here comes temple

[OrangePA]

Eyes.

Yes, I understand he had a very good day against the Orange - I was there - I saw it with my own eyes - he essentially won the game for the Owls that day. We ran the ball up and down the field - Damien had 200 yards rushing - but we couldn't stop WW.

Yes, he had a great game on the ground against SU that year, but his best overall game that year might have been against West Virginia - he had as you noted 117 yards rushing and 206 yards passing.

He also had 314 yards passing against Pitt and 283 yards passing against BC that year. So he seemed to play his best against the top BE teams that season.

And in 2003 he had 151 yards rushing against Va Tech.

He was a very good QB who could run and throw - he was big, agile and strong.

I wish we had had him that year.

 

[mikekan14]

If Boise State was invited the same time TCU was - and both accepted - SU, WVU, and Pitt would still be in the Big East. T'is my opinion

It was silly to think that with all other conferences expanding to 12 or more (with the exception of the Big 12) that the Big East was fine by "just" expanding to 9 via TCU. That's where Marinatto ultimately blew it.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Here's the short version.

Temple went 2-9 in 2004. Their only other win came against a 1-AA team.

34 points was the most Temple scored against a 1-A team that season.

24 points was the 2nd least points Temple gave up to a 1-A team that season (Rutgers only managed 16, but beat Temple 16-6).

Toledo scored 45 against Temple. Bowling Green scored 70.

There were more things going on that day than just WW.

 

[Scooch]

That horrendous loss to Temple, and let's be clear, it was horrendous, cost P his job. I know it's bad to play this game, but we win that and beat BC the next week and we're going to a BCS bowl. Granted, Utah would have annihilated us in that game. But no way is Gross pressured into firing P off of a 7 win BCS bowl season.

We beat crappy Rutgers in 2003 and crappy Temple in 2004 and SU football history is much different.

 

[Stern]

Interesting.

Explain that.

In what sense is the BE "digging its own grave deeper"?

By bringing in more "marginal" schools to make the conference like like the land of misfit toys

The conference sucks and is beyond horrible.

 

[rrlbees]

We beat crappy Rutgers in 2003 and crappy Temple in 2004 and SU football history is much different.

Or get Vick.

 

[Scooch]

Or get Vick.

Vick would have been long gone by 2003. right back atcha.

 

[Stern]

Yes, of course, what they have done they have done out of necessity.

Who is debating their motive?

I certainly am not.

The BE is doing what it has to do - having lost first, Miami, BC and Va Tech, then Pitt and SU and TCU.

And right now, Louisville, Cincy, Rutgers, Boise State, SD State, So. Florida, University of Houston and others is much better than Conference USA.

I know how much so many of you want to trash the BE. I know how much so many of you want it to fail. I know how so many of you relish the chance to criticize how the conference has reacted to various situations beyond its control. I know that since SU is no longer a member of the conference so many of you feel that we must hate the BE just like we hate anything or anybody that is not SU.

I know all of that.

I still don't understand any of it.

This is 10lbs of in a 5lb bag if I ever heard it.

1) Losing BC, Miami, and VT happened almost 10 years ago now, if they are still reacting to that then they really are clueless.

2) I DON'T want the BE to fail, I am commenting on the moves the BE is making and saying its clear as day that it WILL fail. Not hoping, commenting on that it will. They could have done things to make it survive or viable and have me say nice things about it, but they didn't. They have taken this idiotic route. And when you do dumb things you can expect level headed and reasonable people to point out the stupidity. Like pretty much all of America is doing with these recent additions the Big East has made.

3) Adding Boise, SD State, Houston, and SMU is just dumb. But for football only you "might" be able to spin that into a positive I guess. Letting SMU and Houston in for all sports is just mind boggling. Adding UCF, Memphis, and Temple is just dumb beyond belief and there is no positive way to spin that period.

Getting to 12 teams isn't a new concept, its been around a while. Why didn't the BE take these steps a few years back? Oh wait, because these schools they went after and have now brought in SUCK on all levels and the Big East wanted nothing to do with them. They bring in no tv ratings, they have no history, they have small fanbases,. There are few positives about any of them. Now, instead of the big east losing some schools and taking chicken s#it and trying to make chicken salad, they have taken chicken s#it and made a new and improved version of chicken s#it. More smell, more flavor, longer lasting taste!

Bottom line OPA, you seem like a decent guy. But every time the Big East adds a school you go on and on about how great a move it is. The Big East could announce Monday they are adding St. Lucy's School for Girls and you would be here heaping praise on it saying this was a great get. You are an apologist for this commish and this conference and I have no clue why. If I didn't know better I would think you are on the payroll. My "educated guess" is I think in the back of your head you have some pipe dream that some day, whether 5 years, 10 years, or 20 years down the road everyone will "come back home" to the Big East. But I hate to break it to ya, The Big East is DEAD! The SWC is dead. The Pac 8 and the Big 8 are dead. Some died years ago some recently, but none of them are coming back. The Big East might keep its "name" for a little bit longer, but its over. It's dead and it ain't ever coming back. This collection of misfit schools they got now is ConfUSA 2.0.

Every time the Big East adds a school, the conference gets worse! Bigger isn't always Better (insert jokes here people with that line I set you up with)

 

[rrlbees]

Vick would have been long gone by 2003. right back atcha.

My assumption has always been if we got Vick, we would have continued our excellence and gotten even more highly rated kids down the road.

 

[OrangePA]

My assumption has always been if we got Vick, we would have continued our excellence and gotten even more highly rated kids down the road.

I agree completly.

The 1999 team with Vick would have been a very good team - without him we should have beaten Michigan in the Dome.

The loss of Vick and the inability to sign a dual purpose QB was the downfall of the program.

I believe that Joe Daily would have saved P's regime. His flip still ticks me off.

 

[OrangePA]

This is 10lbs of in a 5lb bag if I ever heard it.

1) Losing BC, Miami, and VT happened almost 10 years ago now, if they are still reacting to that then they really are clueless.

2) I DON'T want the BE to fail, I am commenting on the moves the BE is making and saying its clear as day that it WILL fail. Not hoping, commenting on that it will. They could have done things to make it survive or viable and have me say nice things about it, but they didn't. They have taken this idiotic route. And when you do dumb things you can expect level headed and reasonable people to point out the stupidity. Like pretty much all of America is doing with these recent additions the Big East has made.

3) Adding Boise, SD State, Houston, and SMU is just dumb. But for football only you "might" be able to spin that into a positive I guess. Letting SMU and Houston in for all sports is just mind boggling. Adding UCF, Memphis, and Temple is just dumb beyond belief and there is no positive way to spin that period.

Getting to 12 teams isn't a new concept, its been around a while. Why didn't the BE take these steps a few years back? Oh wait, because these schools they went after and have now brought in SUCK on all levels and the Big East wanted nothing to do with them. They bring in no tv ratings, they have no history, they have small fanbases,. There are few positives about any of them. Now, instead of the big east losing some schools and taking chicken s#it and trying to make chicken salad, they have taken chicken s#it and made a new and improved version of chicken s#it. More smell, more flavor, longer lasting taste!

Bottom line OPA, you seem like a decent guy. But every time the Big East adds a school you go on and on about how great a move it is. The Big East could announce Monday they are adding St. Lucy's School for Girls and you would be here heaping praise on it saying this was a great get. You are an apologist for this commish and this conference and I have no clue why. If I didn't know better I would think you are on the payroll. My "educated guess" is I think in the back of your head you have some pipe dream that some day, whether 5 years, 10 years, or 20 years down the road everyone will "come back home" to the Big East. But I hate to break it to ya, The Big East is DEAD! The SWC is dead. The Pac 8 and the Big 8 are dead. Some died years ago some recently, but none of them are coming back. The Big East might keep its "name" for a little bit longer, but its over. It's dead and it ain't ever coming back. This collection of misfit schools they got now is ConfUSA 2.0.

Every time the Big East adds a school, the conference gets worse! Bigger isn't always Better (insert jokes here people with that line I set you up with)

You seem to be a decent guy as well, but you truly do not understand what I have observed with respect to he BE.

First, I have been an advocate for SU moving to the ACC since 2003. I pushed for it then while many on this board complained that we should stay in the BE.

While in recent years many on this board pushed for a move to the Big Ten, I consistently predicted that SU would go to the ACC - I pushed for that move on this board and made my opinions known as best I could to the SU Administration - that such a move would be the perfect move for SU Football.

So your notion that I am hoping for a return to the BE is firmly misguided.

You are also wrong that I somehow announced that the addition of Temple to the BE was a great move. I never said that. All I said, in response to those who called the move another dagger in the heart of the BE was that Temple has built a very solid football team. I also noted - apparently you missed it - that the Temple program still has significant attendance issues.

I also think you over read my reference to the move of Miami, Va Tech and BC to the ACC. My point was that the BE has, over the last eight years, been confronted with a great deal of instability.

My point was that had the BE been given a number of years to build its football credibility without defections by teams and head coaches, it probably would have become far more financially successful - that it would have been able to compete for TV money more effectively.

Your announcment that the Pac 8 and the Big 8 are dead is misinformed. The conferences are alive in expanded and re-aligned forms. What you don't understand is that the norm now is growth and change.

The BE is doing just that - in an effort to improve its brand.

Your statement that the SWC is dead again misses the point. I stated that the SWC is no longer while observing that the notion advanced by another poster - that had the Big East made the right decisions and become an all-sports conference with Penn State in 1980, all would have been well forever.

My point was that the SWC - an all-sports conference - died sixteen years after the Big East and Penn State failed to make a deal. In other words, nobody could predict how decisions in 1980 would impact what is happening today.

Finally, the notion that making Boise State - one of the more high profile programs in today's game - was a mistake underscores howyour failure to recognize the politics in play right now. Adding such a school was a brilliant tactical decision because it will help maintain the BCS AQ - at least in the short term while the AQ still exists. And the idea that adding a very good University of Houston team and an up and coming SMU team was "dumb" is not tenable. The BE had no choice but to add quality programs.

Adding Houston and SMU and Boise upgraded the play on the field - you may not like the geography, but the play on the field is unassailable.

Sorry but I just don't think you get it.

Who knows? You may be right. The BE may die at some point. I don't know.

But I can't criticize how the BE has reacted to the moves made by Pitt and SU.

I think the conference has done what it has had to do and I think that if it is given a chance with some time and a decent TV contract, the new conference could succeed.

Having said that, I am - again for the one millionth time - very happy that SU is doing what I wanted it to do nine years ago - move to the ACC.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

My assumption has always been if we got Vick, we would have continued our excellence and gotten even more highly rated kids down the road.

Yeah, we would have had Marcus Vick.

 

[Stern]

But I can't criticize how the BE has reacted to the moves made by Pitt and SU.

I think the conference has done what it has had to do and I think that if it is given a chance with some time and a decent TV contract, the new conference could succeed.

That's where you lose people with your stance. The Conference HASN'T done what it needed to do. The just brought in anyone and everyone with no rhyme or reason. And a decent TV contract means nothing when it comes to perception, on the field play, or the national landscape giving s#it about any of these teams. It will take an act of god for that conference to succeed, not a decent TV contract.

The Big East is the land of misfit toys, it has no chance of being successful on any level football wise. None! Zero! Zilch! And these new bottom feeders (SMU, UCF, Houston) will drag down the quality basketball schools left behind (UCONN, G'Town, Nova.) SMU and Houston are the bottom, dead last 2 teams in CUSA this year for hoops. How the hell are they going to survive in the Big East? Not only has the Big East destroyed their football side with west coast teams and just bad additions that bring nothing to the table, in the process they have killed their basketball side as well. Good luck to UCONN, G'Town, Nova now trying to recruit Top flight basketball players when you show those kids the schedule and they are playing. A top kid being recruited by lets say UCONN and Pitt. Hmm, I could go to Pitt and play Duke, UNC, Syracuse, Virginia, NC State..etc and be on ESPN a ton of times. or I could go to UCONN and my first 5 games are SMU, Rutgers, UCF, Houston, and DePaul. Playing in empty stadiums in games that "might" make ESPN3 on the web if you are lucky!! They have destroyed the basketball side by bringing in so many bottom feeders!

So the criticism of the Big East and what they have done is very valid on many levels. What they did was horrible and will fail, there is little doubt about that. What they "could" have done and taking another approach would have been much much better for all parties involved.

 

[OrangePA]

That's where you lose people with your stance. The Conference HASN'T done what it needed to do. The just brought in anyone and everyone with no rhyme or reason. And a decent TV contract means nothing when it comes to perception, on the field play, or the national landscape giving s#it about any of these teams. It will take an act of god for that conference to succeed, not a decent TV contract.

The Big East is the land of misfit toys, it has no chance of being successful on any level football wise. None! Zero! Zilch! And these new bottom feeders (SMU, UCF, Houston) will drag down the quality basketball schools left behind (UCONN, G'Town, Nova.) SMU and Houston are the bottom, dead last 2 teams in CUSA this year for hoops. How the hell are they going to survive in the Big East? Not only has the Big East destroyed their football side with west coast teams and just bad additions that bring nothing to the table, in the process they have killed their basketball side as well. Good luck to UCONN, G'Town, Nova now trying to recruit Top flight basketball players when you show those kids the schedule and they are playing. A top kid being recruited by lets say UCONN and Pitt. Hmm, I could go to Pitt and play Duke, UNC, Syracuse, Virginia, NC State..etc and be on ESPN a ton of times. or I could go to UCONN and my first 5 games are SMU, Rutgers, UCF, Houston, and DePaul. Playing in empty stadiums in games that "might" make ESPN3 on the web if you are lucky!! They have destroyed the basketball side by bringing in so many bottom feeders!

So the criticism of the Big East and what they have done is very valid on many levels. What they did was horrible and will fail, there is little doubt about that. What they "could" have done and taking another approach would have been much much better for all parties involved.

No rhyme or reason? The TV contract doesn't mean anything? Wow.

TV means everything - that is what has driven every move made in the last year - including the BE expansion out west.

The addition of Boise State was not a calcuated move, to assure the AQ?

Wow.

The addition of Boise was pure calculation.

The addition of Houston or UCF will destroy the BE basketball schools, like Villanova or Louisville? Wow.

Miami and Va Tech did not destroy BE basketball when they brought their poor BB programs to the conference. I think your analysis is way off base in that regard.

I will say it again. I do not know if the BE Football Conference will succeed. I do believe however that the BE has done what it has had to do, to give itself a chance to secure a solid TV contract and to survive and eventually flourish.

But, given the certainty of your posts, I gather that you must know better - you must be in the business - you must have some athletic administration experience or TV experience.

So, tell us what you would have done to bolster the BE Football Conference while not "destroying" the BE Basketball Conference.

 

[All4SU]

I don't think the BE will die. I think the BE will live on with the BBall schools. And the FB schools -- those that remain after the next expansion -- will muddle along as a second-tier conference.

 

[Stern]

So, tell us what you would have done to bolster the BE Football Conference while not "destroying" the BE Basketball Conference.

Easy, if getting to 10 or 12 wasn't important when you had Pitt, WV, and Syracuse then getting to 10 or 12 now makes little sense with a thin talent pool of schools to pick from.

They were left with Cincy, Rutgers, UCONN, USF, and L'ville. I would have looked to add 4 schools for "FOOTBALL ONLY", they had enough basketball schools and didn't need to add any on that side. The conference is already a cluster #&k with the b'ball only's no sense in running away from that concept. Might as well embrace it.

I wouldn't have even entertained Boise or SDSU, makes no sense. I would have looked to add 4 schools for "football only." Leave the basketball side alone where you don't damage it any more. The conference was too big anyway for basketball. And have a solid 9 school football conference where everyone plays everyone else each year.

Keep it simple and keep it regional. Build it up over time.

And yes the TV contract is pointless, the money is nice ( i don't know how much you think they are realistically getting plus splitting it up 20+ ways anyway), but adding UCF, SMU, Navy,Memphis...etc nobody gives a flying you know what about these programs now; why will anyone care about them in the future? If these schools are all so "hot" and such "hot properties" then why doesn't CUSA have a great TV deal currently?? Hello!! What adding this group of losers to the "B" school in Ohio, the "D" school in Florida, a school in NJ nobody cares about, and the "B" school in Kentucky makes it sexier? Give me a break

 

[sufan]

Easy, if getting to 10 or 12 wasn't important when you had Pitt, WV, and Syracuse then getting to 10 or 12 now makes little sense with a thin talent pool of schools to pick from.

They were left with Cincy, Rutgers, UCONN, USF, and L'ville. I would have looked to add 4 schools for "FOOTBALL ONLY", they had enough basketball schools and didn't need to add any on that side. The conference is already a cluster #&k with the b'ball only's no sense in running away from that concept. Might as well embrace it.

I wouldn't have even entertained Boise or SDSU, makes no sense. I would have looked to add 4 schools for "football only." Leave the basketball side alone where you don't damage it any more. The conference was too big anyway for basketball. And have a solid 9 school football conference where everyone plays everyone else each year.

Keep it simple and keep it regional. Build it up over time.

And yes the TV contract is pointless, the money is nice ( i don't know how much you think they are realistically getting plus splitting it up 20+ ways anyway), but adding UCF, SMU, Navy,Memphis...etc nobody gives a flying you know what about these programs now; why will anyone care about them in the future? If these schools are all so "hot" and such "hot properties" then why doesn't CUSA have a great TV deal currently?? Hello!! What adding this group of losers to the "B" school in Ohio, the "D" school in Florida, a school in NJ nobody cares about, and the "B" school in Kentucky makes it sexier? Give me a break

------------------
Re Big East expansion strategy:

1) You do realize that ND was the chair of the expansion committee and the BB schools had the votes to block any or all of the additions?

2) You do realize that the conference has access to TV and media consultants? Their contract is coming up shortly.

3) So who are the 4 regional football only invites you would have added?
You've made a million posts on this subject, yet your alternative solution remains a mystery.

4) It seems obvious the Big East decided to try to remain as competitive as possible with the other BCS conferences and add the strongest programs available.

From a football perspective, SU was tied for last and Pitt was tied for 4th/5th: WVU was 1st in the conference yet despite their big win over Clemson ended up ranked 17 and 18 in the polls.

The Big East added SMU who beat Pitt 28-6 in their bowl. SMU's most notable win was against #20 TCU 40-33, that was supposed to be a big add to the Big East. TCU by the way ended up ranked 13 and 14.

The Big East added Boise State who ended up ranked 6 and 8 and Houston who was ranked 14 and 18.

From a strickly football competitiveness perspective, the Big East appears to have strengthened their product or at least did as well as they could.

Meanwhile, if you start expanding all over the place, then it makes a lot of sense to expand in pairs.

UCF is a huge university with a unique regional market in a football rich state that gives USF a rival and strengthens the combined footprint; otherwise USF is out on an island.

If Houston is going to be added, then they need a regional partner: who else than SMU?

SDSU presumably is the western partner for Boise in football.

Memphis was recently added and perhaps Temple may also be added. Both those schools presumably add to BB and it has been rumored that UL may be on it's way to the Big 12; I assume the Big East is better informed of that likelihood that you are.

Navy supposedly comes in in 2015.

5) Summary:
from an SU perspective, the new Big East would have been a complete disaster: an academic and geographical embarrassment with a likely low pay out and continuing instability. SU as a private university would have suffered greatly being associated with the current Big East teams. Fortunately, SU is in the ACC.

from a ND perspective: the Big East apparently provides a better home for their non-football sports than a conference with just the Catholic BB schools: more competition with UL and Cin still in the conference and with UConn and RU as northeastern schools.

from the perspective of the Catholic BB schools: apparently they decided it was important not to split unless ND was joining them.

from the perspective of UConn and RU: they can play football in the 6th best conference: that was clearly the goal.

from the perspective of Cin, UL as long as it stays, Memphis, Temple if added, Houston, SMU, Boise, SDSU, USF, UCF: they probably are happy to play in a conference that is the 6th best football conference, where UCF, Houston, SMU, Memphis and presumably Temple are further associated with ND, Nova, GW, St John's and other BB teams, including UConn and will no doubt get a better payout and much greater visibility than any current alternative.

 

[Stern]

SMU wins one bow game over a bad Pitt team and they are great. UCF is the 2nd coming (mind you they broke a ton of rules and are heading to probation) Navy all of a sudden is the hottest thing since sliced bread. Temple is outstanding. Everyone is great. Everything is great.

Everything is great. Everything is upbeat. The Rose Bowl will now want to kick out the Big 10 and replace it with Big East tie in according to some of the nonsense some of you people write and believe.

You Big East apologists are friggin hilarious.

 

[sufan]

SMU wins one bow game over a bad Pitt team and they are great. UCF is the 2nd coming (mind you they broke a ton of rules and are heading to probation) Navy all of a sudden is the hottest thing since sliced bread. Temple is outstanding. Everyone is great. Everything is great.

Everything is great. Everything is upbeat. The Rose Bowl will now want to kick out the Big 10 and replace it with Big East tie in according to some of the nonsense some of you people write and believe.

You Big East apologists are friggin hilarious.

---------------

1) Congratulations on arguing with yourself and then posting yet another hysterical reply to your own distorted argument.

--------------
Stern: "I would have looked to add 4 schools for "FOOTBALL ONLY". And have a solid 9 school football conference where everyone plays everyone else each year. Keep it simple and keep it regional. Build it up over time."

---------------

2) You still haven't answered who are the 4 regional football only schools that you are proposing as your "solution" to create a "solid" 9 school football only conference, along with the BB schools?

 

[OrangePA]

Easy, if getting to 10 or 12 wasn't important when you had Pitt, WV, and Syracuse then getting to 10 or 12 now makes little sense with a thin talent pool of schools to pick from.

They were left with Cincy, Rutgers, UCONN, USF, and L'ville. I would have looked to add 4 schools for "FOOTBALL ONLY", they had enough basketball schools and didn't need to add any on that side. The conference is already a cluster #&k with the b'ball only's no sense in running away from that concept. Might as well embrace it.

I wouldn't have even entertained Boise or SDSU, makes no sense. I would have looked to add 4 schools for "football only." Leave the basketball side alone where you don't damage it any more. The conference was too big anyway for basketball. And have a solid 9 school football conference where everyone plays everyone else each year.

Keep it simple and keep it regional. Build it up over time.

And yes the TV contract is pointless, the money is nice ( i don't know how much you think they are realistically getting plus splitting it up 20+ ways anyway), but adding UCF, SMU, Navy,Memphis...etc nobody gives a flying you know what about these programs now; why will anyone care about them in the future? If these schools are all so "hot" and such "hot properties" then why doesn't CUSA have a great TV deal currently?? Hello!! What adding this group of losers to the "B" school in Ohio, the "D" school in Florida, a school in NJ nobody cares about, and the "B" school in Kentucky makes it sexier? Give me a break

That's a non-answer.

Name the schools you would have added.