+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: AACbbs (/forum-460.html)
+---- Forum: AAC Conference Talk (/forum-409.html)
+---- Thread: Hybrid Model with Planned Full Membership (/thread-376515.html)
Hybrid Model with Planned Full Membership - UofL07 - 07-06-2009 03:53 PM
Before I begin, I will be the first to acknowledge that this expansion proposal requires some out-of-the-box thinking and it may not be feasible (I'm putting the idea out there to see what you guys think). I'll also freely admit that there are some roadblocks to making this proposal work. In addition, I also believe that the current conference format is unstable and that at some point, the football schools will have to split from the basketball schools in order to find a more stable conference configuration. With those qualifying statements issued, I'd like to forward an idea regarding Big East expansion.
Big East and its problems
The Big East Conference was founded in 1979 as a northeastern conference consisting of the region's premier basketball powers and schools with the potential to become basketball powers. The conference has changed radically since its inception; first by sponsoring football in 1991 and second by expanding to include many teams outside of the conference's northeast footprint (Miami, Louisville, USF, Cincinnati, DePaul, Marquette). Unfortunately, these changes have not brought the conference the stability it desired and talk of expansion/reorganization is still commonplace.
As I stated above, I believe that at some point, the Big East football schools are going to be forced to split off from the Catholic basketball schools. However, the problems with expansion, in my opinion, are three fold.
1) Candidates that would significantly improve the Big East's contract and make the conference stable are not realistic choices. Schools like Penn State, Maryland, BC, Notre Dame, etc. would definitely bump the Big East TV contract up several million dollars and would provide the conference will increased stability. However, none of those schools are realistic expansion candidates.
2) Most expansion talk focuses on an immediate quick fix. The reality of the situation is there is no realistic quick fix that will eliminate the Big East stability issues. If the conference declared that it was adding Memphis, ECU, UCF, and Temple today, the Big East won't immediately improve and we may actually have several years of decreased revenue (more mouths to feed but no huge increase in food).
3) Most expansion scenarios further dilute the Big East's regional identity. As I mentioned above, the Big East was originally founded as a northeastern conference. However, unlike the other big conferences, internal politics and external changes have caused the conference to lose some of its regional identity. As a result, I feel that the Big East sometimes struggles to define itself and its goals. Are we truly the football representatives of an entire regional of the US (the northeast) or are we merely a collection of football schools that have banded together for the time being?
The Northeast - a possible solution?
Whenever one looks at a map illustrating the NCAA football conferences, you'll notice something of interest. Nearly every region of the United states (Southeastern, Midwest, Plains, Southwest, Pacific Coast, East Coast, Rocky Mountains, etc) has at least one FBS conference that represents it. The lone exception to this is the northeastern which really only has three/four FBS team - Syracuse, UConn, BC, and Rutgers (if you count them as NE). Three of those teams belong to the Big East while the other belongs to the ACC. My proposal for the Big East focuses on the lone region that lack true representation in the college football world - the northeast. Before I discuss my proposal, however, I'll address what I see as the two biggest problems and two biggest benefits of northeastern expansion.
Problems
1) The Northeast only cares about pro-sports. This is a common stereotype about the northeast and one that is at least partially true. However, I think the Northeast's interest in professional sports has as much to due with preference as it does with the fact that the regional has a lack of college football programs (UConn, Cuse, Rutgers, and BC not withstanding). I think if there were more FBS teams in the Northeastern United States, then college football could definate find a place among sports fans in the region. Would it become as big as it is in the Southeast or the Midwest? Probably not, but that doesn't mean it couldn't grow.
2) Teams. There have been some very good college football programs in the Northeast in the past, but by and large the region has lacked top level (meaning FBS) representation. This is a major wrench in any northeast expansion proposal. While the Northeast has a plethora of FCS programs (Delaware, UMass, URI, Nova, etc), it lacks current FBS programs that the Big East could target.
Advantages
1) Wealth and population. The Northeast is the wealthiest and one of the most highly populated regions in the country. Delaware is ranked 12th in median income, for example, while Massachusetts is ranked 5th. The Northeast also has large, valuable media markets such as Philadelphai, New York, Boston, Hartford, Providence, etc.
2) Lack of direct competition. One benefit of northeastern expansion is that the Big East could become the dominant conference in a region where it would face virtually no competition. Any expansion to the south is going to face heavy competition from the SEC and ACC. Likewise, expansion to the west will face pressure from the Big Ten. While the Big East has done a good job establishing a foothold in those regions (Louisville, Cincinnati, and Tampa), it is highly unlikely that the conference will ever gain much more than that. Ohio is likely to remain, at less for the foreseeable future, a Big Ten state just as Kentucky will most likely remain an SEC state. The Northeast, on the other hand, is a place where the conference can fully become entrenched.
The Proposal
My proposal was inspired by TexasMark's hybrid proposal (http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=323512) though I've altered it substantially. I entitled the thread "hybrid model with planned full membership" because this expansion model begins as a hybrid but has a set plan for full membership.
Cincinnati
Connecticut
Louisville
Pittsburgh
Rutgers
South Florida
Syracuse
West Virginia
UMass (basketball only)
Delaware (basketball only)
During the initial stage, the 8 current Big East football schools split to form a new conference. UMass and Delaware would be offered partial membership (basketball + Olympic sports) initially with the promise of full membership after five years on the following conditions:
1) Each program would begin construction on and complete a new 40,000 seat stadium within 5 years of accepting membership. In addition, each program would plan, construct, and finish acceptable football practice facilities (indoor practice facility or practice bubble, weightroom, etc) within 5 years of accepting membership. This would force both programs to upgrade their football facilities to meet the NCAA minimum.
2) Each program would agree to play 4 Big East programs on a rotating basis with no return game during the 5 year transitional period. The schedule would be devised so that no overlapping would occur (the four programs UMass played would be different from the four that Delaware played) This helps solve the scheduling problem during the transitional years.
The conference would retain the option to eject either school if the above requirements were not met. While UMass doesn't have the support in the state government to move to a lower tier FBS conference (i.e. the MAC), I think BCS inclusion and the invitation of a major conference would prompt the state legislature to find the money needed to make the transition happen. I think the same would be true of Delaware.
The benefits of this expansion model are:
1) the conference gains a stronger foothold in the unclaimed NE region of the US
2) the conference would be able to oversee its expansion candidates progress
3) Boston and the Delaware Valley media markets would be added to the BE
4) Both schools are regarded as having good academics (esp. Delaware)
5) It allows for manageable expansion and reestablishes the BE as a NE conference.
6) It gives the candidates some time to grow before they join the conference.
Similar Proposals
I outlined a 10 ten model, but other hybrid-to-full models using a different configuration would be possible. For example, here is a similar proposals using a 12 team hybrid-to-full model
12 Team Example Proposal
Cincinnati
Connecticut
Louisville
Pittsburgh
Rutgers
South Florida
Syracuse
West Virginia
Memphis/ECU/UCF
UMass (basketball only)
Delaware (basketball only)
URI (basketball only)
UMass, Delaware, and Rhode Island would all face the same requirements I outlined above (thought the playing Big East teams would be reduced to three teams instead of four). In addition to potentially adding three NE schools, the conference would also add either Memphis (Liberty Bowl and basketball), ECU (football), or UCF (travel partner for USF and more Florida exposure). Requirements could be placed on these programs as well for permanent full membership if the conference so desired (e.g. Memphis must build an on-campus stadium, ECU would built a new basketball arena, etc).
RE: Hybrid Model with Planned Full Membership - swash - 07-06-2009 04:13 PM
Interesting. I'm curious as to where Umass and Udel would get the money to build 40,000 seat on campus stadiums, and more importantly, who is going to sit in them?
I'm not knocking the premise, mind you, I just don't think it's realistic to believe that schools like Umass and Udel will deliver any sort of football revenue or market for the Big East anytime in the next 15 years. Both are EXCELLENT schools, but it appears you are placing a lot of stock in a potential "media" market, rather than a fan base. I don't think that the 'media' markets of either Umass or Udel are going to sweeten your television contracts anymore than Memphis, UCF, or even ECU. Just my opinion though, take it for what it's worth.
And under your 12 team example, I'm also curious as to why ECU would need to build a new basketball arena? Seems an odd suggestion.
I really enjoy your in depth ideas, and find myself agreeing with you more than disagreeing, despite my obvious "homerism." Thank you for your hard work...it is often quite intriguing.
RE: Hybrid Model with Planned Full Membership - egoboss407 - 07-06-2009 04:26 PM
UofL07- thanks for that well thought out expansion thread. I hope it provokes a well thought out positive discussion.
I understand you want to solidify the the NE presence but the demands you place on UMass and UD are already in place at Memphis, ECU, and UCF. Also the demands on Memphis, ECU, and UCF are way higher than Umass and UD. The CUSA schools have today what you are hoping the 2-3 fcs schools will have 5-10 years from now.
RE: Hybrid Model with Planned Full Membership - ohio1317 - 07-06-2009 04:43 PM
Interesting proposal. Over the short to medium term I think ECU/Memphis/UCF are the best picks (ignoring BC, PSU, ND). Over the long term you might be right though. While the programs themselves might not be as strong, having the Big East be the northeast's football conference is important and will help more in the long run.
I think the issue is how you get there though. I don't see big bucks going toward these programs in this environment even with BCS hopes and the current schools, some of which are struggling with finances, aren't going to want to give up money even if it will pay off in a decade or so.
Edit: "UofL07- thanks for that well thought out expansion thread. I hope it provokes a well thought out positive discussion.
I understand you want to solidify the the NE presence but the demands you place on UMass and UD are already in place at Memphis, ECU, and UCF. Also the demands on Memphis, ECU, and UCF are way higher than Umass and UD. The CUSA schools have today what you are hoping the 2-3 fcs schools will have 5-10 years from now. "
I think he understands that the programs you mentioned are stronger now and may always be stronger, but is implying that regional identity bring other benefits that are more important in the long run (correct me if I'm wrong).
RE: Hybrid Model with Planned Full Membership - SO#1 - 07-06-2009 04:46 PM
(07-06-2009 04:26 PM)egoboss407 Wrote: UofL07- thanks for that well thought out expansion thread. I hope it provokes a well thought out positive discussion.
I understand you want to solidify the the NE presence but the demands you place on UMass and UD are already in place at Memphis, ECU, and UCF. Also the demands on Memphis, ECU, and UCF are way higher than Umass and UD. The CUSA schools have today what you are hoping the 2-3 fcs schools will have 5-10 years from now.
The problem with Memphis, ECU, and UCF are that they have a lower ceiling than UMass and they are not flagship of their state. Even with FSU and Miami, the state of Florida is still a SEC state. The same way with Tennessee belong to SEC and North Carolina belong to ACC. Unless these team can draws 80k every home game they never get out the shadow of flagship universities. BCS is great but can’t turn a frog to a prince.
RE: Hybrid Model with Planned Full Membership - Brick City Pirate - 07-06-2009 05:02 PM
SO#1, I don't know a whole lot about Mass., but wouldn't Umass always be in the shadow of the pro sports teams? It will be a long time before ECU would be able to draw 80k per game, UNC draws in the 50-60k per game range. I suspect that ECU would be able to draw 55-60k per game as a member of a BCS conference. I'm an ECU homer as well, but I truly believe that if ECU were a member of the Big East, the football program would challenge year in & year out for the top spot on a consistent long term basis.
Concerning the basketball arena, it's my understanding that the current building was designed to be able to remove the roof as to expand seating capacity.
RE: Hybrid Model with Planned Full Membership - UofL07 - 07-06-2009 05:05 PM
(07-06-2009 04:13 PM)swash Wrote: Interesting. I'm curious as to where Umass and Udel would get the money to build 40,000 seat on campus stadiums, and more importantly, who is going to sit in them?
I was using UConn as a model for Northeastern expansion. While I admit that UConn had advantages that neither UMass or Delaware currently have (an outstanding basketball program, basketball membership in a major conference and the benefits that went with it, etc.), I do think that a similar approach could be taken in regards to UMass and Delaware. However, I'll try to address each of your points individually
Attendence
http://www.uconnhuskies.com/datadump/MFootball/2002/Stats/uconn.pdf
http://www.uconnhuskies.com/datadump/MFootball/2005/boxscores/04Stats.pdf
http://web1.ncaa.org/d1mfb/Internet/attendance/IA_AVGATTENDANCE.pdf
In 2001, UConn was a member of the A10 football conference (FCS) and averaged 14,536 fans per game. In 2004, the Huskies joined the Big East conference as a full member and averaged 39,304 fans per game. In 2008, UConn averaged 38,792 fans per game. As I said above, I fully acknowledge that UConn had some advantages that neither Delaware nor UMass currently enjoy. However, I think UConn's attendance records proved that there is a demand for college football in the Northeast.
http://web1.ncaa.org/d1mfb/Internet/attendance/IAA_AVGATTENDANCE.pdf
If you look at UMass and Delaware's current attendance records, you see that both are within the top 15 in FCS. UMass averages 15,112 fans per game while Delaware averages 22,029 fans per game. The numbers are very similar, or in Delaware's case, are substantially higher than what UConn was averaging as an FCS school. Can I claim with certainty that UMass and Delaware would experience similar jumps? No. However, I would expect that the chance to play regional FBS opponents (Syracuse, Rutgers, Delaware, UConn, etc) would help boost attendance for both programs substantially.
Stadiums
http://www.uconnhuskies.com/datadump/MFootball/2008/MediaGuide/153-MemorialStadium.pdf
The stadium question is a problem that UConn also faced when it choose to move up to the FBS subdivision. Memorial Stadium, UConn's old football stadium, seated 16,200 fans. This was well below the NCAA's minimum requirement of a 30,000 seat stadium. This article put out by the University discusses many of the issues that surrounded the stadium problem back in 1997.
http://advance.uconn.edu/1997/971027/fballqa.htm
Eventually, the state of Connecticut put up $90 million dollars for the construction of a new stadium in East Hartford. The State owns the facility and UConn serves as the buildings primary tenant. Would UMass and Delaware be able to convince their respective state legislature's to pony up several million for a new stadium or a stadium expansion like UConn did? I can't say with certainty. However, I have a hard time thinking that politicians would turn down the chance to get their flagship school into one of the nation's BCS conferences. The exposure, prestige, benefits, etc might outweigh the upfront cost.
(07-06-2009 04:13 PM)swash Wrote: Both are EXCELLENT schools, but it appears you are placing a lot of stock in a potential "media" market, rather than a fan base.
This is correct. The reason I am placing a lot of stock in potential media markets is because I think media markets are what will drive a future Big East expansion. To be honest, media markets are what partially drove the last round of Big East expansion. DePaul got in over schools like Xavier, Dayton, etc because it was located in Chicago. USF didn't have much history at the FBS level, but they did have potential and a large media market. The Big Ten Network has changed a lot of the dynamics in college athletics.
(07-06-2009 04:13 PM)swash Wrote: And under your 12 team example, I'm also curious as to why ECU would need to build a new basketball arena? Seems an odd suggestion.
Because ECU is already doing everything they possibly can to improve football. I suggested that because I need another hypothetical example and that was the only one that popped into my head
RE: Hybrid Model with Planned Full Membership - UofL07 - 07-06-2009 05:29 PM
(07-06-2009 04:43 PM)ohio1317 Wrote: Interesting proposal. Over the short to medium term I think ECU/Memphis/UCF are the best picks (ignoring BC, PSU, ND). Over the long term you might be right though. While the programs themselves might not be as strong, having the Big East be the northeast's football conference is important and will help more in the long run. [...] I think he understands that the programs you mentioned are stronger now and may always be stronger, but is implying that regional identity bring other benefits that are more important in the long run (correct me if I'm wrong).
You worded my point much better than I managed to do myself ohio1317. My proposal focused mostly on what the best long term solution for the conference would be as opposed to the best short to mid-term solution (relates to the "quick fix" problem I mentioned). The addition of northeastern football programs gives the conference two primary long term benefits:
1) It helps cement the conference's position in the nation's wealthiest and most populous area as opposed to vying for position in areas already claimed by other conferences (SEC, ACC, Big Ten, etc).
2) It gives the conference the same regional identity that the Big Ten, SEC, ACC, Pac-10, etc enjoy. Having a regional identity would not only strength the ties that bind the conference schools together, but it would also (IMO) help boost the conference's image. The Big East would finally be able to define itself rather than being a revolving door conference.
(07-06-2009 04:43 PM)egoboss407 Wrote: I understand you want to solidify the the NE presence but the demands you place on UMass and UD are already in place at Memphis, ECU, and UCF. Also the demands on Memphis, ECU, and UCF are way higher than Umass and UD. The CUSA schools have today what you are hoping the 2-3 fcs schools will have 5-10 years from now.
I agree fully with you that ECU, Memphis, and UCF already have the groundwork in place. However, there are other considerations that much be taken into account. For example, Memphis football would have to compete for attention against several SEC programs (Ole Miss, Miss St. Tennessee, Vanderbilt, etc) regardless of whether they join the Big East or not. ECU will have to compete against NC State and UNC for attention. UCF will be competing against UF, FSU, USF, and Miami. UMass and Delaware, on the other hand, are state flagships and would face much less competition for attention within their respective areas.
The question my post meant to raise is which of these scenarios is the best long term solution for the conference.
- Should the conference take already established teams and try to muscle its way into crowded southern markets where it will face a lot of competition?
Or
- Should the conference try to develop teams in a new and less contested area where there might be room for independent growth and development?
RE: Hybrid Model with Planned Full Membership - DAWGZILLA - 07-06-2009 05:32 PM
Why wouldn't the 8 football schools just break off and add Memphis with full membership and ECU, UCF and Marshall or Temple as football only? That would give them 12 for football and 9 for basketball.
I know that Marshall sucks right now so that is why I included Temple.
Seems to me that the 3 football only schools couldn't turn down the offer for a chance to get BCS dollars and league could have Championship game to maximize revenue.
RE: Hybrid Model with Planned Full Membership - Jackson1011 - 07-06-2009 05:42 PM
UofL07, you have fast becoming one of my favorite posters on here. I agree 100% with you about the the University of Delaware and its potential. As for your other ideas:
Quote:Cincinnati
Connecticut
Louisville
Pittsburgh
Rutgers
South Florida
Syracuse
West Virginia
UMass (basketball only)
Delaware (basketball only)
During the initial stage, the 8 current Big East football schools split to form a new conference. UMass and Delaware would be offered partial membership (basketball + Olympic sports) initially with the promise of full membership after five years on the following conditions:
1) Each program would begin construction on and complete a new 40,000 seat stadium within 5 years of accepting membership. In addition, each program would plan, construct, and finish acceptable football practice facilities (indoor practice facility or practice bubble, weightroom, etc) within 5 years of accepting membership. This would force both programs to upgrade their football facilities to meet the NCAA minimum.
-- Interesting that your thought process leds you in the opposite direction of the Big East model. The BE always prefered schools in big markets over the traditional state schools (BC over Umass, PC over Rhode Island, Pitt over Penn St)
-- I think it is unrealistic to expect UD and Umass to everything in place in five years. Where talking major staduim expansion, more funding for scholorships and fascilities etc. A ten year window might be more accurate. Also, UD is going to have to invest money in its bball fascilites which are not on par with the BE football schools at this point
-- The down side to your model is that the entire league (not just football) will be in a state a flux for sometime, perhaps more then a decade. Is that healthy for short and long term revenue?
Quote:12 Team Example Proposal
Cincinnati
Connecticut
Louisville
Pittsburgh
Rutgers
South Florida
Syracuse
West Virginia
Memphis/ECU/UCF
UMass (basketball only)
Delaware (basketball only)
URI (basketball only)
-- Under the 12 team model, I would suggest the addition of UCF as a travel partner and as a better fit for the conference because many northeasteners move to or retire in Fla. I would also substitute URI with Temple. Temple, IMO would fit nicely in this league with close games with Rutgers and UD
-- The negative here would be that adding to new IA progams and Temple would seriously lower the new league's BCS rankings in the short term
-- It also comes back to the same question, how successful is a northeastern football league going to be without Penn St? Having an Eastern league without PSU is like having a midwestern league without Michigan or a Southeastern league without Florida or Bama. The Nits were the biggest draw in the region by a huge margin and have the largest fan and alumuni base around
Jackson
RE: Hybrid Model with Planned Full Membership - TexanMark - 07-06-2009 05:53 PM
Too many Div 1A FB mouths in the Northeast is bad.
The Hybrid I like is to add: (Memphis or UCF or ECU) to go to 9 Full Members
Invite Notre Dame, Georgetown and Nova along for the ride.
RE: Hybrid Model with Planned Full Membership - WacoBearcat - 07-06-2009 05:58 PM
(07-06-2009 05:53 PM)TexanMark Wrote: Too many Div 1A FB mouths in the Northeast is bad.
The Hybrid I like is to add: (Memphis or UCF or ECU) to go to 9 Full Members
Invite Notre Dame, Georgetown and Nova along for the ride.
That's my preference as well. Then the Big East could keep its options open for adding one or two more football schools should attractive options come along. You could also keep the basketball league at 13-14 schools which is manageable. The question is whether the basketball schools want to come along for the ride. It would be hard for them to say no.
RE: Hybrid Model with Planned Full Membership - buckaineer - 07-06-2009 06:06 PM
Using the northeast teams to bring up as a model here are schools that would be good candidates also, maybe better than Delaware, UMass, etc.:
Villanova-already BE for everything else, just need scholarships and a stadium and facilities for football. Why not find a way for the league to boost their program (which is pretty good usually) rather than help someone else out. Plus Philly is a big important BE market.
Temple-if Villanova was a no go again, maybe getting back in the BE/BCS and smarter scheduling could bring more success and fans to watch their football team and bb has been very strong at times as well. Plus already 1-A
Buffalo-good sized market in NY state, gives SU a closer team to play, already a 1-A team, good academics
Akron-In a highly populated untapped area of Ohio including the Cleveland, Akron, Canton, and Youngstown metro areas. Ohio is one of if not the top h.s. football talent state and many players are from this area. They are finishing a new downtown campus stadium. If you could establish another BE BCS program in that state, you could boost the BE imprint in that state and boost the importance of Cincinnati's program in northeast Ohio as well. Akron has been an improving program over the years with decent bb (their football crushed SU last year at the dome). They might be more of a project than some others, but are already 1-A and again, being in northeast Ohio with a team could be of great benefit to the BEAST.
RE: Hybrid Model with Planned Full Membership - omniorange - 07-06-2009 06:15 PM
Hail UofL07
Very interesting concept. Lots of thought was obviously put into it.
My main objection to it is we already have 2 members out of 8 that are new to 1-A this century. Pushing it to 4 out of 10 just doesn't sit well with me when I see it initially.
But, I was against TS2's partial hybrid which I morphed into the version you read about from TexanMark - but mine was exclusively Memphis (no Memphis or ECU or UCF).
So I can be won over to the idea over time.
Cheers,
Neil
RE: Hybrid Model with Planned Full Membership - Cubanbull - 07-06-2009 07:17 PM
(07-06-2009 05:53 PM)TexanMark Wrote: Too many Div 1A FB mouths in the Northeast is bad.
The Hybrid I like is to add: (Memphis or UCF or ECU) to go to 9 Full Members
Invite Notre Dame, Georgetown and Nova along for the ride.
That to me is the best possible option. Of course thats not great for Providence, Seton Hall, St Johns, Marquette and DePaul
RE: Hybrid Model with Planned Full Membership - BullsFanInTX - 07-06-2009 07:30 PM
(07-06-2009 05:53 PM)TexanMark Wrote: Too many Div 1A FB mouths in the Northeast is bad.
The Hybrid I like is to add: (Memphis or UCF or ECU) to go to 9 Full Members
Invite Notre Dame, Georgetown and Nova along for the ride.
If there is a split, this option is far better than the one presented. Memphis, ECU, and UCF are known quantities, unlike the options presented.
RE: Hybrid Model with Planned Full Membership - omniorange - 07-06-2009 07:45 PM
(07-06-2009 07:30 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:(07-06-2009 05:53 PM)TexanMark Wrote: Too many Div 1A FB mouths in the Northeast is bad.
The Hybrid I like is to add: (Memphis or UCF or ECU) to go to 9 Full Members
Invite Notre Dame, Georgetown and Nova along for the ride.
If there is a split, this option is far better than the one presented. Memphis, ECU, and UCF are known quantities, unlike the options presented.
To be fair to UofL07 he was trying to come up with a long-term strategy that was at least feasible. Some of my ideas would be extremely difficult to pull off.
My order of preference, currently:
Vision 1:
PSU, ND, Miami, USF, Pitt, WVU, BC, SU, UL, UC, UConn, RU (with these two - G'town, Nova - and possibly two of the following - St. John's, Marquette, and Providence)
Vision 2:
Miami, USF, Pitt, WVU, BC, SU, UL, UC, UConn, RU (with G'Town and Nova)
Vision 3:
WVU, Pitt, USF, SU, RU, UConn, UL, UC, Memphis (with ND, G'Town, and Nova)
Vision 4:
WVU, Pitt, USF, SU, RU, UConn, UL, UC, Memphis, ECU
Vision 5:
The current status quo.
Of course the latter two are the simplest ones to accomplish, the rest get harder and harder to achieve as they go up line.
Cheers,
Neil
RE: Hybrid Model with Planned Full Membership - templefootballfan - 07-06-2009 08:39 PM
Biggest flaw about the plan, doesn't address bowl situation.
Long range plan for BE should be to keep Tripod together [Syc,Conn,Rutgers]
Does regional conf with Del & RI acomplish that. Now Mass should be looked at.
A conf [east of the Miss river] that crosses over NE, Midwest,South & Fla,
athleticly & acadamicly can attract alot of talent.
RE: Hybrid Model with Planned Full Membership - SO#1 - 07-06-2009 09:46 PM
(07-06-2009 05:53 PM)TexanMark Wrote: Too many Div 1A FB mouths in the Northeast is bad.
The Hybrid I like is to add: (Memphis or UCF or ECU) to go to 9 Full Members
Invite Notre Dame, Georgetown and Nova along for the ride.
When you said “Too many Div 1A FB mouths in the Northeast” Are you referring to recruits? Meaning there are not enough High School football players to support that many Div 1A schools in the Northeast? UConn went all over the country even into Canada to get players we need.
We need workable idea of strengthen the Northeast region and promote college football in the region. Grabbing teams from other region and called it a Big East team is laughable but relying on them for our future survival and prosperity is sad.
How long can Georgetown and Nova basketball programs keep up with us 5 or 10 years from now? If you thinking about long term of the league. I know UConn budget was among the highest in BE ten years ago before upgrade our football program but we are public school. A private school with only basketball revenue will spend $35M - $40M on overall budget ten years from now is hard to believe. But by then our top football programs will spend about $65M - $70M. How long do you think we can we keep hybrid going?
RE: Hybrid Model with Planned Full Membership - Ring of Black - 07-06-2009 11:49 PM
Are UMass and UDel willing to commit to building under these terms?
But, the more important question: Are the eight remaining football programs willing to stand pat and commit to this league? If the BE hadn't been able to quickly rebuild from the 2003 ashes, UConn would have been screwed royally with a humungous stadium debt. I think UMass and UDel would look at eight schools, almost all who eye the "greener pastures" of the ACC, B-11, and SEC, and would probably balk at the suggestion unless significant assurances and obligations are in place.