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

[Michael in Raleigh]

"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.

...

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.

I understand this sentiment. I grew up an ACC fan and I root for ACC teams any time they play non-ACC teams, in football or basketball. As an FSU fan, I have even found myself doing this with Miami, which feels dirty to admit. But I think it's okay to make exceptions in the case of generational rivalries. I used to argue with my mother-in-law that she should pull for UNC in the NCAA tournament, but she looked at me like I had asked her to jump out in front of traffic. She hates UNC even more than she loves NC State. Of course she wants to see the ACC do well... as long as it's not UNC. On that note, I don't think I could pull for the U. of Florida under any circumstances, whether they were in the same league as FSU or not. (That's not to say I "hate" people at Florida or fail to recognize that UF is a great school. I just won't ever wish their teams success. Ever.)

Same goes with West Virginia fans. They've hated Pitt since long before either joined or left the Big East. You can't just ask them to turn off generational, deep-seeded emotions against a rival like that.

I would be surprised if many Syracuse or Georgetown fans rooted for the other in the NCAA's just because they were in the Big East. The schools hated each other. It's what made it such a good rivalry, and good rivalries made it a good Big East, once upon a time.

Maybe your feelings towards other Big East schools are like mine with ACC schools not named Florida State. Some of them I don't like (Clemson), but not so much that I wouldn't pull for them in non-conference games. That's okay. But, the ACC does need those bitter rivalries among other members in order to make the league great.

[JOPO]

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?

Sorry I didn't reply to this sooner, been away from the boards for a few days and am just catching up.

Rutgers and Temple both sucked in football. Temple was worlds better in basketball, they could have added something to the Big East in that respect. RU had one fluke game in the mid 2000's and have been mediocre at best. Rutgers led the charge to get Temple tossed before they got tossed themselves. Trust me, there in no major 1A football team from New Jersey.

As for playing Rutgers twice, UGH! Yes, I absolutely would have traded two with Rutgers for two with Pitt or UConn or Syracuse or St. John's (our real rival). Playing Rutgers twice serves no purpose, win and you are supposed to, lose and it can kill your season. There is no benefit to playing Rutgers. If you feel it is a good deal for the Wildcats you can have them. I am not thrilled about the recent 8 year deal SHU signed with RU alternating sites. I want to play top teams OOC and adding RU on a regulars basis is just playing another dreg. If they want to play us they need to travel to north Jersey for the eight years just like St. Peter's does.

As for Providence not wanting URI, SJU not wanting Fordham, Cinncy not wanting Xavier, Villanova not wanting Temple yada, yada, yada; I have news for you, Seton Hall didn't want Rutgers but aside from I believe St. John's and Georgetown, no one else gave a crap and let them in. New Jersey was already covered, so was New York. Rutgers didn't bring a new market and despite their claims aren't really in the NY/NJ market (this was also told to me by a former BE AD). RU is in central Jersey halfway between NY and Philly.

The season before last, SHU lost to both Rutgers and DePaul and their NCAA bubble burst. Like I said before, win against RU and you are supposed to, lose and it ruins your season.

Also, as I said before, any school currently playing 1A football should never be considered for membership in the Big East (ie, Temple, UConn, Memphis, etc). Drop to 1AA and then maybe we talk. Honestly, I'm happy with 10 and like the ten we have, including your Wildcats. With a basketball focus there is really no need to expand. I also love the true round robin.

I don't have any hard on for Villanova! Geez. It just seems that any time any expansion talks come up no one school gets in more of a tizzy than Villanova when anyone suggests Temple. Temple is the only school that gets that kind of reaction, second would probably be St. Joe's. It seems everyone is afraid to offend you guys with even the thought of the Owls or Hawks. I'm not a 'kiss the ring' type on these things. After others wrongly admitted Rutgers, when it comes to these things my thinking is more 'kiss my butt'.

Again, nothing against Nova, I hope you guys do well except when you play us. I honestly feel that way about all of our current members. Everyone brings something to the table and I respect all of the schools; I want everyone to do well, except of course when they face my beloved Pirates!

[GumbyDamnit!]

Why is everyone always so afraid of hurting Villanova's feelings by adding Temple? Are they afraid of the competition?

Also, as I said before, any school currently playing 1A football should never be considered for membership in the Big East (ie, Temple, UConn, Memphis, etc). With a basketball focus there is really no need to expand.

I don't have any hard on for Villanova! Geez. It just seems that any time any expansion talks come up no one school gets in more of a tizzy than Villanova when anyone suggests Temple. Temple is the only school that gets that kind of reaction, second would probably be St. Joe's. It seems everyone is afraid to offend you guys with even the thought of the Owls or Hawks. I'm not a 'kiss the ring' type on these things. After others wrongly admitted Rutgers, when it comes to these things my thinking is more 'kiss my butt'.

Again, nothing against Nova!

JOPO, sorry but you're all over the place. First you say that we should consider adding Temple...and then support that argument by saying that since Rutgers was added unjustly, then it is OK to consider other schools in the same geo region (even though you admit that might be a bad idea)...then you say something smug about kissing VU's ring and others kissing your butt, and again claim that you have nothing against Nova. I call BS my friend. Not sure why your panties are in a wad. Which is it? Should we look to a 2nd Philly school for expansion in your eyes or do you think SHU should show some loyalty to a school that it has been affiliated with for the past 30+ years?

[Xudash]

I'm a Xavier fan. That means I spent years shaking my head over the fact that the A10 allowed itself to end up with 3 school in ONE CITY. As I understand it, John Chaney apparently was responsible for cutting Speedy Morris a favor back in the day, which led to LaSalle's inclusion in the conference. That was a horrendous mistake then and it remained one until recently, regardless of the fact that the Explorer's finally made the NCAA Tournament after years of pure ineptitude. Philly is a big town and the Big Five is a unique thing, but it's still about the geography comprising one city. I would take the same position if we were contemplating more than one school from NYC (i.e. I see Seton Hall as a NJ school, regardless of the fact that it is regarded as a greater NYC school).

From my point of view, Temple was an obvious strong conference mate for years. Xavier and Temple carried the A10 for many years. But Temple isn't the answer, or an answer for expansion, given how the money and math work when it comes to establishing television revenue, and regardless of Temple's value as a hoops program. The Big East has to manage its geographical footprint very carefully. The "former Big East" was right to avoid market duplicity.

Our version of the Big East must do the same.

I hope we stay at 10, or can stay at 10. We don't need Temple. I certainly don't want us adding UD. UD fans are a bunch of tools, but the business fact is that we don't need two Ohio schools that are within 45 minutes of each other.

Let's not change anything, except to help increase FoxSportsOne viewership ratings.

[JOPO]

Why is everyone always so afraid of hurting Villanova's feelings by adding Temple? Are they afraid of the competition?

Also, as I said before, any school currently playing 1A football should never be considered for membership in the Big East (ie, Temple, UConn, Memphis, etc). With a basketball focus there is really no need to expand.

I don't have any hard on for Villanova! Geez. It just seems that any time any expansion talks come up no one school gets in more of a tizzy than Villanova when anyone suggests Temple. Temple is the only school that gets that kind of reaction, second would probably be St. Joe's. It seems everyone is afraid to offend you guys with even the thought of the Owls or Hawks. I'm not a 'kiss the ring' type on these things. After others wrongly admitted Rutgers, when it comes to these things my thinking is more 'kiss my butt'.

Again, nothing against Nova!

JOPO, sorry but you're all over the place. First you say that we should consider adding Temple...and then support that argument by saying that since Rutgers was added unjustly, then it is OK to consider other schools in the same geo region (even though you admit that might be a bad idea)...then you say something smug about kissing VU's ring and others kissing your butt, and again claim that you have nothing against Nova. I call BS my friend. Not sure why your panties are in a wad. Which is it? Should we look to a 2nd Philly school for expansion in your eyes or do you think SHU should show some loyalty to a school that it has been affiliated with for the past 30+ years?

Gumby, please, relax.

First, reread everything I wrote, do not just pick and choose. Second, I am happy with the ten members we have, love the round robin set up and do not want to expand. That said, if the decision was made to expand, I would not want state schools who do not fit the profile of the current ten (especially state schools who think they should be playing 1A football), this is what got us in trouble the first time around and I doubt anyone, especially the C7 want to go down that road again. If the conference wanted to expand, basketball first, private universities should be given first consideration. I doubt it would get to a point where state schools would even need to be considered. That said, if they ever did get to that point, any state school currently fielding a 1A football team should be required to drop to 1AA to even be considered.

As for loyalty, who showed loyalty to Seton Hall when Rutgers was added? I am loyal to Seton Hall. I want what is best for the conference as well. If nine schools thought it was in the best interest of the conference to do something and one school did not that one school just might be out of luck on that decision. No one school should dictate to the other nine.

Like I said before as well, I want all of the schools in the conference to do well and this includes Villanova. The only time I absolutely want to see you lose is when you play my Pirates.

[Friarfan2]

Rutgers was forced on Seton Hall by the football schools. The remaining bb only schools didn't want Rutgers. And according to the old Syracuse AD, the reason why Notre Dame was added was as a concession to the C5 (at the time) that they could add another catholic bb only school and that school wouldn't have any football obligations. Temple screwed things up by being so bad at football. Not that Rutgers was any good, but Temple was beyond attrocious. The football schools opted to kick Temple out, and even in 2003 when they were doing further expansion continued to keep them out adding cincy, lville and usf.

It was Miami, Syracuse, BC and Pitt that forced Rutgers on Seton Hall. And it was an all or nothing proposition, Rutgers was joining because they needed the warm body (along with V-Tech and WVU). They conceeded with Notre Dame, which actualy led to help the fb schools bowl alliance in later years, but the fb/bb split was going to happen years earlier if V-Tech, Rutgers and WVU weren't allowed to join.

Temple is a good basketball program, but they have terrible fan attendance, a poor reputation as a school in general, and questionable ethics. They actually fit in quite well with schools like Memphis, Cincy and UConn. The large public funded schools that are willing to bend rules and have undesireables on campus.

[Friarfan2]

So JoPo,

Is it your belief that Temple would be a good or bad expansion candidate? You seem to be all over the place.
In one sentence you seem to argue that Temple would be a bad expansion team. Then you seem to turn around and claim that because Rutgers was added 15 years ago, that we should now add Temple now just because.

Not sure what you are getting at.

I think George Washington being added would be stupid, I think URI being added would be stupid, I think if Rutgers dropped football and wanted in that would be stupid, I don't think we should add Cincy. The reason you might hear more about Temple is because that was a fight that Villanova actually did have to fight recently, and Temple was actually added to the league a year ago (which I honestly believe was a huge motivation for Nova to join the Marquette charge to create a bb only split, and that Nova joining Marquette's side was the tipping point leaving GTown and SJU alone in their desire to keep the league together and caused the domino reaction that led to the split). You don't hear serious conversations about George Washington or URI because they didn't have a needed warm body football team that made them a big east candidate the past few years.

And St. Joe's? I hope you don't think they are a viable candidate for the Big East. Their attendance is less than half of what Seton Hall brings in per game. They have only played one tournament game in the past decade. You add St. Joe's, you might as well just add La Salle and flood the conference with teams from one market and make the same mistake the A10 did.

[JOPO]

So JoPo,

Is it your belief that Temple would be a good or bad expansion candidate? You seem to be all over the place.
In one sentence you seem to argue that Temple would be a bad expansion team. Then you seem to turn around and claim that because Rutgers was added 15 years ago, that we should now add Temple now just because.

Not sure what you are getting at.

I think George Washington being added would be stupid, I think URI being added would be stupid, I think if Rutgers dropped football and wanted in that would be stupid, I don't think we should add Cincy. The reason you might hear more about Temple is because that was a fight that Villanova actually did have to fight recently, and Temple was actually added to the league a year ago (which I honestly believe was a huge motivation for Nova to join the Marquette charge to create a bb only split, and that Nova joining Marquette's side was the tipping point leaving GTown and SJU alone in their desire to keep the league together and caused the domino reaction that led to the split). You don't hear serious conversations about George Washington or URI because they didn't have a needed warm body football team that made them a big east candidate the past few years.

And St. Joe's? I hope you don't think they are a viable candidate for the Big East. Their attendance is less than half of what Seton Hall brings in per game. They have only played one tournament game in the past decade. You add St. Joe's, you might as well just add La Salle and flood the conference with teams from one market and make the same mistake the A10 did.

I am not advocating at all for the addition of Temple or any school. Read what I wrote, I want to stay at ten and like the ten we have. If we do not stay at ten then whoever is added must fit the same profile as the ten we have. Schools like Temple (as well as UConn and Memphis) do not fit that profile as they are state schools with 1A football. If we want to expand we shouldn't be looking that far down on the list. Read what I'm writing, not what you want to believe I wrote.

[Friarfan2]

I'm Temple deemphasizes football (drop to 1AA) then take them if it is decided to go beyond ten. Villanova should not get to dictate who is in and who is not if the majority decides it is best for the conference.

JoPo

Are these your words from August 24? Seems like you think temple should be added if we go beyond 10 and they de-emphasized football. Am I reading your words incorrectly?

I disagree. I don't think we should be duplicating markets. If cincy or Rutgers de-emphasized football, I would not want them.

So, I am reading our words, and it appears you think that temple should be added under certain circumstances.

[DumpsterFireA10]

So JoPo,

Is it your belief that Temple would be a good or bad expansion candidate? You seem to be all over the place.
In one sentence you seem to argue that Temple would be a bad expansion team. Then you seem to turn around and claim that because Rutgers was added 15 years ago, that we should now add Temple now just because.

Not sure what you are getting at.

I think George Washington being added would be stupid, I think URI being added would be stupid, I think if Rutgers dropped football and wanted in that would be stupid, I don't think we should add Cincy. The reason you might hear more about Temple is because that was a fight that Villanova actually did have to fight recently, and Temple was actually added to the league a year ago (which I honestly believe was a huge motivation for Nova to join the Marquette charge to create a bb only split, and that Nova joining Marquette's side was the tipping point leaving GTown and SJU alone in their desire to keep the league together and caused the domino reaction that led to the split). You don't hear serious conversations about George Washington or URI because they didn't have a needed warm body football team that made them a big east candidate the past few years.

And St. Joe's? I hope you don't think they are a viable candidate for the Big East. Their attendance is less than half of what Seton Hall brings in per game. They have only played one tournament game in the past decade. You add St. Joe's, you might as well just add La Salle and flood the conference with teams from one market and make the same mistake the A10 did.

Why do people keep saying candidates for the Big East? There aren't any. I'm here as a basketball fan now, but this league has 10 great basketball schools, and will continue to have 10. If 12 was attractive, they would have started with 12. It isn't, so they didn't.