(07-09-2012 10:22 AM)SMUfrat Wrote:  Y'all SMU needs to be an easy get. SMU is an academic version of Ole' Miss - Same charm, high academics (top 25) and SWC rivalries

High academics, yes.
SWC rivalries, yes.
Same charm as Ole Miss? Not too sure about this one.

I chose Lville and East Carolina. It's an absolute shame that ECU is not in a BCS conference.

(07-10-2012 11:31 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  I chose Lville and East Carolina. It's an absolute shame that ECU is not in a BCS conference.

I agree with you about ECU. I don't know if a Big 12 invite is realistic but for the Big East to continually pass on them shows just how out of touch that conference is. Of course, they blame it on "small market", etc. but if that's the case then how large is Oxford, Miss., or Lubbock, Tex. or South Bend, Ind. ? Not rational with the support that ECU has.

(07-11-2012 06:48 AM)Lonestar Lizard Wrote:  

(07-10-2012 11:31 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  I chose Lville and East Carolina. It's an absolute shame that ECU is not in a BCS conference.

I agree with you about ECU. I don't know if a Big 12 invite is realistic but for the Big East to continually pass on them shows just how out of touch that conference is. Of course, they blame it on "small market", etc. but if that's the case then how large is Oxford, Miss., or Lubbock, Tex. or South Bend, Ind. ? Not rational with the support that ECU has.

My understanding of why they have been passed up is this.

ECU and UCF are similar schools honestly. UCF is much bigger but both are still large public schools with a similar track record recently in football. The difference isn't facilities. It also isn't attendance as ECU owns them by 20,000 there.

What led UCF over ECU?

Essentially both are afterthoughts for the TV networks in terms of national ratings and to an extent regional ratings. Each has around 3 schools in their region they look up at. What is the difference? You need a tiebreaker. UCF is in a major city that could potentially get behind them in a big way. ECU isn't. So in the absence of big ratings you go with upside. In a tv perspective the greater upside belongs to schools like UCF, Temple, Louisville, Cincinnati, and USF despite those programs not being much better on the field than ECU at the time they were chosen.

It is the same issue with USM. Each has been a very good program recently but not elite enough to be a favorable TV draw like Boise became in the WAC. TCU also did this in the MWC. If ECU was on Boise's BCS busting level they would have been added easily.

ECU & USM have earned a better spot and I hope that they get into the BE. I have my doubts they will though.

Market size only matters for:

A- A league network that tries to get carriage fees based on demand in a particular market

B- A tiebreaker between properties that don't move the needle that much in the hopes that the larger market team will realize growth potential

Choice B is my guess on ECU & USM. This also makes a logical explanation of how Texas Tech, Ole Miss, and BYU who also have 50k+ attendance can make much more sense. Each has history in the national spotlight at some level to drive tv ratings that those 2 simply have rarely if ever had.

The built-in hatred between USF and UCF fans make it an instant rivalry, which the conference needs now that it's lost the Backyard Brawl, which was the only rivalry the conference supported for football - mainly because WVU and Pitt made the conference respect that rivalry...

(07-11-2012 06:48 AM)Lonestar Lizard Wrote:  

(07-10-2012 11:31 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  I chose Lville and East Carolina. It's an absolute shame that ECU is not in a BCS conference.

I agree with you about ECU. I don't know if a Big 12 invite is realistic but for the Big East to continually pass on them shows just how out of touch that conference is. Of course, they blame it on "small market", etc. but if that's the case then how large is Oxford, Miss., or Lubbock, Tex. or South Bend, Ind. ? Not rational with the support that ECU has.

The Big 4 conferences ( I do not consider the ACC a power conference) do not have to worry about small TV markets because most of those schools have fans that will follow them on TV whenever they are on. I thought I read somewhere that Tech 70,000 alumni in DFW which is 2nd only to UT alumni. The whole BE TV market thing is a joke. IMHO.

I mean do TX execs think Memphis will even remotely deliver the Memphis TV market with UTenn getting better games and more appeal in that city? Same thing with SMU in Dallas and UTexas, Tech etc.

(07-11-2012 08:56 AM)Sammy11 Wrote:  

(07-11-2012 06:48 AM)Lonestar Lizard Wrote:  

(07-10-2012 11:31 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  I chose Lville and East Carolina. It's an absolute shame that ECU is not in a BCS conference.

I agree with you about ECU. I don't know if a Big 12 invite is realistic but for the Big East to continually pass on them shows just how out of touch that conference is. Of course, they blame it on "small market", etc. but if that's the case then how large is Oxford, Miss., or Lubbock, Tex. or South Bend, Ind. ? Not rational with the support that ECU has.

My understanding of why they have been passed up is this.

ECU and UCF are similar schools honestly. UCF is much bigger but both are still large public schools with a similar track record recently in football. The difference isn't facilities. It also isn't attendance as ECU owns them by 20,000 there.

What led UCF over ECU?

Essentially both are afterthoughts for the TV networks in terms of national ratings and to an extent regional ratings. Each has around 3 schools in their region they look up at. What is the difference? You need a tiebreaker. UCF is in a major city that could potentially get behind them in a big way. ECU isn't. So in the absence of big ratings you go with upside. In a tv perspective the greater upside belongs to schools like UCF, Temple, Louisville, Cincinnati, and USF despite those programs not being much better on the field than ECU at the time they were chosen.

It is the same issue with USM. Each has been a very good program recently but not elite enough to be a favorable TV draw like Boise became in the WAC. TCU also did this in the MWC. If ECU was on Boise's BCS busting level they would have been added easily.

ECU & USM have earned a better spot and I hope that they get into the BE. I have my doubts they will though.

Market size only matters for:

A- A league network that tries to get carriage fees based on demand in a particular market

B- A tiebreaker between properties that don't move the needle that much in the hopes that the larger market team will realize growth potential

Choice B is my guess on ECU & USM. This also makes a logical explanation of how Texas Tech, Ole Miss, and BYU who also have 50k+ attendance can make much more sense. Each has history in the national spotlight at some level to drive tv ratings that those 2 simply have rarely if ever had.

Sammy, I certainly understand what you are saying and somewhat agree. I think you and I both know that a large TV market means nothing if no one cares about you in that market. I know Boise is a cute little cinderella story but I'm about ready for them to come to back to earth when they start playing a little step up in competition which is the only reason that people have tuned into watch them.

(07-11-2012 09:51 AM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(07-11-2012 06:48 AM)Lonestar Lizard Wrote:  

(07-10-2012 11:31 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  I chose Lville and East Carolina. It's an absolute shame that ECU is not in a BCS conference.

I agree with you about ECU. I don't know if a Big 12 invite is realistic but for the Big East to continually pass on them shows just how out of touch that conference is. Of course, they blame it on "small market", etc. but if that's the case then how large is Oxford, Miss., or Lubbock, Tex. or South Bend, Ind. ? Not rational with the support that ECU has.

The Big 4 conferences ( I do not consider the ACC a power conference) do not have to worry about small TV markets because most of those schools have fans that will follow them on TV whenever they are on. I thought I read somewhere that Tech 70,000 alumni in DFW which is 2nd only to UT alumni. The whole BE TV market thing is a joke. IMHO.

I mean do TX execs think Memphis will even remotely deliver the Memphis TV market with UTenn getting better games and more appeal in that city? Same thing with SMU in Dallas and UTexas, Tech etc.

The big thing is that if SMU and Memphis get to be good they have a much larger local population who could tune into the hometown team despite not being actual alumni. This gives them more upside. As I said in my post above- tiebreaker for teams with minimal drawing power.

(07-11-2012 10:00 AM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(07-11-2012 08:56 AM)Sammy11 Wrote:  

(07-11-2012 06:48 AM)Lonestar Lizard Wrote:  

(07-10-2012 11:31 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  I chose Lville and East Carolina. It's an absolute shame that ECU is not in a BCS conference.

I agree with you about ECU. I don't know if a Big 12 invite is realistic but for the Big East to continually pass on them shows just how out of touch that conference is. Of course, they blame it on "small market", etc. but if that's the case then how large is Oxford, Miss., or Lubbock, Tex. or South Bend, Ind. ? Not rational with the support that ECU has.

My understanding of why they have been passed up is this.

ECU and UCF are similar schools honestly. UCF is much bigger but both are still large public schools with a similar track record recently in football. The difference isn't facilities. It also isn't attendance as ECU owns them by 20,000 there.

What led UCF over ECU?

Essentially both are afterthoughts for the TV networks in terms of national ratings and to an extent regional ratings. Each has around 3 schools in their region they look up at. What is the difference? You need a tiebreaker. UCF is in a major city that could potentially get behind them in a big way. ECU isn't. So in the absence of big ratings you go with upside. In a tv perspective the greater upside belongs to schools like UCF, Temple, Louisville, Cincinnati, and USF despite those programs not being much better on the field than ECU at the time they were chosen.

It is the same issue with USM. Each has been a very good program recently but not elite enough to be a favorable TV draw like Boise became in the WAC. TCU also did this in the MWC. If ECU was on Boise's BCS busting level they would have been added easily.

ECU & USM have earned a better spot and I hope that they get into the BE. I have my doubts they will though.

Market size only matters for:

A- A league network that tries to get carriage fees based on demand in a particular market

B- A tiebreaker between properties that don't move the needle that much in the hopes that the larger market team will realize growth potential

Choice B is my guess on ECU & USM. This also makes a logical explanation of how Texas Tech, Ole Miss, and BYU who also have 50k+ attendance can make much more sense. Each has history in the national spotlight at some level to drive tv ratings that those 2 simply have rarely if ever had.

Sammy, I certainly understand what you are saying and somewhat agree. I think you and I both know that a large TV market means nothing if no one cares about you in that market. I know Boise is a cute little cinderella story but I'm about ready for them to come to back to earth when they start playing a little step up in competition which is the only reason that people have tuned into watch them.

We'll see. I don't see the new Big East being much tougher than the MWC they were a FG away from running the table in last year.

Either way should be fun to watch. They have had 1 or fewer losses every year since 2004 except for 2005 and 2007. That is impressive regardless of league.

Sammy, one thing about The BEast that a lot of people fail to take into consideration is that many BEast schools regularly place among the top defensive teams in the nation. The BEast plays good defense across the board - something that's lacking in MWC play, for the most part...

(07-11-2012 10:07 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Sammy, one thing about The BEast that a lot of people fail to take into consideration is that many BEast schools regularly place among the top defensive teams in the nation. The BEast plays good defense across the board - something that's lacking in MWC play, for the most part...

Utah, BYU, TCU, Air Force, and to a lesser extent SDSU have been solid on defense recently as a group and at least 3 are usually very good.

(07-11-2012 10:00 AM)Sammy11 Wrote:  The big thing is that if SMU and Memphis get to be good they have a much larger local population who could tune into the hometown team despite not being actual alumni. This gives them more upside. As I said in my post above- tiebreaker for teams with minimal drawing power.

Not trying to pick on SMU here but the only time they were relevant was during the 80's when they were cheating with the hooker killer on the sidelines. I seriously doubt the locals in Dallas will tune into watch SMU-UConn, SMU-Rutgers or SMU-Cincy. Outside of maybe Houston or Louisville, I don't see the casual Dallas football fan watching those games when there are bigger better games on TV.

Again not picking on UH but think back to when Houston was winning SWC titles in the late 70's, they couldn't get more than 35-40K unless UT or A&M was in town and attendance significantly dwindled once the newness of being in the SWC wore off.

(07-11-2012 10:26 AM)Sammy11 Wrote:  

(07-11-2012 10:07 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Sammy, one thing about The BEast that a lot of people fail to take into consideration is that many BEast schools regularly place among the top defensive teams in the nation. The BEast plays good defense across the board - something that's lacking in MWC play, for the most part...

Utah, BYU, TCU, Air Force, and to a lesser extent SDSU have been solid on defense recently as a group and at least 3 are usually very good.

It's one thing to play 3 or 4 good defensive teams. It's another thing entirely to face an entire conference of 'em...

I voted for GA Tech and Louisville. It would make a strong 14-team group, but I don't think that it's going to happen.