Big East Direction

by since1670 on Mar 2, 2025 10:15 PM EST

With West Virginia leaving for the Big 12, every Big East team may not have a full schedule of football games this fall. First, the Big East administration attempted to resolve scheduling problems with the help of Boise State. Now, they hope Temple will come to the rescue.

Starting at least as early as September 10, 2010, the Big East was attempting to add Villanova's football team. One could speculate that spending a very long period trying someone's "impossible dream", endangered the very existence of the conference.

What would have been the differences if at that time Temple had been added in all sports? Speculation was that Pittsburgh and West Virginia were two of the teams which objected to adding Villanova football. Would Pittsburgh and Syracuse have not decided to leave the conference?

What would it take to have Pittsburgh and/or Syracuse remain in the Big East? There are some obvious reasons not to leave the conference, including:
1. The geographical locations save money and are convenient for teams and fans.
2. Their more likely to receive fans from New Jersey or Connecticut than miami.
3. Losing past rivalries and relations is going to hurt more than they think.

Stability is not a reason for them to leave the Big East as they are the ones causing the lack of it.

Money might be a reason but they do not and will not know until the end of the year whether there is significant gain.

Are any efforts being made to keep them, or does no one care if they leave?

Tweet Comment 14 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Syracuse and Pitt were never staying.

It would not have mattered if any of the schools mentioned were added or not. They would have left anyway. No reason to try to talk them into staying and why would you anyway. If they want out let them go.

by redmen9194 on Mar 3, 2025 9:49 AM EST reply actions

The schools that really care about SU and Pitt leaving

are either leaving themselves (WVU), wish they could leave (UConn and to a lesser extent Rutgers), or are non-football schools that completely understand why we’re leaving even if they’re not going anywhere just now (Georgetown, St. John’s, Villanova).

by drothgery on Mar 3, 2025 10:27 AM EST reply actions

1. The geographical locations save money and are convenient for teams and fans.

Most of the Big East is now in the Midwest, Florida, Southwest Tennessee and Texas. We have large alumni bases in DC, Boston, North Carolina and South Florida. We probably have as many in a city like Atlanta as we do in a city like Milwaukee or Dallas.

2. Their more likely to receive fans from New Jersey or Connecticut than miami.

Again, most games are no longer in New Jersey or Connecticut. If we weren’t the team to leave, the teams in New Jersey and Connecticut would have been. This point is moot.

3. Losing past rivalries and relations is going to hurt more than they think.

We already lost past rivalries in the first ACC raid. The Big East never guarantees us two rivalry games in basketball. We only played Georgetown once this year. We can do that in December. For football, the only teams who have been around long enough and have been relevant are Pitt and WV. The rest have only been around for a few years or are Rutgers.

What would it take to have Pittsburgh and/or Syracuse remain in the Big East?

A miracle and a stable conference where football was given priority. Neither were happening. We tried to leave during the first ACC raid, and we were about to go until the state of Virginia stepped in, mortified that Va Tech was going to be a part of a mess like the Big East.

by cuse2012 on Mar 3, 2025 12:43 PM EST reply actions

In addition

As I watch this weekend, the ACC has UNC/Duke on Senior Day every year. Our last four Senior Days? Louisville, DePaul, St. John’s and Rutgers. Two of those have only been in the same conference as us for a handful of years, the other two suck. Great work, Big East. Screw your rivalries argument, the Big East has killed those rivalries already.

by cuse2012 on Mar 3, 2025 7:42 PM EST up reply actions

Guys

Pitt and Syracuse got an offer for more stability and more media revenue in the ACC. People seem to forget that media revenue in conferences is probably the single biggest driving force for conference realignment, NOT AQ as some talking heads claim. It’s just logic, if you can get $15 mil a year for your sports in one conference vs $7-$8 million a year in all sports, are you going to just sit around and twiddle your thumbs? NO!!!!!!!!!!!!

For the record I am a BSU fan and as excited I am for Boise to get a shot at playing in the Big East, I have no illusions that the move is risky and the conference is weaker than it used to be (after the loss of WVU). However given BSU’s options it was the best choice as the Alliance (MWC/C-USA) is going to be an even bigger mess after losing a huge chunk of it’s best programs and merging a bunch of teams together with overall losing records.

by Jesterrace on Mar 3, 2025 11:28 PM EST reply actions

This.

Just follow the money and conference realignment all starts to make sense. All parties involved have and will continue to do what’s most profitable for them.

by Cards86 on Mar 4, 2025 11:53 AM EST up reply actions

Not quite

Notre Dame has not joined the Big Ten (it would certainly be more profitable for them than indy football / Big East other sports), and almost certainly will not (preferring the ACC if they need to join an all-sports conference). The ACC took us instead of WVU - a move that’s about 90% driven by academic snobbery, but I’m not complaining. Air Force passed on what ended up being SDSU’s football-only Big East spot (and Army rejected an invite as well). All indications are Virginia Tech showed no interest in the SEC’s overtures (after spending most of its existence trying to get into the ACC). Texas and Texas A&M are letting spite kill their rivalry (at least for the short term), as are Kansas and Missouri; there’s no non-conference game either could play that would make them more money. BC and UConn still don’t play in anything, which is nuts from a financial standpoint.

Every school is acting in their perceived best interest. Which is largely driven by money, but not entirely.

by drothgery on Mar 4, 2025 1:49 PM EST up reply actions

Academic $ >> Athletic $

I can’t comment on all of your examples because I don’t know the specifics of each. But each institution will look at the overall financial picture. The cash from rivalry games is dwarfed by the the total cash these schools will receive from their new conferences. Not to mention that those would effect other financial aspects: bowl aspirations, recruiting, etc.

But I will concede not EVERY decision is strictly about money.

by Cards86 on Mar 4, 2025 4:16 PM EST reply actions

I'm not talking about the decision to move

I’m talking about the decision to not keep rivalries going out of conference after moving, when it’s clear a non-conference game would be a huge money-maker. Do you think Georgetown is going to stop playing us when we move to the ACC? Nope.

by drothgery on Mar 4, 2025 7:10 PM EST up reply actions

I would bet that they don't.

Heard JTIII interview and he was very ambivalent about it. Might take a break for a while.

by redmen9194 on Mar 4, 2025 7:52 PM EST up reply actions

There is zero chance we won't play every year

It’s more likely that Louisville will stop playing Kentucky, or Cinci stop playing Xavier.

by drothgery on Mar 4, 2025 8:52 PM EST up reply actions

"Just follow the money and conference realignment all starts to make sense."

I’m not talking about the decision to move

Sounds like we’re talking about two different things then…

And the Louisville Kentucky game is state mandated so you’re wrong about that one. Kentucky would love to not play us every year because it would detract from our national media attention and help them with recruiting.

And continuing a basketball rivalry is much easier than continuing a football/basketball rivalry. 12 games vs 30+ games

by Cards86 on Mar 4, 2025 10:29 PM EST up reply actions

Rivalries mean nothing.

It’s all about money. The whole thing. Makes no difference what anybody says about stability, competition, etc. It’s all about cash. And that is ok. Nothing wrong with it at all. Duke / UNC is the last game of the year in the ACC because it’s the only one that anybody cares about in that league. The league revolves around those two schools in hoops. Always has, always will. When you are a one pony show, you get the pony out as much as possible. Over the last ten years the Big East has put a far better basketball product on TV than the ACC, and it did not have to be just the top two or three teams. Look, what is done is done. Everyone needs to move on. We have one year left before all the moves are made. This was a long time coming. Cuse wanted out in 2003 - why would anyone think they can be convinced to stay and why would anyone want to convince them too? They have wanted to go for nine years, the timing just was not right for the ACC. I think the ACC never expected big east basketball to get this good or football to be better than them. They had no choice but to take Cuse and Pitt otherwise their basketball product would be overshadowed for years to come.

by redmen9194 on Mar 4, 2025 5:29 PM EST reply actions

Echoing all of the above

It wasn’t about the number of football members for Syracuse and Pittsburgh, obviously. Villanova would’ve done nothing for the bottom line, nor the conference’s prestige. Just more growth for the sake of it (see current Big East and MWC/C-USA expansion). Rivalries weren’t all that important in the move (or anyone’s move) either.

To be honest, pretty sure that adding ‘Nova would’ve been even further motivation for Pitt & SU to leave. Playing football in a 30,000-person soccer stadium? No thank you.

All about ACC (Plus SU & Pitt) football: http://atlanticcoastconvos.com

Follow me on Twitter: @JohnCassillo

by JohnCassillo on Mar 5, 2025 3:00 PM EST reply actions