+- 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)
RE: Hybrid Model with Planned Full Membership - TexanMark - 07-07-2009 12:30 AM
(07-06-2009 09:46 PM)SO#1 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.
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?
Yes too few recruits in the NE
RE: Hybrid Model with Planned Full Membership - Shannon Panther - 07-07-2009 06:24 AM
If we are going to split and go to 10, Temple and UCF make the most sense. You add two large markets (retain Philadelphia), consolidate your footprint, and add a travel partner for USF reducing travel cost for everyone. That would set up a PAC-10 like conference with:
Syr - UConn
Rut- Temple
Pitt-WVU
Cin- Lou
USF - UCF
as travel partners. If the conference is going to stay together and add 1 football member then I think Memphis/UCF/ECU bring the most to the table for strengthening the FB side of things.
I personally think that elevating another 2 schools in the northeast would be a bad plan. We already have the region identified as BE country with the exception of Boston who is far more interested in pro sports anyway. If we go to 12 members then we should look at expanding the footprint.
Trust me when I say that if we split, we will not walk away from Philadelphia and leave it to the BB schools. In a split we lose NYC, DC, Chicago, and Milwaukee. We will not be giving up Philadelphia too.
RE: Hybrid Model with Planned Full Membership - mlb - 07-07-2009 06:41 AM
I can't see URI or UMASS ever becoming big programs in football. There is not enough football talent in the NE, plus how many top kids are interested in coming up from Florida and playing in a cold weather climate? I can't imagine adding 2 more teams up there will make it any easier to recruit to UConn or Syracuse (and BC). I still think it needs to be between Memphis, UCF, and ECU.
RE: Hybrid Model with Planned Full Membership - Krocker Krapp - 07-07-2009 08:05 AM
I do not understand the idea of leaving the current hybrid only to go into a different hybrid. What it equates to is simply kicking a couple of schools out of the conference when everything is said and done. The only purpose of a split should be to form an all-sports league. Otherwise just stay in the current hybrid and expand it to address the final lingering concerns.
We only need nine schools for football. Ten is unnecessary and twelve would be suicidal unless the additions are Penn State, Boston College, Notre Dame, and a school somewhat close to USF. Compromise has always been the hallmark of the Big East so we may as well make one last deal by adding one more football member and one more Catholic basketball member.
RE: Hybrid Model with Planned Full Membership - omniorange - 07-07-2009 08:10 AM
(07-07-2009 08:05 AM)Krocker Krapp Wrote: I do not understand the idea of leaving the current hybrid only to go into a different hybrid. What it equates to is simply kicking a couple of schools out of the conference when everything is said and done. The only purpose of a split should be to form an all-sports league. Otherwise just stay in the current hybrid and expand it to address the final lingering concerns.
We only need nine schools for football. Ten is unnecessary and twelve would be suicidal unless the additions are Penn State, Boston College, Notre Dame, and a school somewhat close to USF. Compromise has always been the hallmark of the Big East so we may as well make one last deal by adding one more football member and one more Catholic basketball member.
The primary purpose of any conference set-up is to make enough $$$ to be competitive with one's peers.
That will involve both markets and quality and quantity of product.
Cheers,
Neil
RE: Hybrid Model with Planned Full Membership - bluesox - 07-07-2009 09:04 AM
I think it would work...the concept would be a less complicated, smaller hybrid + make it an eastern themed league with state flagship school's that over time would develop into big time players in hoops and true rivals for some current big east teams. Start with the 9 team football line up of:
uconn
syracuse
rutgers
temple
pitt
w.virg
cincy
lville
s.fl
and add 3 non football school's who will never upgrade football
umass
uri
udel
and that is a heck of an eastern league which i think would make some serious coin. Now, i could see umass + udel try to make the jump to d1 football...not happening for uri, so maybe the better concept would be add c.fl to get to 10 football members at the start, than add umass + udel as 2 non football members with the hopes of them jumping to d1 football sometime...or nothing wrong with the 9 football and 3 non football format so going in umass, uri, and udel don't have the pressure to upgrade in the future.
RE: Hybrid Model with Planned Full Membership - SO#1 - 07-07-2009 09:07 AM
(07-07-2009 06:24 AM)Shannon Panther Wrote: If we are going to split and go to 10, Temple and UCF make the most sense. You add two large markets (retain Philadelphia), consolidate your footprint, and add a travel partner for USF reducing travel cost for everyone. That would set up a PAC-10 like conference with:
Syr - UConn
Rut- Temple
Pitt-WVU
Cin- Lou
USF - UCF
as travel partners. If the conference is going to stay together and add 1 football member then I think Memphis/UCF/ECU bring the most to the table for strengthening the FB side of things.
I personally think that elevating another 2 schools in the northeast would be a bad plan. We already have the region identified as BE country with the exception of Boston who is far more interested in pro sports anyway. If we go to 12 members then we should look at expanding the footprint.
Trust me when I say that if we split, we will not walk away from Philadelphia and leave it to the BB schools. In a split we lose NYC, DC, Chicago, and Milwaukee. We will not be giving up Philadelphia too.
As UConn fan, elevating UCF to our level is very bad idea because there are talents in Florida that we want to bring in to our program. We don’t need any more competition. Common sense tells you that you recruit from places that have talents. We are living in the 21 century. We have cars and planes and can go beyond 50 miles radius. I don’t see having UCF in our league will ever benefit USF. Football need a lot of history to have any tradition and USF need a few more decades of separation from UCF before USF are on the same level as the other top three programs.
I don’t see the reason that pro-sports fans can’t be college fans and turn on the TV sets and watch college games. They may not have money to go to both game but watching TV is cheap don’t cost much for sport fans. What would interest them would be having a local team to root for. They don’t have to go to that school just having that school in the state that live in is enough for their support. If there are colleges football fans in Philadelphia they would most likely are PSU fans.
RE: Hybrid Model with Planned Full Membership - mlb - 07-07-2009 10:00 AM
Adding more northern schools will not help you, SO#1. It takes a special player from Florida to want to go up north to a cold weather climate. Putting more teams up north in your neighborhood only makes UConn recruiting harder, IMO. I think you would be better off with UCF in the Big East than any of the others mentioned.
My opinion is that for UConn to survive long term, they need to start recruiting more Pennsylvania and Ohio anyway.
RE: Hybrid Model with Planned Full Membership - Krocker Krapp - 07-07-2009 10:00 AM
UCF would not hurt any of the Northern teams. Adding them would actually help steer more Florida players to schools like UConn, Rutgers, and the rest because those players would then be guaranteed a chance to play in Florida in front of their friends and families every single year rather than every other year.
The marginal ACC teams, some Big Ten teams, a few Big 12 teams, CUSA teams, and Sun Belt teams are the ones who would be hurt by a UCF addition to the Big East. Players who previously went to those places would start going to Big East programs instead because of the new annual chance to play at home.
RE: Hybrid Model with Planned Full Membership - Frank the Tank - 07-07-2009 10:11 AM
(07-07-2009 08:05 AM)Krocker Krapp Wrote: I do not understand the idea of leaving the current hybrid only to go into a different hybrid. What it equates to is simply kicking a couple of schools out of the conference when everything is said and done. The only purpose of a split should be to form an all-sports league. Otherwise just stay in the current hybrid and expand it to address the final lingering concerns.
We only need nine schools for football. Ten is unnecessary and twelve would be suicidal unless the additions are Penn State, Boston College, Notre Dame, and a school somewhat close to USF. Compromise has always been the hallmark of the Big East so we may as well make one last deal by adding one more football member and one more Catholic basketball member.
I'd agree with this. I don't believe that there should be a split, but I think that UofL07's proposal where it eventually turns into an all-sports league is well-thought out. However, the other proposals for just keeping a handful of the Catholic basketball schools seem to fly in the face of so many complaints on this board, which is that there isn't unity in vision for the future of the conference. Note that almost all of these partial hybrid proposals refer to keeping ND, Georgetown, and Villanova. ND is obviously the big dog in college sports, yet the inclusion of Georgetown and Villanova is completely based on short-term thinking based on the past few years of performance. If we were talking in 2004, which was a mere 5 years ago, the most desirable Catholic schools based on recent performance were Providence, Seton Hall, and yes, DePaul, which are all schools that are continually bashed on this board today. (Meanwhile, Villanova and Georgetown respectively finished 11th and 12th in the 14-team Big East that season.) Why kick out the NYC and Chicago markets yet keep the DC and Philly markets when things can drastically change over the course of 5 years? Any conference change needs to be looked at as something that you're going to want to keep for the next 20, 30, or 40 years. Too many people just look at the last couple of years and think that it's a permanent situation, which simply isn't the case.
Krocker Krapp is right - you can call repackage something as a "new model" or "partial hybrid", but it's kicking a handful of teams out at the end of the day. If you want to split, then go all the way to form an all-sports league. Otherwise, the hybrid's best use is to bring in all of those large markets that TV networks care about (NYC, Chicago, DC, Philly, Milwaukee, Boston) - there's no point in kicking out a couple of them and then keeping a couple of others with the markets involved and the reality that performance on the court changes a lot over time.
RE: Hybrid Model with Planned Full Membership - bitcruncher - 07-07-2009 10:19 AM
(07-07-2009 12:30 AM)TexanMark Wrote: Yes too few recruits in the NEThat's because they're all playing basketball, since nobody up north has a football program worth looking up to at present. So everyone is playing hoops instead...
Jim Brown will back me up on this too...
RE: Hybrid Model with Planned Full Membership - UofL07 - 07-07-2009 10:34 AM
(07-06-2009 05:32 PM)DAWGZILLA Wrote: 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.
- Marshall doesn't add any sort of value to the Big East. Keep in miond that West Virginia is one of the poorest and least populated states in the country and that the league already has the state's flagship institution (WVU). If we were discussing New York City, Chicago, Pennsylvania, etc., then market duplication would be less of an issue. However, given the West Virginia's population base, it makes no sense to duplicate that market.
- Will UCF, ECU, and Temple accept a football only invitation while Memphis is admitted as a full member? Something tells me that scenario is highly unlikely.
RE: Hybrid Model with Planned Full Membership - Krocker Krapp - 07-07-2009 11:10 AM
(07-07-2009 10:34 AM)UofL07 Wrote: Will UCF, ECU, and Temple accept a football only invitation while Memphis is admitted as a full member? Something tells me that scenario is highly unlikely.
In addition, where would UCF and ECU put their other sports, because surely everyone must understand that they would not be able to stay in CUSA under that scenario? The A-10 is already at 14 members, the CAA is already at 12 members, the SoCon is already at 12 members, the Big South is currently looking at potential 12th members, and the A-Sun is pretty far down the totem pole. It would put their entire athletic programs at risk with no guarantees for reversing any damage in the future.
I do not understand this fascination with us throwing out all these crazy hybrid scenarios. Most of them would harm certain schools more than they would help. Intercollegiate athletic conferences are meant to be simple. Not complicated. The Big East does have the potential to make an 8/8 or a 9/9 hybrid work but only because of our unique history and geographic roots. When you start kicking out certain members or attaching disruptive conditions to new members, however, things could get nasty.
RE: Hybrid Model with Planned Full Membership - UofL07 - 07-07-2009 11:22 AM
(07-06-2009 05:42 PM)Jackson1011 Wrote: 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)
As much as I hate to admit it, I think "state schools" do have some inherent advantages that large market based schools do not. I know many rabid college fans that cheer for certain programs simply for the fact that the program "is the state school and carries the state's name". I also recognize that many large market teams are handicapped when it comes to fan recruitment. Louisville, for example, has a very strong fan base in the metro region itself, but it is going to take decades of on-the-field success (and decades of UK being terrible) for the Cards to gain a large following of fans out in the state. There is also a chance that that may never happen. The same is probably true for USF, Cincinnati, and Pitt. They may grow to be extremely popular in their Metro regions, but they are more than likely going to face a hard time expanding outside of them due to the presence of very success "state schools" (OSU, Penn St., UF/FSU).
I'm not saying that large market teams don't have value. I think UofL, UC, USF, and Pitt are all extremely valuable programs. What I am saying is that, in my opinion, large market teams have a much hard time breaking the fan barrier. That is one reason why I choose to add two "state schools". Like UConn, they carry their states' names and I feel it would be easy for them to grow a solid fan base fairly quickly (as opposed to a Temple type program). The other reason I choose two "state programs" is due to their market. Unlike large market teams (which typically only get attention within their own respective market), state programs tend to garner media attention throughout the state and in some cases, throughout a region. Rutgers, for example, gets a ton of football press throughout New Jersey and NYC. Louisville, on the other hand, many gets press in Louisville (though we occasionally get an honorable mention in Northern Kentucky/Lexington). There are some exceptions to this such as Syracuse getting publicity throughout New York State, Boise St getting press throughout Idaho, etc., but I think those case mostly involve situations where there isn't a singular "state school" (New York State) or where the state school is simply completely incompetent in every aspect (Idaho).
(07-06-2009 05:42 PM)Jackson1011 Wrote: -- I think it is unrealistic to expect UD and Umass to everything in place in five years. Where talking major stadium expansion, more funding for scholarships and facilities etc. A ten year window might be more accurate. Also, UD is going to have to invest money in its bball facilities which are not on par with the BE football schools at this point
Looking back at my original post, I agree with you on this point. Five years would probably be an unrealistic goal for either program to achieve. Personally, I think 10 years is a bit too long and would perhaps shorten it to 7-8 years (2 years for planning, 3 years to fund raise, 2-3 years for construction). I also think that both schools, being their states' respective flagship programs, would probably have a much easier time getting money from the legislature to upgrade their athletic facilities for Big East admission.
(07-06-2009 05:42 PM)Jackson1011 Wrote: 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?
Agreed, though I would content that any expansion model (save one that includes Penn St, BC, Maryland, ND would put the conference in a state of flux. For example, consider if the conference went to an all-sport league with UCF, ECU, Memphis, and Temple. In their current state (with perhaps the exception of ECU), none of those programs is in an immediate position to help strengthen the conference. In all likelihood, the conference SOS rating would drop for the first few years until those programs could begin recruiting on a BCS level. Basketball SOS would also drop significantly. How would that impact TV revenues for both sports (i.e. would you make more in football but less in basketball?). The last transition wasn't as big of a deal because Louisville and Cincinnati came in as solid football programs and USF was on the upswing. In addition, the strength of the league in basketball was also able to mask USF and DePaul's poor performance.
(07-06-2009 05:42 PM)Jackson1011 Wrote: -- 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
I agree that Temple would probably be a better school to add than URI. You also make good points for why UCF should be added (though you didn't mention the huge student body which will one day = a huge alumni base). However, good points could also be made for Memphis (bowl game, built in rivalry games, basketball power which the new league might need, etc) and ECU (good football programs and an athletic department focused on making football the #1 sport). This goes back to my original argument about the problems that we run into when we discuss expansion - there are lots of good candidates, no great/clear-cut candidates.
(07-06-2009 05:42 PM)Jackson1011 Wrote: 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 alumni base around
I think you make an excellent point here, though I disagree with your ultimate premise. A Northeast league without Penn St. would seem very odd and most certainly wouldn't be as powerful/strong as a northeastern league that included the Nits. However, I'd argue that the league could be very successful over time. UMass, Delaware, UConn, Syracuse are all within a relatively close proximity to one another and over time you could see some great rivalries form (not saying that would happen, only that the geographic proximity would definately aid the process). Likewise,Temple, Rutgers, and Delaware could develop a rivalry given their proximity. Louisville, Cincinnati, Pitt, and WVU could form a different cluster of schools that develop rivalries over time (UC-UL and Pityt WVU are already well established). USF and UCF could have their own rivalry in Florida. The league wouldn't be as strong right off the bat ("quick fix" problem), but I do that that if the schools hung together, that the all-sports league that developed could form some great rivalries that would help cement the bonds between the schools. Just my opinion though.
RE: Hybrid Model with Planned Full Membership - UofL07 - 07-07-2009 11:59 AM
(07-06-2009 06:06 PM)buckaineer Wrote: 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.
You make a good point. One advantage of helping Nova and G'town move up is that they are already in the conference for other sports and they have an established history with many of the current Big East schools. I choose to go with UMass and Delaware over Nova and G'town for two reasons:
1) Public versus Private - Due to differences in tuition costs, housing costs, etc. it is much more difficult for private schools to compete with public universities. Public universities can receive assistance from their state legislature for facility upgrade whereas most private schools must pay for the upgrades themselves. UMass, for example, may be able to get aid from the state of Massachusetts to construct new football facilities. Villanova, on the other hand, would have to rely on alumni and the conference for support. Basically, it is a matter of externalization of costs - getting someone else to put 100+ million into upgrades for you rather than paying for them yours (i.e. BE giving Nova money) is usually the better option to take. However, we can take the financial point even further.
Let's say that both Villanova and UMass upgrade their facilities and receive a yearly $6 million from the Big East to develop their football programs (scholarships, coaching, staff, maintenance, etc).
Villanova cost of attendance: $40,000
UMass cost of attendance: $20,000 (in-state) or $31,500 (out of state)
For an 85 man roster, Villanova would have to spend $3,400,000 of their 6 million dollar check on scholarships. The Wildcats would have $2,600,000 to hire an entire football staff (HC + position coaches + people that work in the football complex) and cover other costs. If UMass recruited an entire rost of out-of-state kids (something I doubt they'd actually do), they would have to spend $2,677,500 on scholarships. That would leave the minutemen with $3,320,000 dollars to spend hiring a coaching staff, etc.
What I hope this extreme example showed is that private schools face a much tougher time actually supporting football at a high level because scholarship costs are usually much higher. Could Nova succeed in the Big East? Absolutely. However, my gut tells me that they'd probably end up more like Duke (crap football with no money to pay for a coach) than a Notre Dame or USC.
2) State school benefits - see above post.
(07-06-2009 06:06 PM)buckaineer Wrote: 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
I'm leary of adding Temple but you do make a good point. They would be better, IMO, in a 12 team expansion, in place of a school like URI.
(07-06-2009 06:06 PM)buckaineer Wrote: Buffalo-good sized market in NY state, gives SU a closer team to play, already a 1-A team, good academics
I'd rather have UMass and Delaware. Both are state schools with good academics and both, IMO, have a higher ceiling in terms of fan support than Buffalo does.
(07-06-2009 06:06 PM)buckaineer Wrote: 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.
Interesting choice, I'll have to mull that one over in my mind and do some research on them. I'll get back to you on this one.
RE: Hybrid Model with Planned Full Membership - XLance - 07-07-2009 12:00 PM
(07-06-2009 07:45 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:(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
Neil,
Vision #2 looks perfect for now:
takes Miami and Boston College from the ACC
and leaves room for Norte Dame when they are ready
That is 11 teams which is the perfect number for a conference
RE: Hybrid Model with Planned Full Membership - MissouriStateBears - 07-07-2009 12:21 PM
(07-07-2009 08:05 AM)Krocker Krapp Wrote: We only need nine schools for football. Ten is unnecessary
10 is perfect for basketball purposes though. 18 game, round-robin schedule, especially for the northeast.
RE: Hybrid Model with Planned Full Membership - omniorange - 07-07-2009 02:48 PM
(07-07-2009 12:00 PM)XLance Wrote:(07-06-2009 07:45 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:(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
Neil,
Vision #2 looks perfect for now:
takes Miami and Boston College from the ACC
and leaves room for Norte Dame when they are ready
That is 11 teams which is the perfect number for a conference
Nah! In that improbable scenario I have ND sacrificing themselves to be Catholic League #6 so that they don't lose out an auto bid after one year's time.
We know how grateful the Irish will be for all those programs have done for them over the years.
Cheers,
Neil
RE: Hybrid Model with Planned Full Membership - UofL07 - 07-07-2009 02:57 PM
(07-06-2009 05:53 PM)TexanMark Wrote: Too many Div 1A FB mouths in the Northeast is bad.
I'm not convinced that would be the case. For example, Delaware and UMass could recruit Maryland, south New Jersey, and Eastern Pennsylvania Philadelphia area. Would they recruit against some of the current Big East schools? Yes. But it is also important to remember that many ACC and Big Ten schools mine that area as well. IMO, funneling more of the New Jersey/PA/Maryland talent pool into Big East hands and away from the ACC and Big Ten would be a good thing.
RE: Hybrid Model with Planned Full Membership - UofL07 - 07-07-2009 03:22 PM
(07-06-2009 06:15 PM)omnicarrier Wrote: 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.
I can fully understand your point Niel and I think it is a valid criticism. Taking two new FBS programs wouldn't sit well with many people and I think that such a move would place a short term stigma on the league. Unfortunately for my proposal, that criticism is something that simply can't be overcome in the short term. However, I would argue that any realistic (meaning no PSU, Maryland, ND, BC, Miami) expansion scenario would also place a stigma on the league. Consider this:
Memphis
- Memphis' bowl record is 4-3 with only two bowl appearances before 2003.
- Memphis has never played in the Liberty Bowl.
- Memphis has never won a conference football title
- Memphis' all-time record is 426-442-33
- Memphis' was a founding member of C-USA in 1996 but has yet to win a conference title.
Temple
- Temple's bowl record is 2 -1 with their last appearance in 1979.
- Temple's all-time record is 387–506–52
- Temple is the only school in the country to have lost its status as a BCS program.
UCF
- UCF's all-time record is 166–156–1 (including lower division wins)
- UCF is 0-2 in post-season bowls
- UCF has won one conference title since joining a conference in 2002
- UCF upgraded to D-1A in 1996
ECU
- ECU's all-time record is 381–352–11
- ECU's post season record is 8-6
- ECU has 6 conference titles (1 C-USA title)
Out of all of those teams, ECU is the only team that has a long history of preforming relatively well on the field. Memphis and Temple help the perception of the football conference and UCF, like UConn and USF, is a relative newcomer to the ranks of FBS. Unfortunately, ECU has the past success while the rest have the TV markets.
My point is, either way the conference goes, it is probably going to receive some stigma from taking teams from a lower conference or upgrades from a lower division.