associated with the BE once Miami and VT left. Leahy said this wasnt necessarily a sports move by an academic move for the whole university to be aligned with other like institutions (read UVa, UNC, Duke, etc). While I dont necessarily believe that whole statement, it certainly helps they were moving to a better academic conference rather than to the SunBelt (and no disrespect intended to the SunBelt schools).


I guess I should have modified the previous statement of

'there would be no way BC would stay'

to be

'I believe there wouldn't have been any realistic possibility of BC staying once the intentions of the ACC were known to want another member.'

I mean VTs president or AD said that they wouldnt accept an invitation from the ACC.........

One other thing. I would be interested to the legal documents associated with the FB schools versus Miami. Miami stated several times they wished to improve the BE. When noting happened they finally got clarity on exit fees and times. I wonder what Miami wanted to do and what the BE said to them and when.

Remember, rumors were going around that MT wanted to pawn off the FB schools (Pitt, SU, BC) to the ACC for FB only but wanted to keep them for BB.

Interesting that WVU supported Marshall. Since they clearly didn't expect this to be public, I don't think it was just for show.

If this is just made up, someone went to a lot of work.

If it isn't a forgery, the BE note taker needs a lot of spelling help.

Interesting that WVU supported Marshall. Since they clearly didn't expect this to be public, I don't think it was just for show.

If this is just made up, someone went to a lot of work.

If it isn't a forgery, the BE note taker needs a lot of spelling help.

I was wondering if it was authentic, would the name of the person taking minutes not be included? Also, the spelling errors would never be made by a professional secretary, even in a draft document. I also find it unlikely that the people listed as present, or their assistants/associates, all of whom are well educated, would make such spelling errors.

It would seem highly improbable that the note taker would be lazy in their spelling especially since it was typed.

Again, though, someone would have too much time on their hands with little to gain from a forgery.

Some things to chew on.