Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="OrangePA, post: 202240, member: 204"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?