To at least GIVE THE APPEARANCE that the conference commissioner / office was about representing all the member schools and NOT JUST Providence College ?
(3 commissioners in BE history - Gavitt, Tranghese, Marinatto, all Providence College Friars).

What a concept !!!

I don't know, does the location really matter ? I suppose it's all about appearances, and who are we fooling.
NYC is an expensive place to locate a business, and there are a lot of inefficiencies associated with commute times, etc.

Maybe if a split ever occurred, the all-sports contingent might move away from Providence.

I at least have to give Tranghese kudos for being honest and admitting he underestimated the dichotomy of the members and maybe should have recommended a split
before 2003, when the interests of the FB schools and the BB only schools began to diverge.
He was man enough to admit he made a mistake, or at least over-looked something important.

Excellent point. Since all those people working in the Big East are area related, a move to another location would be more of a hassle to all. Even a move to NJ would be cheaper, give the appearance of being less Providence biased, but will likely never happen.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

Well, for starters, in the 12-team format, geography requires splitting up the NC schools, which would hurt them attendance wise (aka dollars).

Secondly, splitting Florida State and Miami gives everyone three trips to Florida every four years. That's big for recruiting. Not to mention that Miami has more of rivalry with Boston College and Va Tech from their Big East days than they do with, say, NC State, UNC or Duke. You can maximize historical rivals.

Divisions work for the benefit of the conference. You create divisions which serve the conference best, not serve geography best.



Because there's a difference between being TIED to football, and CLINGING to football for dear life.

After the ACC raid, expanding to an 18-team league of 12 football schools and Notre Dame, Villanova, Georgetown, Seton Hall, St. John's and Providence puts the balance of power with football. The football schools could vote on all kinds of things and strong-arm the Hoops Only schools with a 2/3 majority. They'd be clinging to the football schools.

That's why those five/six voted to add DEPAUL AND MARQUETTE with Louisville, Cincinnati and USF. Strengthen football while maintaining a balance of football/non-football. That's remaining TIED to football.

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942

JPSchmack,
I would like to see the division concept for college football done away with and allow conferences to schedule football games based on projected top finishers for SOS and not necessarily which divisions the school is located. For example this year Alabama and LSU were the top two teams in the SEC and yet could not meet in the conference title rematch which would prevented all of us having to watch the BCS title game rematch of two SEC teams. Sure this may have been good for the SEC it was not good or healthy for college football to have two SEC teams play in the current system without earning it on the field of play. The TV ratings are very much proof that fans did not like this rematch compared to previous BCS title games. Ratings were down something like 16 percent from previous BCS title games.

The concept of college conferences were always to unite a group of schools together for common benefits and the very idea of divisions divide this benefit from what conference memberships were suppose to do or accomplish in the first place.

This is why basketball has one large division and in the case of the Big East having 16 teams and soon to be 18 is just plain ugly. I realize basketball has more games and can allow all teams to play at least one game regardless of membership size, however, why is this so important to have every conference member play each other. If so, then every conference having more than 10 members is simply too big for both football and basketball.

If divisions were eliminated it would allow the ACC tobacco schools to play round robin in every major sports which they really should since all four are in the same conference, same state, and only a few miles apart from most of each other.

If there were no divisions in football, Miami could schedule BC, Syracuse, Pitt, or any other school to reach the 8 or 9 league schedule.

Having no division requirement could also eliminate the 12 member league size with likewise has been very disruptive to college conference realignment. What has the NCAA accomplished by having this goal? I will tell you we fans have lost some very old traditional rivalries partly due to switching of conference which was started by this stupid 12 team rule. Would the SEC have expand and would Arkansas have jumped and would the SWC have folder.

The 12 member requirement for football CCF maybe or maybe not contributed to a lot of the current issues facing college sport, the one thing for certain it will be a good thing when the NCAA is finally get out of the college football business which is being speculated that will occur.

Gone are the SWC, Big 8, Arkansas rivalries with most SWC schools, Texas/Texas A&M, Oklahoma/Nebraska, Kansas/Missouri, WVU/Pitt, Penn State and most eastern schools including Pitt. Well maybe Penn State issues occurred prior to this rule.

The NCAA can look back and hang their hat on this major accomplishment and the issues that came along with this 12 member rule requiring college conferences to split into divisions and be divided and not united. All I can say is wow NCAA one thing for sure you know how to screw up college football.

As you said, the whole point of conferences was "like minded, similar institutions with a competitive camaraderie deciding which school was best on the field of play." The rules stem from THAT concept: The idea is that you're determining a champion in a fair manner. 8, 9, 10, 11-team conferences play everyone once and whomever has the Best Record is your champion. The CCG rule was created when the season was only 10 games long. It was impossible to play 11 opponents in a 10-game schedule. Therefore, two divisions with round robin play and the CCG determines the champ for conferences 12+.

The problem is, the "like minded schools" has devolved into: "Well, we're similar in our desire for the best TV deal."

If you eliminate the division play, conferences will schedule to assist their most desirable team for TV purposes their champ. That's very bad.

Personally, I'd rather see the NCAA make rule changes that level the playing field. Things like "No more games vs FCS teams" and "You have to play the same number of home and road games in the regular season for football."

Or better yet, the NCAA's computer spit out everyone's schedules. That'd be fantastic.



I don't think there's a single conference where all basketball teams don't play each other once. It's a non-issue in basketball.



That's swinging the pendulum to the wrong side, though. That's saying "Screw fairness to determine a champion. Schedule for money EVEN MORE!"

Forcing leagues to balance fairness, rivalries and revenue is actually quite entertaining. If you essentially take away the fairness component, you could be left with each conferences' marquee program playing two rivals and six bottom feeders to ensure it's two of LSU, Alabama, Florida and Georgia in the championship game every year.



Well, in a nutshell, yes the SWC would have folded because it had limited itself to essentially a one-state market. It's not the division rule driving conference realignment, it's TV MONEY. And every conference would gaze longingly at all the TV sets Texas brings.

12 was ideal because it worked with an easy scheduling model: 6/6, football plays everyone once and half the other side a year (alternate years). Basketball plays double-round on their side, other side once for 16 games. Perfection.

But dollars trump logistic simplicity. Schools are throwing away their rivalries for money. The division rules create a "you made your bed, lie in it." Where conferences have to give up something to expand. A "make your schedule however the hell you want it" rule would lead to a BCS-like situation WITHIN EACH CONFERENCE. Hey, sorry Arkansas, you went 8-1 in SEC play but CBS wants Florida vs Alabama!"



I completely view it the other way around. The NCAA isn't like the NFL league office. It's a collective of representatives of its member schools. Football is the ONLY SPORT without an NCAA Championship! The NCAA would LOVE to hold a playoff like March Madness for FBS football. They simply can't get their hands on it because the FBS schools don't want to relinquish control.

98% of the NCAA's revenues (The governing body NCAA, not "all member schools") comes from the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament contract with CBS. They pay out each conference for each bid and win in the dance.

The FBS schools don't want that. That would mean a 16-team playoff with the Sun Belt, WAC, C-USA, MAC and MWC getting ONE THIRD of the pot from the START. It would mean each conference was competing for 1 auto and FIVE at-larges.

The NCAA hasn't screwed up anything for FBS football. It's Greed that's screwed up all of college athletics. The NCAA isn't a sports league like the NFL or MLB. Each CONFERENCE is essentially a sports league on its own: Free to make their own TV deals and scheduling policies. Since the NCAA is basically powerless to stop them from their TV deals, they have no control over this expansion stuff.

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942

The BE, assuming no one else departs soon, is searching for one more fb only contributor. AFA, Army, UNLV, Fresno State, perhaps others, have been seriously explored for this role with a number of rejections already.

As to the ACC zipper, the variables are multiple. UVA did not want to be in the "north" per a north-south geographic model. The 4 NC schools posed issues for schools within and outside the State of NC. Agree, there was also the Miami-FSU assumptions. The zipper was a compromise and an attempt to integrate more fully.

The SEC divisions are basically all geography and has worked comparatively very well. Mizzou was placed in the east to hush the idea of a 'Bama-Auburn divide. It takes a lot of placating sometimes.

The north-south stuff did not work to satisfaction in the B12. As to the ACC, it was not tried, so more complicated to access. That said, the tougher and bigger, though not completely, fb programs are predominantly in the south portion. With 4 NC schools basically at the geographic center of the conference, the politics of it remains in the forefront---Greensboro & all.

As I read lash and JP, I can't help but come to one conclusion about the desire for the NCAA to level the playing field...

...and I'm going to hate myself for saying this...

...those are the conditions by which the haves will leave the NCAA and allow that system to, um, flourish.

I present to you the concept that your school finds it more profitable to be dragged around by the balls than to sink or swim on their own. It's not easy to fathom that Texas and Michigan and etc. has their groupies, but I believe the evidence is clear. Moreover, as the powers are starting to hint at breaking away, rest assured that they have conditions by which the rest of us can join in. Palatable, maybe not...

Oh, no doubt. Take away the BCS programs and you have five pretty decent leagues (Big East Hoops, A10, WCC, MVC, CAA; which would re-align no doubt) and about 17 other conferences.

Without football, the ideal size for a basketball conference is probably 10, so you can have a double-round robin and five travel partners. The Big East would take Xavier, Dayton and Saint Louis for 10, the A-10 would add Butler and one more for 10. The CAA would be left with 10, the MVC is already at 10. The WCC would need to add one for 10...

Everyone else sorts out from there. But it would be a very level playing field without the TV money discrepency.

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942

BE MB thread discussing Brett McMurphy article which was previously posted in another thread on this board regarding various BCS revenue sharing formulas that could/would be discussed at next week's BCS meetings.Link at http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=565991

The developments over the past 1-2 years have drawn a clear line int he sand. What many of us felt about the Big East, that they were inferior to the top 5 conferences and more on par with the MWC, is something that has become even more apparent recently.

The future is about stability.

And you now have the Pac-10 becoming the Pac-12.
You have the Big Ten+1 becoming the Big Ten +2.
You have the SEC going from 12 to 14.
You have the ACC going from 12 to 14
You have the Big 12 losing 4 members and thus far replacing them with 2 members...with it expected that within 5 years, they will be back at 12.

What do they all have in common?
Not only are they the top conferences, but they are all-sports conferences.

The rest are scrambling to at least keep where they are in the pecking order.

The Big East, already a hybrid with 16 members and only 8 for football, will now have the same non-football members, adding replacement all-sports members, and is now adding at least 3 football-only members. They HAD to make these additions (Boise St) just to have a chance to remain above the rest.

Of course, for the Big East, it was addition (maintaining stature compared to MWC and CUSA) by subtracting schools FROM those conferences, hurting CUSA and MWC.

So CUSA and MWC are now looking to work together just to keep pace the best they can.


The line has been drawn:
It is the general top group of SEC, Big Ten, Pac-12, ACC and Big 12.

You then have the Big East, trying to find a place at the table by adding the only non-BCS school with any clout, Boise St. Problem is that they also added some real dogs in the process (compared to the BCS conferences) like Memphis, Temple, etc. The goal is clearly to make money for the big East TV contract with all these additions...and to keep in the general football discussion, since the quality is not in the same league as the Power 5.


What is frustrating to all us east coasters in life, is that the Big East HAD their chance. They had Miami in their prime yet passed on Penn St in their prime.

There is no doubt that when the Big East was formed for football, that with Miami, Penn St., WVU at the top, that there would have been enough cache to get some other football powers to at least HEAVILY consider joining, schools like Florida St. (at their prime), GA Tech (same story after a national title), and Clemson. Who is to think that if this conference had added these powers, that others like a Maryland wouldn't have joined as well.

In time, a split could have happened, resulting in one of the top all-sports conferences in the nation.

And then there is Notre Dame. THIS would have been enough to push them one way or the other (BE or B10 for all sports).

So as you'll see in this thread often, it comes back to what could have been:

BIG EAST 14: All-sports conference
North: Boston College, UConn, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Penn St., Notre Dame, Rutgers
South: WVU, Maryland, VA Tech, Clemson, GA Tech, Miami, Florida St.


And what does that mean?

Well...

The ACC would have been SIX schools short of where they are now:
UVA, UNC, Duke, WFU, NC State

So if you're those 5 schools, you're BEGGING the Big East for an invite. So maybe yes, the Big East opts to goto 16 with a UNC/NC State package. And maybe the ACC then has to look for members in what was then in 1995 CUSA. So schools like Louisville, ECU, UCF, USM and others would be the only real ACC options.

Then there is the SEC. There's no lock they'd have had enough pull to even get a Big East school to leave, so maybe they stay at 12, or consider a UNC/NCst/Duke/UVA pair to goto 14.


But we know what happened. The Big East has to reach out to San Diego and Boise for members, as well as basically absorbing CUSA.

So yeah, very frustrating as a football fan growing up in NJ and NY, going to university in MA. Because now, that region is split between all the conferences:

ACC: BC, Syracuse, Pitt
Big East: Uconn, Temple, Rutgers, Navy
Big Ten: Penn St.
Big 12: WVU
MAC: Buffalo, Umass
Indy: Army

That's all 12 FBS schools in the region, only a few hundred miles to separate them all, yet they are in 5 different conferences with a 6th if you count "Indy" as a conference.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

Something I can see happening in the next 10 or less years for the Big East...

Big East adds 14th Football program UNLV to give Boise St and SDSU a travel bridge

Big 12 wanting to go back to 12 invites Louisville and Boise St, (Boise St is just going to get more powerful.)

Big East adds Air Force so SDSU & UNLV have a travel partner. Air Force won't reject them this time
They also finally give in and add ECU for all sports, even though I don't think it benefits them.

Notre Dame and Uconn joins ACC.

BYU and ARMY as the only independents, panic... Big East comes to the rescue and invites them with open arms.

Big East also invites New Mexico to smooth things all out

Mountain West West East Southeast
SDSU New Mex Cincy UCF
Air Force Memphis Army Navy
BYU Houston Rugters ECU
UNLV SMU TEMPLE USF

and the Big East becomes a big hybrid blob of who knows how many schools in the differents sports, but 16 for football

_________________
RODGERS
MATHEWS
2012

BE Commish plans on have #14 in the league by 2015 to come in w/ Navy.

ND won't join a conf as a full member unless there is a plan to split from the NCAA. Or a playoff that only allows conf. champions w/ no exceptions.

You know that UNLV & UNM basketball don't play FBS football right. So why add a fb teams that sucks as a fb only member? At least Memphis who sucks at football brings a solid bball program to the BE. You might as well add SJSU to the BE for fb only if you're looking for a market. If you're giving them all sports than maybe, but last time I checked fb rules the NCAA or Kansas and not Nebraska would be in the B1G. UNLV and UNM are 2 of the worst fbs teams.
UNLV is 33-86 (.277) in the last 10 years with just one 6-6 campaign.

UNLV went 37-76 (.327) with three winning seasons from 1992-2001.

UNLV was 27-39 (.409) with just one winning season from 1986-1991.

UNLV is 97-201 (.326) with four winning seasons in the last 26 years.

UNLV Prez is on record as saying he will not split UNLV sports into separate conferences.


UNLV, UNM, and not BSU would be in the BE, if it was about basketball.

_________________

WRANGLERS 153-55-1 CVFL CHAMPS '04 '05 '09 '12

NFL CHAMPS '29 '30 '31 '36 '39 '44 '61 '62 '65 '66 '67 '96 '10

BW/WAC/MWC CHAMPS '77 '82 '85 '88 '89 '91 '92 '93 '99 '12
['08 NCAA BASEBALL CHAMPS]

Ten years ago, if someone told you that Boise St would be in the Big East, what would you say?

Boise St will be in the Big 12. If not them, Cincinatti. Other then Boise St, Louisville, or Cincinatti. I can't see them adding anyone else.

I dislike UNLV, but they are a Brand name, people have heard of them. They have a fan base. A big one. Las Vegas is growing, rapidly. As a business prospect, I feel their the best choice to give San Deigo State and Boise State at the time being a travel partner.

Your correct in saying UNLV hasn't been good in football in the last twenty years. So has San Deigo St. SDSU was good last year. SDSU is a basketball school but just look, they got invited to the Big East as a football only. And I believe UNLV will have a great football program starting this year.

New Mexico is down now. But I believe they will be back.

New Mexico and UNLV would get the nod before anyone like SJSU or Fresno St.

_________________
RODGERS
MATHEWS
2012

Will say again what has been repeated for years. BE needs to stop sponsoring fb. All-sports schools such as UCONN, Rutgers, L'ville, Cincy, etc., can stay for bb & related if they want.

CUSA (or a new all-sports conference) can rebuild in the east/southward with oriented fb programs needing a home.

The BE monster is a result of the BCS chase. The B1G, ACC, SEC, PAC12, and Big12 (even with their own losses/adds), handled it fine. The BE didn't.

This is not to bash the BE----great bb tradition....keep it, build with it. Let it return to its foundation. All the schools involved may ultimately be more happy. Well, maybe not Notre Dame, but they have more options than anyone.

I hear ya. Thought the same thing. CUSA was in a position to try for this, but they never did. At least the WAC tried as failed. CUSA passed all together.

CUSA could have brought in UL, Cincy, Rutgers, USF and UConn for FB only, maybe even a 18th school for FB only with those 5.




---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?etyr30

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.