If you could make 1 change to the big east, what would it be

The home for Big East hoops

Re: If you could make 1 change to the big east, what would i

Postby JOPO » Sat Aug 24, 2013 2:06 pm

Bill Marsh wrote:
DanofXav76 wrote:For the record I'm a huge proponent to stay at ten. Absolutely love the pure home and home schedule. Truly believe that is the way to go.


Yes, it makes complete sense. :)


Amen! Hope the powers that be see it this way too!
As always, this is Just One Pirate's Opinion!
User avatar
JOPO
 
Posts: 308
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 11:07 am

Re: If you could make 1 change to the big east, what would i

Sponsor

Sponsor
 

Re: If you could make 1 change to the big east, what would i

Postby BillikensWin » Sat Aug 24, 2013 2:12 pm

I don't think there's any changes that need to be made.

Get some games in first.
Saint Louis University: Proud Members of the Big Atlantic Valley Conference
BillikensWin
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 8:22 pm

Re: If you could make 1 change to the big east, what would i

Postby Bluejay » Sun Aug 25, 2013 5:04 pm

Michael in Raleigh wrote:I hope, though, that the mandate for the league to be basketball-driven does not equate with being anti-football. In other words, if Memphis, Cincinnati, or UConn are ever on the table, assuming those schools could have suitable long-term homes for football only, I would hope the Big East would consider adding them.

More importantly, I get the impression that the C7, and by extension, the three additions, are trying so hard to distinguish themselves as a new, different league unlike the old Big East that they're making mistakes along the way. I'm not talking awful, conference-killing mistakes, just problems that don't have to be there. For instance, in the old league, as in most other conferences, the presidents get the ultimate say-so in conference decisions, but the presidents surround themselves with advisors and consult very closely with their athletic directors. In the new league, AD's have often been kept in the dark about plans for the league (such as the process for choosing the commissioner). Maybe the presidents were so frustrated from having to make compromises they didn't feel comfortable making that they decided, with this fresh new start, they should run the league secretively. The problem with being so secretive, though, is that it leaves fans in the dark. It's like pulling teeth to find news for the league, whereas the other power conferences make sure they're maintaining adequate publicity. Furthermore, I fail to see how healthy it is for a president-AD relationship to keep the AD's in the dark. The lack of input from the AD's may well have caused the decision for a commissioner to be delayed until the eleventh hour. This caused Ackerman, who already would have faced an uphill climb in creating this startup league had she started in May or April, to be even further behind. There still is no office. There still is no website. Even the facebook and twitter pages scarcely have significant new information. So, indeed, before concerning itself with other matters, the league (and the presidents behind it) needs to improve communication within the league, especially with the AD's, and with the public.


I think that Cincy and UConn were already on the table and we said, "No thanks."

As long as those schools have football, they can't be trusted. The potential money that FB can generate will always have FB schools looking a round. That shopping creates instability. Instability kills conferences.
User avatar
Bluejay
 
Posts: 765
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 2:34 pm

Re: If you could make 1 change to the big east, what would i

Postby movemento » Mon Aug 26, 2013 8:24 am

I would love to have Gonzaga. I know the logistical nightmare but that would have made some serious noise about being a power league.
movemento
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 4:18 pm

Re: If you could make 1 change to the big east, what would i

Postby bman95 » Mon Aug 26, 2013 8:46 am

The secrecy of the whole process was what absolutely amazed me, and I believe it was necessary for the whole process to work. Aside from the Gtown president talking a little too much, I can't remember the last time so many people kept their mouths shut, and got so much done in such a short timeframe.

Typically conference realignment talks are kept behind closed doors for the sake of the fans. Because after all, what if it didn't work out in the end. Secrecy was also necessary, because in less than a year the C7 had to negotiate a TV deal, break away from a conference, negotiate a quick exit from that conference, negotiate to take the BE name and MSG with it, add 3 schools, and hire league staff.

For the most part I feel like the old BE schools were caught with their pants down, although they did have a financial win fall with the price they negotiated for the BE name. By that point they had already figured out that we needed the name and quick exit so they essentially had us by the nuts. But the whole process wouldn't have gone as smoothly had it not been for secrecy.
bman95
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 4:43 pm

Re: If you could make 1 change to the big east, what would i

Postby whiteandblue77 » Mon Aug 26, 2013 10:02 am

Fire Val for keeping her photo on the page where she should have had a website up a month ago.
The Big East is Dead! Long Live the Big East!
User avatar
whiteandblue77
 
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:21 pm

Re: If you could make 1 change to the big east, what would i

Postby GumbyDamnit! » Mon Aug 26, 2013 10:18 am

JOPO wrote:
DanofXav76 wrote:I'm not sure how Villanova would feel about adding another Philly school with Temple?


Why is everyone always so afraid of hurting Villanova's feelings by adding Temple? Are they afraid of the competition? Seriously, no one gave a rat's ass when Rutgers was admitted to the Big East. At the time Temple at least added great basketball even if football was mediocre. Rutgers was horrible in everything and only dragged down the RPI of the conference. I also wasn't too thrilled that because they had no real rival that the conference forced Seton Hall to play them twice every year! Who did we piss off to deserve that!?


JOPO comparing the Rutgers add to a potential Temple add to this conference is not even remotely similar. There was no geographic Div. 1 FB team in either NY/NJ area or Philly so they added both Temple and Rutgers to the BE for football to be able to field enough teams. Rutgers did OK in FB so they kept them around for all sports. Temple failed at FB and were booted.

In terms of having you play Rutgers twice a year...not sure why that would upset you. You've made mention of it several times, and have said that they were a major RPI hit to SHU every year. Would you have preferred to play Pitt twice a year just so you could end up further down in the standings? Show me a year in which SHU missed the tourney b/c of an RPI hit from Rutgers. They tried to keep a geographic rivalry, and both teams seemed evenly matched for several of the past years. What's your point other than you don't like Rutgers?

In terms of adding Temple now, there are several reasons why it would not make any sense. Providence would not want URI, St. John's would not want Fordham. Xavier would not want Cinn. and Georgetown would not want George Washington added. Nova is not interested in adding either Temple, St. Joe's or La Salle. It makes zero sense to have multiple teams in the same geographic region. Afraid of competition? We play Temple every year. It's called the Big 5. In most years we dominate the Big 5 schools, and are not afraid of local competition. Secondly, I think that when you are one of the KEY schools that IS responsible for the formation of a conference like this, then you are due some respect. If Xavier said it didn't want Cinn to be added that would be enough for me to say: "screw Cinn, they are not one of us." Same for the others. It's called conference unity. Lastly Temple still thinks that it is a FB school regardless of how much it actually loses financially and competitively each year. Why would the BE ever want to entertain a school that has high FB aspirations? You seem to have a hard on about Nova. What gives?
Go Nova!
User avatar
GumbyDamnit!
 
Posts: 3149
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:39 pm

Re: If you could make 1 change to the big east, what would i

Postby billyjack » Mon Aug 26, 2013 10:40 am

"If Xavier said it didn't want Cinn to be added that would be enough for me to say: "screw Cinn, they are not one of us." Same for the others. It's called conference unity."

I absolutely agree with this. Our loyalites should be with our conference-mates. In Philadelphia, Villanova comes first, second, third, one-hundredth, one-thousandth... I think basically everyone on this board would agree as well, based on the great, sensible threads and posts that we've had here since December.

I also agree that Seton Hall got royally screwed when Rutgers joined. Football really screwed up our conference. Basically, Seton Hall was a major player in building the reputation of the Big East, by showing how deep the conference was, blowing out UNLV and Duke in '89, and carrying that Top Ten success through the mid-90's... suddenly, Rutgers was invited--> a team floundering for years in the A-10 who did absolutely nothing on the court or gridiron to deserve an invitation--> they suddenly Rutgers got the Big East name, started draining interest from Seton Hall as our "New Jersey team", they killed our RPI, they hurt our perception in the northeast...

I also try to make a point not to dump on any of our conference-mates. DePaul is struggling, but I always try to point out their positives--> improving team, excellent history, great city of Chicago... if we "dump" on our teams (like many football schools did on Providence too), we hurt the perception of the conference... and the pendulum has always swung back and forth success-wise in the Big East (except for Syracuse).. so in 4 years or so, DePaul could easily be the top dog.

Also, no matter what happens in our regular season and Big East Tourney, absolutely OOC and in the NCAAs we should be pulling for one another. Recently, some our old former football fans, like say, West Virginia, would show no conference solidarity and root against Pitt and other BE rivals. UConn was our rival, but I totally rooted for them during their title runs, especially the 2011 title where they showed some serious brass stones.
Providence
User avatar
billyjack
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4168
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Providence

Re: If you could make 1 change to the big east, what would i

Postby Michael in Raleigh » Mon Aug 26, 2013 11:10 am

Bill Marsh wrote:
Jet915 wrote:
DanofXav76 wrote:Great point on VCU. I must be missing someting as I hear Richmond mentioned as an expansion candidate more than them. Same geographic area. Must be something in their profile not fitting the BE?


It has EVERYTHING to do with their profile not fitting the BE. Large public institution which may or may not want football in the future. If VCU was Virginia Catholic University, they would be in the Big East already. Memphis is the same as well.


Big difference in many ways between VCU and Memphis. BTW, no hint that VCU has any interest in football. No one knows what the distant future may bring, but we can say that for anyone. Heck, a few years ago it appeared that Villanova was going FBS football.


I agree about VCU. You never know what the future holds, but I just can't imagine VCU adding a football program. If Big East fans want to make the argument that VCU shouldn't join due to institutional profile, school size, etc., then that's fine. Worry about adding FB isn't really valid.

First of all, most schools add football from scratch, or at least upgrade existing FCS FB to FBS, in large part to make a name for themselves. Having merely an average or below average D1 basketball program can't make a name for a school because EVERY D1 school has a basketball program. VCU doesn't need football to get their name out there because their very good basketball program has already done that for them. The same can be said for public schools with strong hoops programs like Wichita State, too. Consider the other schools who have gone (or are going) FBS in recent years: App State, Ga. Southern, Ga. State, S. Alabama, Texas State, UTSA, W. Kentucky. They all NEED football to make a name for themselves because nothing about their basketball makes them stand out. (Whether those schools succeed in raising awareness of the school is debatable, but the motive to use football to gain publicity isn't.)

Second, VCU is in a state nearly saturated with FBS and strong FCS programs. In addition to UVA and VT, Old Dominion is starting a program just 60 miles to the southeast. James Madison is considered the favorite to join the Sun Belt, and they have the stadium facilities and attendance to make the move. VCU has NOTHING. It has a big enough challenge financing basketball; football, with 85 scholarships and about 10 coaches' salaries, stadium financing, etc., would be too much for a commuter school.

Third, as I just mentioned, VCU is a commuter school. I've been to Richmond. There's school pride, sure, thanks to hoops, but sports loyalty in football is strongly with ACC schools. There's just nothing about the campus that lends itself to a football atmosphere.
Michael in Raleigh
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 9:21 am

Re: If you could make 1 change to the big east, what would i

Postby Michael in Raleigh » Mon Aug 26, 2013 11:37 am

billyjack wrote:Michael--
Are the presidents and AD's really not getting along or not communicating? At PC, Father Shanley and AD Bob Driscoll have a great relationship, and I can't imagine that Driscoll is being left in the dark. The conference's transition has been very seamless and really amazing.

As all of us discussed recently, the Big East during the last nine months has had the smoothest, most successful transition in the history of athletics. There was a checklist of about 25 things on our wish list, and each item has been handled successfully. Well, ok, the website isn't ready yet... no biggie. Intangibles are working out perfectly-- even our New Year's Eve kickoff was designed perfectly, especially compared to the other conferences schedules that were just released.

As far as "secrecy" within the league and not sharing information with the press-- the C-7 at least came from a league where the "new schools" (the football schools from '92 onward) couldn't keep their mouths shut. Oliver Luck at West Virginia, for example, devours microphones for lunch... the dude wouldn't shut up... I think there was a specific instruction between the 7 and then 10 of us to keep things close to the vest and take care of the assignments at hand.

Our success is shown by the fact that none of the talking heads criticize us anymore-- not Jerseyguy, not ESPN anymore (they just ignore us rather than trying to attack anymore), no one... our recruiting is fantastic, our fanbases are enthusiastic, our teams are excellent, we have the best, most balanced conference that is devoted to great basketball, and we are in the largest markets with great hoops tradition, and we went back to our roots and our traditions... perfect...


Perfect? I'll give that the league has done a lot of things very well. Getting the league simply to exist after making the decision to depart the old Big East less than seven months before July 1 was a tremendous accomplishment. Recruiting has gone well. Cohesion among members is really strong, which has to be refreshing given the decade-plus worth of turmoil in the old league. That cohesion is largely why I expect the Big East to be around for many generations to come.

But calling the league "perfect" implies that the league is immune to criticism. It's not. While reasonable minds should give grace and understanding knowing the challenges of starting a league from scratch, it's also reasonable to argue that the Big East needs to do everything possible to exert itself as a very, very big deal in the minds of college basketball fans. League members need to realize they are going to have their share of skeptics. I'm not talking about talking heads at ESPN who may be motivated to belittle non-ESPN television sports properties. I'm talking about skeptics who find the league interesting but aren't die-hard fans like you and don't have direct ties to the school.

Again, it's a good league. It has the potential to be an outstanding league. But ASAP is the time to market the Big East as a big-time college hoops conference. Right now, it's failing to get its name out there. Having no website, and not even a simple wordpress blog to cover standings and announcements while a first-class site is developed, is a problem if the conference cares about connecting with fans and media. Having fewer "likes" on facebook than the SoCon is inexcusable. It doesn't matter that the schools are small or that it's not basketball season yet or that the league just started in July. This league is a Power 7 conference, right? It has Final Fours, national championships, and a laundry list of former cbb greats. It should be one of the most popular leagues in the country, and it should aspire to be that, too. Doing everything just so that the presidents feel good isn't enough.
Michael in Raleigh
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2013 9:21 am

PreviousNext

Return to Big East basketball message board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 0 guests