PonyFans.com

I'm catching the very end of it. all about conference movement

Basically said we are happy in the Big East but will always try to put ourself in the best position moving forward should anything chance. His mentioned several times the Big 10 is the wild card.

I missed the first half of the interview. I would love to know what he said if anyone was listening.

Pretty much said we're committed to BE, the media and ESPN are unfortunately the major drivers of all the realignment, the 2000 lb. gorillas in the SEC and B10 are the catalysts before anymore realignment happens. He favors going east over west to support academics and gain national exposure.

Hopes Cinn and UConn stay in BE. Knows a lot of ACC presidents who say they are happy with current number of members.

Why isn't our AD doing this or any interviews? We need a vocal, proactive AD during this time, IMO.

Because Turner is the Chairman of the Big East Television Committee-he's has the most information on the subject

Which Big East teams brings us the 'academics'? We've hitched our star to UConn, Memphis and U of H?

UCLA, USC, CAL and Stanford are all academic goliaths compared to SMU and our Big East bretheren.

Mexmustang wrote:Which Big East teams brings us the 'academics'? We've hitched our star to UConn, Memphis and U of H?

UCLA, USC, CAL and Stanford are all academic goliaths compared to SMU and our Big East bretheren.

Presumably, his interest in academics refers to the eastern orientation of the vast majority of top universities and where they are located, whether they are a football power or not.

Only Tulane provides comparable academic rankings, along with Temple and Navy, which is special in its own right. Rice would add credentials, but UH would oppose adding them and the Owls would need to make a bigger commitment to athletics, similar to Tulane, who will build a new on-campus stadium in NO.

The other observation is that the majority of the remaining BE members are in major urban/media markets, e.g. NYC/NE, Philadelphia, DC/Baltimore, Orlando, Tampa, New Orleans, Memphis, Cincinnati, Houston and Dallas. This is net positive for FB and BB long term.

Mexmustang wrote:Which Big East teams brings us the 'academics'? We've hitched our star to UConn, Memphis and U of H?

UCLA, USC, CAL and Stanford are all academic goliaths compared to SMU and our Big East bretheren.

I think the east vs west conversation academic spin right now is more around the MWC in the west. I am sure that if the Pac 12 was sitting there with an offer for us we would be all over it.

I know he was referring to the MWC vs. the New Big East. But, there are very few academic schools left in the Big East and two of the ones coming in are barely accredited universities.

For those that still cling to the view that Turner didn't bring Tulane into the conference or that SMU didn't have a vote in process--the facts that he is on the conference Television committee, the conference President's meeting was held in Dallas and Turner had the only connection with Tulane (President) should dispel that notion.

Mexmustang wrote:I know he was referring to the MWC vs. the New Big East. But, there are very few academic schools left in the Big East and two of the ones coming in are barely accredited universities.

Then why did you reference the Pac-12 schools?

Aren't the academics of the nBE still better than the MWC?

Mexmustang wrote:Which Big East teams brings us the 'academics'? We've hitched our star to UConn, Memphis and U of H?

UCLA, USC, CAL and Stanford are all academic goliaths compared to SMU and our Big East bretheren.

You're right. I heard the whole interview, and was somewhat skeptical at how Turner put down the academic levels of Universities out west.

I am not sure! UConn? USF? UCF? Memphis? UofH? ECU?, right down with Boise in my opinion. I am just saying the academic strength left when the last bus left with the last nine schools and it should no longer be a claim. Quite frankly, I am not sure I can even name the New Big East schools right now. It was meant to be a rehtorical remark, not absolute fact. Based on what I see, neither conference sets the academic world on fire.

As far as the PAC schools mentioned, I don't believe there is a school in the Big 10, Big 12, or Big East that competes academically with UCLA, CAL and Stanford. USC is no slouch, but I don't remember how high they rank. Even Michigan isn't as highly regarded.

Mexmustang wrote: For those that still cling to the view that Turner didn't bring Tulane into the conference or that SMU didn't have a vote in process--the facts that he is on the conference Television committee, the conference President's meeting was held in Dallas and Turner had the only connection with Tulane (President) should dispel that notion.

Sorry, I must have missed this news. What do you mean Turner had the only conncection with Tulane?

Deleted

On another series of post, probably on a paid site many of you follow, there was a debate about the Holy Seven (basketball schools) leaving the conference. There were two articles that were posted. One suggested that the inclusion of Tulane into the conference was done so without these members approval and that Tulane downgraded the RPI of the basketball teams and brought nothing (TV sets, football, basketball) to the conference. The other suggested that they did vote and had been a problem child in the conference for years.

I found the addition to the conference of Tulane perplexing. There was no obvious school in support of Tulane. Not even a traveling partner. As the first article mentioned they brought nothing to the conference but losing records and empty stadiums. Certainly New Orleans isn't a big TV market.

I was told by friends of mine in NYC that SMU sponsored and pushed for Tulane. Turner served for several years on the Knight Commission with their president, and he wanted an academic ally.
Personally, I felt Rice or Tulsa would have brought more to the table.

Others argued that SMU didn't even had an official vote yet and wouldn't until we became official members. I suggested that the new schools, in particular Houston and SMU had more power and influence in the conference than at any other time. If we did bolt for the MWC there would be no Big East--new or old. That Turner had tremedous power at this time, whether we could officially vote or not. It was the new schools that the commissioner was now loyal to rather than the former, current voting members. Now we have the conference presidents meeting Dallas and Turner on the conference TV committee.