Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="ConnHuskBask, post: 62061, member: 1249"]
Good response.

I do have a few counterpoints though about expansion and the new tv deal.

With the uncertainty regarding the new tv deal and what the Big East could garner, it didn't make sense to dilute the conference before you even know what you were worth. For instance, I think it's at least debatable that SMU, UCF, TCU, etc. don't bring as much to the table (tv revenue wise) as opposed the current 8 team Big East. So unless the Big East was willing to decrease the per team payout, expansion didn't make sense to me.

As far as rejecting the ESPN TV deal? I think it was more than reasonable to reject the offer and negotiate on a new with ESPN or NBC on the open market. The conference landscape was unstable, but money was flying around for college sports and without knowing that ESPN would raid the conference, I think it certainly made sense to wait for other offers.

If the Big East had added UCF, Houston, SMU, etc (the usual suspects) I think it's plausible to assume that Syracuse and Pitt both leave for the ACC anyways.

So, not so much on here (Syracuse board), but WVU board justifying their lawsuit, I find it weak at best, considering the moves were:

a) At minimum, debatable.
b) Wouldn't have 100% prevented schools from leaving. So how can you say the conference didn't do enough, even when the moves on the table wouldn't have made sense.

As a fan, I hate seeing my league broken up, but from the outside I "get it".  There's no debate with me, that you are gone, I'm not arguing that. However, trying to get out of the 27 month waiting period (again mainly WVU, not Cuse) I think it's just a slap in the face and an insult to the Big East.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?