My apologies but I am going to do this exercise in this forum mainly because I don't think the Conference Realignment board is appropriate for this thread.

The purpose is to take a hypothetical Big East that tries to maximize attendance in both football and basketball. Again the emphasis is on attendance in the two major sports.

So, let's say the Big East did a 12/18 all-sports set-up (no football onlies) as follows:

Football - add BYU, ECU, and Houston (not a likely trio but this is just an exercise)

Basketball - drop Providence and Seton Hall (again, not likely to happen, but this is just an exercise).

Which football teams, if any, do you see averaging 70K plus in football by the next decade?

60K - 70K by the next decade?

50K - 60K by the next decade?

40K - 50K by the next decade?

Less than 40K by the next decade.

For basketball...

20K plus by the next decade?

17 -19K by the next decade?

13 - 16K by the next decade?

10 - 12K by the next decade?

7 - 9K by the next decade?

Less than 7K by the next decade?

Cheers,
Neil

(06-02-2011 04:51 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  So, let's say the Big East did a 12/18 all-sports set-up (no football onlies) as follows:

Football - add BYU, ECU, and Houston (not a likely trio but this is just an exercise)

Basketball - drop Providence and Seton Hall (again, not likely to happen, but this is just an exercise).

My thoughts:

Which football teams, if any, do you see averaging 70K plus in football by the next decade? - none

60K - 70K by the next decade? - BYU and WVU

50K - 60K by the next decade? - Louisville, ECU, Pitt, and USF

40K - 50K by the next decade? - SU, RU, UConn, TCU

Less than 40K by the next decade. - Cincy, Houston

For basketball...

20K plus by the next decade? - SU and Louisville

17 -19K by the next decade? - none

13 - 16K by the next decade? - Marquette and BYU

10 - 12K by the next decade? - UConn, Cincy, West Virginia, Pitt and G'Town, Nova, St. John's, and DePaul when good

7 - 9K by the next decade? - Rutgers, ND, and then G'Town, Nova, St. John's, and DePaul when not good

Less than 7K by the next decade? - TCU, Houston, USF, and ECU

Cheers,
Neil

(06-02-2011 04:51 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  My apologies but I am going to do this exercise in this forum mainly because I don't think the Conference Realignment board is appropriate for this thread.

The purpose is to take a hypothetical Big East that tries to maximize attendance in both football and basketball. Again the emphasis is on attendance in the two major sports.

So, let's say the Big East did a 12/18 all-sports set-up (no football onlies) as follows:

Football - add BYU, ECU, and Houston (not a likely trio but this is just an exercise)

Basketball - drop Providence and Seton Hall (again, not likely to happen, but this is just an exercise).

Which football teams, if any, do you see averaging 70K plus in football by the next decade?

60K - 70K by the next decade?

50K - 60K by the next decade?

40K - 50K by the next decade?

Less than 40K by the next decade.

For basketball...

20K plus by the next decade?

17 -19K by the next decade?

13 - 16K by the next decade?

10 - 12K by the next decade?

7 - 9K by the next decade?

Less than 7K by the next decade?

Cheers,
Neil

+1

(06-02-2011 04:57 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  

(06-02-2011 04:51 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  So, let's say the Big East did a 12/18 all-sports set-up (no football onlies) as follows:

Football - add BYU, ECU, and Houston (not a likely trio but this is just an exercise)

Basketball - drop Providence and Seton Hall (again, not likely to happen, but this is just an exercise).

My thoughts:

Which football teams, if any, do you see averaging 70K plus in football by the next decade? - none

60K - 70K by the next decade? - BYU and WVU

50K - 60K by the next decade? - Louisville, ECU, Pitt, and USF

40K - 50K by the next decade? - SU, RU, UConn, TCU

Less than 40K by the next decade. - Cincy, Houston

For basketball...

20K plus by the next decade? - SU and Louisville

17 -19K by the next decade? - none

13 - 16K by the next decade? - Marquette and BYU

10 - 12K by the next decade? - UConn, Cincy, West Virginia, Pitt and G'Town, Nova, St. John's, and DePaul when good

7 - 9K by the next decade? - Rutgers, ND, and then G'Town, Nova, St. John's, and DePaul when not good

Less than 7K by the next decade? - TCU, Houston, USF, and ECU

Cheers,
Neil

+1

(06-02-2011 04:57 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  

(06-02-2011 04:51 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  So, let's say the Big East did a 12/18 all-sports set-up (no football onlies) as follows:

Football - add BYU, ECU, and Houston (not a likely trio but this is just an exercise)

Basketball - drop Providence and Seton Hall (again, not likely to happen, but this is just an exercise).

My thoughts:

Which football teams, if any, do you see averaging 70K plus in football by the next decade? - none

60K - 70K by the next decade? - BYU and WVU

50K - 60K by the next decade? - Louisville, ECU, Pitt, and USF

40K - 50K by the next decade? - SU, RU, UConn, TCU

Less than 40K by the next decade. - Cincy, Houston

For basketball...

20K plus by the next decade? - SU and Louisville

17 -19K by the next decade? - none

13 - 16K by the next decade? - Marquette and BYU

10 - 12K by the next decade? - UConn, Cincy, West Virginia, Pitt and G'Town, Nova, St. John's, and DePaul when good

7 - 9K by the next decade? - Rutgers, ND, and then G'Town, Nova, St. John's, and DePaul when not good

Less than 7K by the next decade? - TCU, Houston, USF, and ECU

Cheers,
Neil

Using your estimates and in this scenario, I figured that BE FB attendance would average ~ 50k while BB would be between ~ 10-11 k (depending on the good/bad years).

The FB attendance would be right on the heels of the current attendance of the ACC and Pac12. I'm not sure how either of those conferences will change with respect to this going forward.

The BE BB attendance wouldn't change that much overall compared to where it currently is, 'slightly' dropping or staying even but these are just estimates. This past season, the Big East was fourth with just over 11k (behind the Big 10, SEC, and Big 12) and in 2009, the BE was 4th with just under 10.9k (behind the Big 10, SEC, and ACC).

(06-02-2011 04:57 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  

(06-02-2011 04:51 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  So, let's say the Big East did a 12/18 all-sports set-up (no football onlies) as follows:

Football - add BYU, ECU, and Houston (not a likely trio but this is just an exercise)

Basketball - drop Providence and Seton Hall (again, not likely to happen, but this is just an exercise).

My thoughts:

Which football teams, if any, do you see averaging 70K plus in football by the next decade? - none

60K - 70K by the next decade? - BYU and WVU

50K - 60K by the next decade? - Louisville, ECU, Pitt, and USF

40K - 50K by the next decade? - SU, RU, UConn, TCU

Less than 40K by the next decade. - Cincy, Houston

For basketball...

20K plus by the next decade? - SU and Louisville

17 -19K by the next decade? - none

13 - 16K by the next decade? - Marquette and BYU

10 - 12K by the next decade? - UConn, Cincy, West Virginia, Pitt and G'Town, Nova, St. John's, and DePaul when good

7 - 9K by the next decade? - Rutgers, ND, and then G'Town, Nova, St. John's, and DePaul when not good

Less than 7K by the next decade? - TCU, Houston, USF, and ECU

Cheers,
Neil

A) I love the additions that were suggested

B) I think your attendance projections are spot on unless the league does something odd like the ACC did and not have the divisions organzied based off of geography

How stong of a possibility do you think BYU is?

Jackson

(06-03-2011 03:15 AM)Hoquista Wrote:  Using your estimates and in this scenario, I figured that BE FB attendance would average ~ 50k while BB would be between ~ 10-11 k (depending on the good/bad years).

The FB attendance would be right on the heels of the current attendance of the ACC and Pac12. I'm not sure how either of those conferences will change with respect to this going forward.

The BE BB attendance wouldn't change that much overall compared to where it currently is, 'slightly' dropping or staying even but these are just estimates. This past season, the Big East was fourth with just over 11k (behind the Big 10, SEC, and Big 12) and in 2009, the BE was 4th with just under 10.9k (behind the Big 10, SEC, and ACC).

Thanks Hoquista!

The overall goal of the exercise was to try and get football attendance up as much as possible while not reducing basketball attendance.

Of course divisions in football don't have a natural split with this set-up.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-03-2011 07:42 AM)Jackson1011 Wrote:  A) I love the additions that were suggested

B) I think your attendance projections are spot on unless the league does something odd like the ACC did and not have the divisions organzied based off of geography

How stong of a possibility do you think BYU is?

Jackson

Thanks Jackson. But I think football divisions will be tough with these three expansion candidates.

I think BYU is a longshot. But if TV wants to pay us $18-20 million per football school and they want BYU as one of those schools, that might just be enticing enough for the Cougars.

Cheers,
Neil

I'd replace BYU with SMU. IMO leaving SMU out of the mix in our attempt to gain an audience in DFW is a mistake...

SMU would probably have the same kind of attendance expectations that TCU would, depending upon their success...

(06-03-2011 09:25 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I'd replace BYU with SMU. IMO leaving SMU out of the mix in our attempt to gain an audience in DFW is a mistake...

SMU would probably have the same kind of attendance expectations that TCU would, depending upon their success...

You aren't the only one who thinks this way. But I disagree.

First, SMU right now is a one-coach wonder in June Jones, who is likely to move on in the next few years. Houston has won under both Briles and now Sumlin.

Next, Houston already has key BCS wins over both Oklahoma State and Texas Tech when they were both 9 win teams in the Big 12. SMU doesn't have any comparable wins. As a matter of fact, in both of their best years (2009 and 2010) they lost to Navy each year.

The better games played by TCU already get a 5 share in DFW. The better games played by Houston should get the same in Houston once they are on a better network. When they play each other, I'd expect that to rise to a 7-8 share in both cities.

Adding SMU over Houston might get the league an additional 2-3 share in DFW but that will not be as much as the 5 share in Houston. And the 9-10 share in DFW itself when SMU-TCU play will not match the 7-8 share in both Dallas and Houston when the Horned Frogs and Cougars play.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-03-2011 08:07 AM)omnicarrier Wrote:  Thanks Hoquista!

The overall goal of the exercise was to try and get football attendance up as much as possible while not reducing basketball attendance.

Definitely accomplishes that! I neglected to point out that average BE FB attendance goes from 45k to 50k under this scenario too (IIRC).

(06-03-2011 08:07 AM)omnicarrier Wrote:  Of course divisions in football don't have a natural split with this set-up.

Cheers,
Neil

Agreed but I definitely like this much better than almost all of the others floating around.

(06-03-2011 09:25 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  SMU would probably have the same kind of attendance expectations that TCU would, depending upon their success...

SMU's Ford Stadium maxes out at 32,000. TCU (Amon G. Carter Stadium) seats 46,000 and may expand further on the east.

SMU:
http://graphics.fansonly.com/schools/smu...m-625w.jpg

TCU:
http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2010/0816/dal_tcu2ts_576.jpg

(06-03-2011 09:36 AM)omnicarrier Wrote:  

(06-03-2011 09:25 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I'd replace BYU with SMU. IMO leaving SMU out of the mix in our attempt to gain an audience in DFW is a mistake...

SMU would probably have the same kind of attendance expectations that TCU would, depending upon their success...

You aren't the only one who thinks this way. But I disagree.

First, SMU right now is a one-coach wonder in June Jones, who is likely to move on in the next few years. Houston has won under both Briles and now Sumlin.

Houston is as much a two or three year wonder as SMU. The difference though is when both were in the SWC, SMU won bigger than Houston.

(06-03-2011 09:36 AM)omnicarrier Wrote:  Next, Houston already has key BCS wins over both Oklahoma State and Texas Tech when they were both 9 win teams in the Big 12. SMU doesn't have any comparable wins. As a matter of fact, in both of their best years (2009 and 2010) they lost to Navy each year.

Houston was last ranked in the top 25 at the end of the year 20 years ago. One win here or there is way too much of living in the moment.

(06-03-2011 09:36 AM)omnicarrier Wrote:  Adding SMU over Houston might get the league an additional 2-3 share in DFW but that will not be as much as the 5 share in Houston. And the 9-10 share in DFW itself when SMU-TCU play will not match the 7-8 share in both Dallas and Houston when the Horned Frogs and Cougars play.

By most accounts of what TCU fans have said, TCU and SMU are rivals, TCU and Houston are not. I can't say for sure, but that is what most of their vocal fans have said. When SMU was big, they had the attention of Dallas. When Houston was big, they did not have the same notoriety in Houston. SMU has one distinct advantage over Houston: as the 30 for 30 series showed, SMU doesn;t really have the C-USA mid major stink on it that others do. They are still viewed as the major power killed by the death penalty. Since they are just resurfacing, they would have an easier transition to the Big Time in recruiting than Houston, and would be able to compete pretty quickly. Even though the 30 for 30 showed all of the cheating (whcih really isn't a detriment to prospective HS recurits), it put their name back out there in a big, big way.

This much I would speculate: the additional viewership numbers in DFW gained by the addition of SMU (in conjuction with TCU), would be more than the additional numbers gained in Houston with UH added. Add that to a much stronger penetration in one market, as opposed to splintered penetration in two markets, and between the two SMU probably brings more to the table for the conference in football and exposure.

But, there are other things to consider (other sports, academics, etc) that may alter this, namely the other big money sport; men's basketball. I still find Nova a preferred number ten, with ten being the max number, but ECU and SMU would be the next two on my list, with UCF a distant third, and Houston somewhere behind Temple. But that's just me

For the thread's sake, I will play along. But I had to change the categories, because your system does not allow for a lot of important numbers, namely 19,500, 16,500, 12,500, or 9,500.

(06-02-2011 04:51 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  Which football teams, if any, do you see averaging 70K plus in football by the next decade?

60K - 70K by the next decade? BYU, West Virginia, ECU
Louisville

50K - 60K by the next decade? Pitt, USF, Rutgers, Syracuse

40K - 50K by the next decade? UConn, TCU, Cincinnati (if they play 2 games per year at PBS), Houston

Less than 40K by the next decade. none

For basketball...

19K plus by the next decade? Syracuse, Louisville, BYU (they have a huge stadium, and playing BE teams would start to fill it more)

16k -19K by the next decade? Marquette

13k - 16K by the next decade? West Virginia

10k - 13K by the next decade? Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Nova*

7k - 10K by the next decade? ECU, Notre Dame, DePaul*, St. Johns,* Gtown*

Less than 7K by the next decade? Rutgers, USF, TCU

*Special category - As Omni said, there are some schools that are hard to classify. Namely Nova, G'Town, St. Johns, DePaul - their attendance historically has directly correlated with wins and losses. If winning, all can average up to 13,000, except DePaul who caps out at about 11-12k, and Nova in years when Philly hosts the NCAA tournament, and they can only play three games at Wells Fargo, who caps out lower as well

(06-03-2011 10:08 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-03-2011 09:36 AM)omnicarrier Wrote:  

(06-03-2011 09:25 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I'd replace BYU with SMU. IMO leaving SMU out of the mix in our attempt to gain an audience in DFW is a mistake...

SMU would probably have the same kind of attendance expectations that TCU would, depending upon their success...

You aren't the only one who thinks this way. But I disagree.

First, SMU right now is a one-coach wonder in June Jones, who is likely to move on in the next few years. Houston has won under both Briles and now Sumlin.

Houston is as much a two or three year wonder as SMU. The difference though is when both were in the SWC, SMU won bigger than Houston.

First, I was referring to the recent resurgence in C-USA. Houston has been an above .500 team for most of the time since 2003 under 2 different coaches. In the same time frame, SMU has been above .500 once (2009) and at .500 two other years (including last year at 7-7).

Your info regarding their stays in the SWC is not correct. Houston joined in 1976 and they went to the Cotton Bowl 4 times during their years in that conference finishing ranked in 6 of those years. During that same time frame SMU went to the Cotton Bowl once (would have been twice, but they were banned from bowl games one of those years after their first penalty by the NCAAs) and finished ranked 5 times before being banned a second time and given the death penalty.

(06-03-2011 09:36 AM)omnicarrier Wrote:  Next, Houston already has key BCS wins over both Oklahoma State and Texas Tech when they were both 9 win teams in the Big 12. SMU doesn't have any comparable wins. As a matter of fact, in both of their best years (2009 and 2010) they lost to Navy each year.

Quote:Houston was last ranked in the top 25 at the end of the year 20 years ago. One win here or there is way too much of living in the moment.

Unfortunately, when comparing these C-USA candidates, that's pretty much where it has to go.

(06-03-2011 10:08 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-03-2011 09:36 AM)omnicarrier Wrote:  Adding SMU over Houston might get the league an additional 2-3 share in DFW but that will not be as much as the 5 share in Houston. And the 9-10 share in DFW itself when SMU-TCU play will not match the 7-8 share in both Dallas and Houston when the Horned Frogs and Cougars play.

By most accounts of what TCU fans have said, TCU and SMU are rivals, TCU and Houston are not. I can't say for sure, but that is what most of their vocal fans have said. When SMU was big, they had the attention of Dallas. When Houston was big, they did not have the same notoriety in Houston. SMU has one distinct advantage over Houston: as the 30 for 30 series showed, SMU doesn;t really have the C-USA mid major stink on it that others do. They are still viewed as the major power killed by the death penalty. Since they are just resurfacing, they would have an easier transition to the Big Time in recruiting than Houston, and would be able to compete pretty quickly. Even though the 30 for 30 showed all of the cheating (whcih really isn't a detriment to prospective HS recurits), it put their name back out there in a big, big way.

I have no doubt that TCU considers SMU a rival much moreso than Houston. I could care less. As an SU fan, I'm more interested in what is best for the Big East than what is best for TCU.

Btw, do you have any documented evidence that shows SMU was a bigger deal in Dallas than Houston was in Houston? Not saying it isn't true, just not sure it is or that if it was, it was that much bigger.

Anyway, what the 30 for 30 series showed was that the only time SMU was relevant was when they cheated. And to think that the stink of C-USA is somehow more repugnant than the stink of the death penalty is just wrong-headed thinking in my view.

Quote:This much I would speculate: the additional viewership numbers in DFW gained by the addition of SMU (in conjuction with TCU), would be more than the additional numbers gained in Houston with UH added. Add that to a much stronger penetration in one market, as opposed to splintered penetration in two markets, and between the two SMU probably brings more to the table for the conference in football and exposure.

Every sports both professional and college says otherwise. Two teams in the same big market in the same league does not benefit TV wise over two teams in the same conference in two different large markets.

It's why in professional sports where there are two teams in the same market, the two teams are invariably in different leagues AND divisions. If it made it more popular for TV to have them in the same league and division then they would do so.

NY Yankees in AL East, NY Mets in NL East. NY Giants in NFC East and NY Jets in AFC East.

Quote:But, there are other things to consider (other sports, academics, etc) that may alter this, namely the other big money sport; men's basketball. I still find Nova a preferred number ten, with ten being the max number, but ECU and SMU would be the next two on my list, with UCF a distant third, and Houston somewhere behind Temple. But that's just me.

And I think Nova as #10 makes no sense whatsoever. They only make sense in terms of being #12 and that is because of the identity reasons I have spoken of in my posts and the fact that in the northeast there simply are no slam-dunk candidates. So it is better to go with the one in the conference already for the other sports.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-03-2011 09:36 AM)omnicarrier Wrote:  

(06-03-2011 09:25 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I'd replace BYU with SMU. IMO leaving SMU out of the mix in our attempt to gain an audience in DFW is a mistake...

SMU would probably have the same kind of attendance expectations that TCU would, depending upon their success...

You aren't the only one who thinks this way. But I disagree.

First, SMU right now is a one-coach wonder in June Jones, who is likely to move on in the next few years. Houston has won under both Briles and now Sumlin.

Next, Houston already has key BCS wins over both Oklahoma State and Texas Tech when they were both 9 win teams in the Big 12. SMU doesn't have any comparable wins. As a matter of fact, in both of their best years (2009 and 2010) they lost to Navy each year.

The better games played by TCU already get a 5 share in DFW. The better games played by Houston should get the same in Houston once they are on a better network. When they play each other, I'd expect that to rise to a 7-8 share in both cities.

Adding SMU over Houston might get the league an additional 2-3 share in DFW but that will not be as much as the 5 share in Houston. And the 9-10 share in DFW itself when SMU-TCU play will not match the 7-8 share in both Dallas and Houston when the Horned Frogs and Cougars play.

Neil, this won't be the first time we've disagreed, and it won't be the last either. IMO you're overestimating Houston's TV draw, and underestimating SMU's. SMU still has that recognition factor, if only because of the death penalty, and giving them AQ status would have a far bigger impact on their attendance and TV presence than it would for Houston, especially if SMU is competing for a BCS bid. IMO SMU's natural rivalry with TCU, and the rivalry Dallas has with Fort Worth, would help The BEast best...

Houston would get benefit as well. But if The BEast is going to invite Houston, take SMU first, then Houston...

(06-03-2011 09:57 AM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(06-03-2011 09:25 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  SMU would probably have the same kind of attendance expectations that TCU would, depending upon their success...

SMU's Ford Stadium maxes out at 32,000. TCU (Amon G. Carter Stadium) seats 46,000 and may expand further on the east.

SMU:
http://graphics.fansonly.com/schools/smu...m-625w.jpg

TCU:
http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2010/0816/dal_tcu2ts_576.jpg

Since the time period in question is over the next decade, this is only relevant as the starting point...

Folks, I think you need to take a look at the history of the league. Yes, SMU has a nice football history, but the league historically has resisted taking two teams from the same market. The one exception may be Rutgers/Seton Hall, but there was an outcry then too. Temple basketball would have been very good in the BE in the early/mid 1990s but couldn't get a sniff because of Nova. Xavier had a much better bball program then Depaul but you had the market issues with UC and the Blue Demons got the nod.

And if you take it a step further, you can see the deck is really stacked against ECU too. The league didn't want Penn St. It had to realy hold its collective nose and add Va Tech and WVU when it needed to fill out its football league but made both stay in the pergatory also known as football only membership. If you read the recent book about the BE (Basketball Warfare) I think there are quotes from anynomous ADs who didn't want to add West Virginia to the bball league regardles of the past success of WVU bball

Given that the Providence mafia (love that term !) still runs the league, markets will be valued over recent wins and losses just like they were with Xavier etc. Based on past events, you have to say that the league would at least strongly considere adding Nova, Houston and UCF to get to 12.

Bottom line here: Nova is to TCU just like SMU is to Temple

JMO


Jackson

I think some posters are vastly overestimating SMU's football history. Their heyday was the early 80s, a period in which they were hit by the NCAAs not just once, but twice.

If you look at their history up to and including that point (and excluding everything after the death penalty), it basically equals Houston's history as of right now.

As for the two teams in the same large market, can anyone point to any such match-up that has actually helped a conference with TV contracts? Outside of the UNC-Duke basketball rivalry and the USC-UCLA match-up in football I'm drawing a blank. And in both of these cases, at least one of the schools involved is a large state institution.

The majority of college rivalries that TV wants to see and pays for are between programs of different states (Michigan-OSU, Texas-Oklahoma, Tennessee-Florida, WVU-VT, etc.) or the two biggest public schools in the same state (Alabama-Auburn, Texas-A&M, FSU-Florida, Georgia-GT, PSU-Pittsburgh, Kentucky-Louisville, etc.) or a state school vs. a large market team (FSU-Miami, Michigan-ND) or two large market teams (USC vs. ND, Miami-ND)

I don't see any match-ups of two private schools in the same large market that seem to excite TV.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-03-2011 11:03 AM)Jackson1011 Wrote:  Folks, I think you need to take a look at the history of the league. Yes, SMU has a nice football history, but the league historically has resisted taking two teams from the same market. The one exception may be Rutgers/Seton Hall, but there was an outcry then too. Temple basketball would have been very good in the BE in the early/mid 1990s but couldn't get a sniff because of Nova. Xavier had a much better bball program then Depaul but you had the market issues with UC and the Blue Demons got the nod.

And if you take it a step further, you can see the deck is really stacked against ECU too. The league didn't want Penn St. It had to realy hold its collective nose and add Va Tech and WVU when it needed to fill out its football league but made both stay in the pergatory also known as football only membership. If you read the recent book about the BE (Basketball Warfare) I think there are quotes from anynomous ADs who didn't want to add West Virginia to the bball league regardles of the past success of WVU bball

Given that the Providence mafia (love that term !) still runs the league, markets will be valued over recent wins and losses just like they were with Xavier etc. Based on past events, you have to say that the league would at least strongly considere adding Nova, Houston and UCF to get to 12.

Bottom line here: Nova is to TCU just like SMU is to Temple

JMO


Jackson

I think you're right here, but I don't think it's just the Providence mafia that is thinking like this. I think there is a fracture amongst the football schools because some (and it seems to be 5 out of 8) are thinking the same way. And the reason they are, I believe, is partly because TV is influencing that thinking.

Cheers,
Neil

You haven't changed my mind, Neil, and neither has Jackson. But I don't feel like debating. So I'll leave it at that...

However, I will say that I lived in DFW for a while, and I think I've got a pretty good feel for how things will go over...