Interesting interview excerpt with retiring Marshall A.D. Bob “Kayo” Marcum that features his thoughts on the WVU-Marshall series.

As expected, nothing was done to address the future of the series while he was packing his bags. One wonders if anything will be done while Dr. James Clements is unpacking his bags at WVU and Ed Pastilong’s luggage remains in the corner unsure whether it’s going back in the attic or in the back of the station wagon. 

Anyhow, Marcum has some pretty firm thoughts on the matter, as you might expect and as you may have already heard.

“Marshall already has paid its dues on the road in a lot of places, a lot of nice places, great venues, with no return. You can’t keep doing that. Cincinnati has been very good in a 1-for-1 with us, and we’ve had discussions, good ones, with Louisville on a 1-for-1.

“Well, those teams belong to the same (Big East) conference as West Virginia. If we give (the Mountaineers) 2-for-1, why would anyone else do 1-for-1? That’s what I mean when I say you’re jeopardizing your future scheduling by doing that.

OK, good points. Sooner or later Marshall has to grow or at least be seen as growing. Gotcha. And to take a 2-for-1 in the Big East against an in-state rival does not accomplish that and also invites other teams — even Big East teams — to bully Marshall. Gotcha there, too. But if I’m WVU I’d like to see those 1-for-1s inked and maybe even played before capitulating on the basic disagreement.

What was most intriguing, though, was something I don’t believe I’ve seen or heard before.

“The first contract, we agreed to take it out of balance because adjustments needed to be made, and then we caught West Virginia at the peak of its program.

“However, I thought the agreement was pretty firm that the next contract would be a 1-for-1, and I still believe that.”

Wait. Wait. Wait. After WVU was strong-armed into doing this deal so many years ago — and we can agree it was strong-arming, yes? — the reluctants then further agreed to not only renew the series, but to do so on terms that at that time would have been completely unacceptable? Sorry, Bob, I’m not buying that.