(03-29-2013 01:03 PM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 12:35 PM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 11:53 AM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 11:33 AM)MidnightBlueGold Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 11:24 AM)Pappylizard Wrote:  Although I agree with you that we need to start winning championships it has nothing to do with changing conferences or a pre-requisite for doing so. Quick example, I think Rutgers and Maryland have each one one football championship in their respective conferences over the recent years but are heading to the B1G. Its about what revenue opportunities can you bring to a conference now in days. Unfortunately. Not how productive your sports teams will be.

And look at Tulsa - they haven't done squat in anything and they are moving 'up' to the nBE.

Didn't they run up about sixty in a Bowl. Game against BG a couple years ago?

Whoop-de-do, they beat bgSUCKS . That's not impressive .

It's not at all- just seemed like a good opportunity to remind lurkers from BG. They REALLY hate Tulsa!

Why would bgSUCKS hate Tulsa? They should hate their own team for wearing orange and and for giving up 63 points to Tulsa.

I hate win some championship excuses for not moving!!!!!!
What did the WBB been doing? Regular season & West Div. champs....
How about Women's XC?????? nationally ranked & Champs
How about Women's Swimming??? been getting it done!!!! 3 or 4 times
Men's BB: West Division C0-Champs....
Football team: 3 straight bowls......
Golf teams have won titles
and the tennis teams are competitve

(03-29-2013 04:24 PM)Terry Wrote:  I hate win some championship excuses for not moving!!!!!!
What did the WBB been doing? Regular season & West Div. champs....
How about Women's XC?????? nationally ranked & Champs
How about Women's Swimming??? been getting it done!!!! 3 or 4 times
Men's BB: West Division C0-Champs....
Football team: 3 straight bowls......
Golf teams have won titles
and the tennis teams are competitive

1) Teams do not move to new conferences UNLESS THEY ARE FIRST INVITED

2) CONFERENCES DO NOT NORMALLY INVITE SCHOOLS whose revenue sports have not shown great revenue generation during the recent past (only on rare occasions will the promise of future earnings potential be enough---UCF for example). Conferences want schools that have demonstrated the ability to likely GENERATE MORE NEW INCOME FOR THE CONFERENCE THAN THEY CONSUME---when conferences are raided sometime they just have to settle for the best team they can get, but revenue is still the criterion.

3) It is all about REVENUE ENHANCEMENT for the conference that will make a school attractive to a "better" conference----although Boise State made their case thru BC$ bowl appearances, it is much easier to make a case thru repeated NCAA Basketball Tournament appearances---from 1992-2002 UT had a far superior FB product in terms of both product on the field and fans in the stands than the Cincinnati Bearcats so why did they get the invitation to the BE (back when it still meant something)??? Because between 1992 and 2002 the Bearcats played in TWENTY-NINE (29!!!) NCAA Tournament Basketball games which equals a bundle of money for their conference.

4. Conference invitations are all about revenue potential, not collegiate sports competitions, so XC, Swimming, Golf, Tennis as well as most women's sports (even including WBB at many/most schools) are not normally revenue generating sports--they may add a bit of cache, but not hard dollars . The fact that WBB is revenue friendly at UT is a plus, but not any big deal. PS: Hanging banners unless they are from BC$ Bowl games or deep NCAA MBB runs do NOT significantly enhance conference revenue.

I fully understand your desire to move on to a "BETTER" conference, and I have felt the same way since the MAC office stacked the MACC in FB in Marshall's favor and kept it that way for 4-5 years. However, wanting or wishing or hoping or demanding a new conference is not going to get the job done. An INVITATION must be earned, either thru good fortune or thru hard work (winning championships and generating revenue) or both and still usually requires a bit of luck to boot. An invitation to join a new conference is based solely on what THE CONFERENCE BELIEVES THE SCHOOL CAN DO FOR IT RIGHT NOW, but once an invitation is extended then the school can choose to accept or decline based on what THE SCHOOL BELIEVES THE CONFERENCE CAN DO FOR IT.

As our old friends from Marshall used to be fond of saying: "Wish in one hand and crap in the other and see which one fills up first".

(03-29-2013 06:33 PM)T-Town Wrote:  1) Teams do not move to new conferences UNLESS THEY ARE FIRST INVITED

2) CONFERENCES DO NOT NORMALLY INVITE SCHOOLS whose revenue sports have not shown great revenue generation during the recent past (only on rare occasions will the promise of future earnings potential be enough---UCF for example). Conferences want schools that have demonstrated the ability to likely GENERATE MORE NEW INCOME FOR THE CONFERENCE THAN THEY CONSUME---when conferences are raided sometime they just have to settle for the best team they can get, but revenue is still the criterion.

3) It is all about REVENUE ENHANCEMENT for the conference that will make a school attractive to a "better" conference----although Boise State made their case thru BC$ bowl appearances, it is much easier to make a case thru repeated NCAA Basketball Tournament appearances---from 1992-2002 UT had a far superior FB product in terms of both product on the field and fans in the stands than the Cincinnati Bearcats so why did they get the invitation to the BE (back when it still meant something)??? Because between 1992 and 2002 the Bearcats played in TWENTY-NINE (29!!!) NCAA Tournament Basketball games which equals a bundle of money for their conference.

4. Conference invitations are all about revenue potential, not collegiate sports competitions, so XC, Swimming, Golf, Tennis as well as most women's sports (even including WBB at many/most schools) are not normally revenue generating sports--they may add a bit of cache, but not hard dollars . The fact that WBB is revenue friendly at UT is a plus, but not any big deal. PS: Hanging banners unless they are from BC$ Bowl games or deep NCAA MBB runs do NOT significantly enhance conference revenue.

I hadn't heard this. So is this federal law, State law, or NCAA regulations? When was all of this enacted?

Maybe we should do the inviting, then...I just do not see the MAC, C-USA and Sun Belt all surviving in the not-too-distant future. If some schools from each conference were willing to band together in a new conference--some with strong football programs, some with strong basketball programs--then a new conference of the strongest of the members of these three would emerge, and I really wouldn't care what happened to the remainder. As the "big" conferences continue to get bigger, as they have, there is less need for them to fill games on their schedules with the likes of the MAC, C-USA and Sun Belt. There is gonna only be one truly "mid-major" program that survives in football...we can either gamble that it will be the MAC in it's current state, or we can approach other schools that will find themselves in the same boat.

(03-29-2013 07:50 PM)T-Town Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 07:27 PM)Aries_Rocket Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 06:33 PM)T-Town Wrote:  1) Teams do not move to new conferences UNLESS THEY ARE FIRST INVITED

2) CONFERENCES DO NOT NORMALLY INVITE SCHOOLS whose revenue sports have not shown great revenue generation during the recent past (only on rare occasions will the promise of future earnings potential be enough---UCF for example). Conferences want schools that have demonstrated the ability to likely GENERATE MORE NEW INCOME FOR THE CONFERENCE THAN THEY CONSUME---when conferences are raided sometime they just have to settle for the best team they can get, but revenue is still the criterion.

3) It is all about REVENUE ENHANCEMENT for the conference that will make a school attractive to a "better" conference----although Boise State made their case thru BC$ bowl appearances, it is much easier to make a case thru repeated NCAA Basketball Tournament appearances---from 1992-2002 UT had a far superior FB product in terms of both product on the field and fans in the stands than the Cincinnati Bearcats so why did they get the invitation to the BE (back when it still meant something)??? Because between 1992 and 2002 the Bearcats played in TWENTY-NINE (29!!!) NCAA Tournament Basketball games which equals a bundle of money for their conference.

4. Conference invitations are all about revenue potential, not collegiate sports competitions, so XC, Swimming, Golf, Tennis as well as most women's sports (even including WBB at many/most schools) are not normally revenue generating sports--they may add a bit of cache, but not hard dollars . The fact that WBB is revenue friendly at UT is a plus, but not any big deal. PS: Hanging banners unless they are from BC$ Bowl games or deep NCAA MBB runs do NOT significantly enhance conference revenue.

I hadn't heard this. So is this federal law, State law, or NCAA regulations? When was all of this enacted?

Law of Common Sense

I think you're naive if you believe schools receiving invitations have done nothing proactive to obtain those "invitations." But even if you're right, it doesn't mean that a different path won't get us there.

(03-29-2013 07:35 PM)bcunn3128 Wrote:  Maybe we should do the inviting, then...I just do not see the MAC, C-USA and Sun Belt all surviving in the not-too-distant future. If some schools from each conference were willing to band together in a new conference--some with strong football programs, some with strong basketball programs--then a new conference of the strongest of the members of these three would emerge, and I really wouldn't care what happened to the remainder. As the "big" conferences continue to get bigger, as they have, there is less need for them to fill games on their schedules with the likes of the MAC, C-USA and Sun Belt. There is gonna only be one truly "mid-major" program that survives in football...we can either gamble that it will be the MAC in it's current state, or we can approach other schools that will find themselves in the same boat.

I think that you are probably right that the best opportunity for a conference upgrade in the near future is being in a position to take advantage of any disintegration of the several of non-AQ conferences you mention (and also throw in the new BE FB folks) by being strong enough to be one of the survivors who can form a stronger conference from the residue. And I do agree that the WAC is not the last conference facing extinction in the near future. I can see some tough budget decisions ahead for a lot of universities and some athletic programs may be affected at some schools.

(03-29-2013 08:18 PM)Aries_Rocket Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 07:50 PM)T-Town Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 07:27 PM)Aries_Rocket Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 06:33 PM)T-Town Wrote:  1) Teams do not move to new conferences UNLESS THEY ARE FIRST INVITED

2) CONFERENCES DO NOT NORMALLY INVITE SCHOOLS whose revenue sports have not shown great revenue generation during the recent past (only on rare occasions will the promise of future earnings potential be enough---UCF for example). Conferences want schools that have demonstrated the ability to likely GENERATE MORE NEW INCOME FOR THE CONFERENCE THAN THEY CONSUME---when conferences are raided sometime they just have to settle for the best team they can get, but revenue is still the criterion.

3) It is all about REVENUE ENHANCEMENT for the conference that will make a school attractive to a "better" conference----although Boise State made their case thru BC$ bowl appearances, it is much easier to make a case thru repeated NCAA Basketball Tournament appearances---from 1992-2002 UT had a far superior FB product in terms of both product on the field and fans in the stands than the Cincinnati Bearcats so why did they get the invitation to the BE (back when it still meant something)??? Because between 1992 and 2002 the Bearcats played in TWENTY-NINE (29!!!) NCAA Tournament Basketball games which equals a bundle of money for their conference.

4. Conference invitations are all about revenue potential, not collegiate sports competitions, so XC, Swimming, Golf, Tennis as well as most women's sports (even including WBB at many/most schools) are not normally revenue generating sports--they may add a bit of cache, but not hard dollars . The fact that WBB is revenue friendly at UT is a plus, but not any big deal. PS: Hanging banners unless they are from BC$ Bowl games or deep NCAA MBB runs do NOT significantly enhance conference revenue.

I hadn't heard this. So is this federal law, State law, or NCAA regulations? When was all of this enacted?

Law of Common Sense

I think you're naive if you believe schools receiving invitations have done nothing proactive to obtain those "invitations." But even if you're right, it doesn't mean that a different path won't get us there.

Read my statement again and please be kind enough to point out to me any place that I argued against UT being proactive in order to try to get into a better conference and I will go back and edit that portion accordingly.

One of the most effective ways for an institution to be proactive is to invest in facilities and invest in people (salaries) in order get the coaches and recruits that can win the championships and grow the fan base thus making the institution attractive to a potential conference that needs to add an additional member. UT has already made some significant investment in that direction over the past several years and appears to have sown the seeds for a better future. Hopefully we will soon start the harvest of championships, that will build the fan base and will permit increased revenue thru higher ticket prices and increased donations....and hopefully start picking up a few of those NCAA MBB tournament $$$$ as well.

It may also be helpful for the AD to keep a finger on the pulse of other conferences as well, but in the final analysis you have to have more to offer a potential new conference than your competitors who also want in.

Our football team this fall will start this cavalcade of momentum towards our future relevance, league wise...I hope.

(03-29-2013 09:08 PM)T-Town Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 08:18 PM)Aries_Rocket Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 07:50 PM)T-Town Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 07:27 PM)Aries_Rocket Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 06:33 PM)T-Town Wrote:  1) Teams do not move to new conferences UNLESS THEY ARE FIRST INVITED

2) CONFERENCES DO NOT NORMALLY INVITE SCHOOLS whose revenue sports have not shown great revenue generation during the recent past (only on rare occasions will the promise of future earnings potential be enough---UCF for example). Conferences want schools that have demonstrated the ability to likely GENERATE MORE NEW INCOME FOR THE CONFERENCE THAN THEY CONSUME---when conferences are raided sometime they just have to settle for the best team they can get, but revenue is still the criterion.

3) It is all about REVENUE ENHANCEMENT for the conference that will make a school attractive to a "better" conference----although Boise State made their case thru BC$ bowl appearances, it is much easier to make a case thru repeated NCAA Basketball Tournament appearances---from 1992-2002 UT had a far superior FB product in terms of both product on the field and fans in the stands than the Cincinnati Bearcats so why did they get the invitation to the BE (back when it still meant something)??? Because between 1992 and 2002 the Bearcats played in TWENTY-NINE (29!!!) NCAA Tournament Basketball games which equals a bundle of money for their conference.

4. Conference invitations are all about revenue potential, not collegiate sports competitions, so XC, Swimming, Golf, Tennis as well as most women's sports (even including WBB at many/most schools) are not normally revenue generating sports--they may add a bit of cache, but not hard dollars . The fact that WBB is revenue friendly at UT is a plus, but not any big deal. PS: Hanging banners unless they are from BC$ Bowl games or deep NCAA MBB runs do NOT significantly enhance conference revenue.

I hadn't heard this. So is this federal law, State law, or NCAA regulations? When was all of this enacted?

Law of Common Sense

I think you're naive if you believe schools receiving invitations have done nothing proactive to obtain those "invitations." But even if you're right, it doesn't mean that a different path won't get us there.

Read my statement again and please be kind enough to point out to me any place that I argued against UT being proactive in order to try to get into a better conference and I will go back and edit that portion accordingly.

One of the most effective ways for an institution to be proactive is to invest in facilities and invest in people (salaries) in order get the coaches and recruits that can win the championships and grow the fan base thus making the institution attractive to a potential conference that needs to add an additional member. UT has already made some significant investment in that direction over the past several years and appears to have sown the seeds for a better future. Hopefully we will soon start the harvest of championships, that will build the fan base and will permit increased revenue thru higher ticket prices and increased donations....and hopefully start picking up a few of those NCAA MBB tournament $$$$ as well.

It may also be helpful for the AD to keep a finger on the pulse of other conferences as well, but in the final analysis you have to have more to offer a potential new conference than your competitors who also want in.

You're the one yelling that we have to wait until we get invited first. How do you expect to get invited when they don't even know us? I don't think it's wise to wait around and let John Denver be our spokesman.

(03-29-2013 10:01 PM)Aries_Rocket Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 09:08 PM)T-Town Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 08:18 PM)Aries_Rocket Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 07:50 PM)T-Town Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 07:27 PM)Aries_Rocket Wrote:  I hadn't heard this. So is this federal law, State law, or NCAA regulations? When was all of this enacted?

Law of Common Sense

I think you're naive if you believe schools receiving invitations have done nothing proactive to obtain those "invitations." But even if you're right, it doesn't mean that a different path won't get us there.

Read my statement again and please be kind enough to point out to me any place that I argued against UT being proactive in order to try to get into a better conference and I will go back and edit that portion accordingly.

One of the most effective ways for an institution to be proactive is to invest in facilities and invest in people (salaries) in order get the coaches and recruits that can win the championships and grow the fan base thus making the institution attractive to a potential conference that needs to add an additional member. UT has already made some significant investment in that direction over the past several years and appears to have sown the seeds for a better future. Hopefully we will soon start the harvest of championships, that will build the fan base and will permit increased revenue thru higher ticket prices and increased donations....and hopefully start picking up a few of those NCAA MBB tournament $$$$ as well.

It may also be helpful for the AD to keep a finger on the pulse of other conferences as well, but in the final analysis you have to have more to offer a potential new conference than your competitors who also want in.

You're the one yelling that we have to wait until we get invited first. How do you expect to get invited when they don't even know us? I don't think it's wise to wait around and let John Denver be our spokesman.

Imagine you majored in accounting because your lifelong dream has been to work for a major accounting firm. You are now finishing your degree and are about to graduate and you see an ad for a opening with an accounting firm that you would really like to work for.

To start with, no matter how much you want that job with that firm you will NOT be able to work for them unless THEY decide to hire you---it is their call, not yours ----same deal with a new conference

Now say that there are a lot of people who also think that is a great job and they also really, really want the job as well. So the question becomes What have you accomplished that might convince the interviewer that you can offer more to the success (profit) of the firm than your their competitors can. -----again it is the exact same issue as getting an invitation to a new conference over the competition. For the accounting position maybe it is a high GPA, or maybe some undergrad recognition (leadership awards, etc), maybe it was a relevant internship that carried some responsibilities. For the conference it might be commitments as evidenced by salaries, facilities and successes as measured by revenue generation, championships, fan base, graduation rates etc. As in most invitations/hires the chances of future success are typically evaluated and estimated based on past successes---so in in most cases you had best have more past successes than your competitors. It is really just that simple.

(03-29-2013 11:09 PM)T-Town Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 10:01 PM)Aries_Rocket Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 09:08 PM)T-Town Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 08:18 PM)Aries_Rocket Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 07:50 PM)T-Town Wrote:  Law of Common Sense

I think you're naive if you believe schools receiving invitations have done nothing proactive to obtain those "invitations." But even if you're right, it doesn't mean that a different path won't get us there.

Read my statement again and please be kind enough to point out to me any place that I argued against UT being proactive in order to try to get into a better conference and I will go back and edit that portion accordingly.

One of the most effective ways for an institution to be proactive is to invest in facilities and invest in people (salaries) in order get the coaches and recruits that can win the championships and grow the fan base thus making the institution attractive to a potential conference that needs to add an additional member. UT has already made some significant investment in that direction over the past several years and appears to have sown the seeds for a better future. Hopefully we will soon start the harvest of championships, that will build the fan base and will permit increased revenue thru higher ticket prices and increased donations....and hopefully start picking up a few of those NCAA MBB tournament $$$$ as well.

It may also be helpful for the AD to keep a finger on the pulse of other conferences as well, but in the final analysis you have to have more to offer a potential new conference than your competitors who also want in.

You're the one yelling that we have to wait until we get invited first. How do you expect to get invited when they don't even know us? I don't think it's wise to wait around and let John Denver be our spokesman.

Imagine you majored in accounting because your lifelong dream has been to work for a major accounting firm. You are now finishing your degree and are about to graduate and you see an ad for a opening with an accounting firm that you would really like to work for.

To start with, no matter how much you want that job with that firm you will NOT be able to work for them unless THEY decide to hire you---it is their call, not yours ----same deal with a new conference

Now say that there are a lot of people who also think that is a great job and they also really, really want the job as well. So the question becomes What have you accomplished that might convince the interviewer that you can offer more to the success (profit) of the firm than your their competitors can. -----again it is the exact same issue as getting an invitation to a new conference over the competition. For the accounting position maybe it is a high GPA, or maybe some undergrad recognition (leadership awards, etc), maybe it was a relevant internship that carried some responsibilities. For the conference it might be commitments as evidenced by salaries, facilities and successes as measured by revenue generation, championships, fan base, graduation rates etc. As in most invitations/hires the chances of future success are typically evaluated and estimated based on past successes---so in in most cases you had best have more past successes than your competitors. It is really just that simple.

If you apply for that accounting position, you may not get it. If you never apply for the job, you will definitely won't get it.

(03-29-2013 07:35 PM)bcunn3128 Wrote:  Maybe we should do the inviting, then...I just do not see the MAC, C-USA and Sun Belt all surviving in the not-too-distant future. If some schools from each conference were willing to band together in a new conference--some with strong football programs, some with strong basketball programs--then a new conference of the strongest of the members of these three would emerge, and I really wouldn't care what happened to the remainder. As the "big" conferences continue to get bigger, as they have, there is less need for them to fill games on their schedules with the likes of the MAC, C-USA and Sun Belt. There is gonna only be one truly "mid-major" program that survives in football...we can either gamble that it will be the MAC in it's current state, or we can approach other schools that will find themselves in the same boat.

This is slightly off topic (sorry about that), but speaking of the Sun Belt, there are some changes coming …

http://www.fbschedules.com/2013/03/sun-b...-southern/

http://www.fbschedules.com/2013/03/sun-b...ico-state/

(03-30-2013 05:50 AM)Aries_Rocket Wrote:  If you apply for that accounting position, you may not get it. If you never apply for the job, you will definitely won't get it.

Who says UT is not trying to get into another conference? Just because we have not been invited to one does not mean we aren't trying.

I don't think the University will stay passive for too long in regards to lobbying for a new conference ... A lot more will shake down in this reshuffling of schools across the NCAA landscape...With that being said, Toledo just needs to take care of business in house... - 1) More facility upgrades. 2) Increased marketing. 3) Retention of existing coaches. 4) Fielding championship - level sports programs.
I think the 40-50 million dollars in renovations and such, was not done on a whim or to insinuate that UT would ever abandon the notion to move on to a more prestigious conference...

the only way a non AQ team "moves up" is if they go to an AQ conference. A MAC team moving to CUSA or the Big Least is just shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic. Sure, you might get a few more dollars out of the deal, but not enough to be a significant game changer. There is no increase in "prestige" or "respect" or any of the other bogus descriptors teams stuck in these blown up conference claim to have over MAC schools.

its the 5 Little Sisters of the Poor fighting for 1 spot at the big boy's table, nobody who isn't a fan of one those teams gives a rip about who is in which conference.

(03-29-2013 09:26 PM)rocketpete Wrote:  Our football team this fall will start this cavalcade of momentum towards our future relevance, league wise...I hope.

I REITERATE .. MAKE SOME NOISE.. THEY WILL NOTICE.
WE HAVE, NOT YET, MADE ENOUGH NOISE..IMO

(03-31-2013 09:20 PM)rocketpete Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 09:26 PM)rocketpete Wrote:  Our football team this fall will start this cavalcade of momentum towards our future relevance, league wise...I hope.

I REITERATE .. MAKE SOME NOISE.. THEY WILL NOTICE.
WE HAVE, NOT YET, MADE ENOUGH NOISE..IMO

I agree, next couple of years UT can put themselves in a position for some national prominence... Taking care of business on the field and on the court will pay dividends... The athletes, coaches, and facilities are in place...
Now is the time...
And Pete, nobody can fault you for not making enough noise...

One tidbit of info that might help explain why Tulsa & SMU, and not Toledo - Endowments, which are an indication of how deep the schools pockets might be to spend on sports.

SMU: $1.17B
Tulsa: $748M
Toledo: $310M

That's certainly not the only factor ... there are teams in the new Big East with smaller endowments than UT, but without a major media market or deep pockets, or opening up a new region of the country, or national name recognition, it's hard for UT to be first on the list when better conferences look to expand.

(03-28-2013 01:31 PM)Terry Wrote:  With the addition of Tulsa, the Old Big East gained a lot of stability. Tulsa and Navy will bring the number of schools to 11. The conference is now looking for a 12th member.

Toledo should lobby for that SPOT!!!!!! It would definitely be a step up from the MAC.

Cincinnati, Tulsa, Navy, USF, UCF, and Houston will and are attractive bowl teams. And the bowls will line up for members of this conference.
Memphis and Cincinnati bring Men's BB to the table.
Toledo brings women's BB to the lime light.

Let's Go! As I've stated in other posts...WE NEED TO LEAVE THE MAC.
Does anyone know if the university is talking/lobbying for consideration? UT/Cinci would be a great rivalry and increased competition would enhance interest and attendance.