(07-18-2013 03:32 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 02:07 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 12:42 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Mr. Smith makes good points to counter the madness in this thread.

I'll add some more:

1. The ONLY three schools that have ANY chance of gaining an ACC invite have to be able to get the votes of 12 of the 15 school presidents and chancellors. That means any 4 can blackball your application.

2. Any addition to the ACC has to move the money meter in a huge way. The only schools that COULD do that for the ACC would be Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Alabama, Tennessee, LSU, Florida, and Texas. No one is leaving the SEC. The B10 took steps to retain Penn State by adding Rutgers and MD in an attempt to shore up their relationship with PSU. Who does that leave - only Texas.

3. Only Texas - keep that in mind.

4. Again - only Texas.

5. UNC, UVa, Wake, and Duke, have a lot of professional and cultural connections to Villanova - none of these four will cut Nova's throat in favor of Temple. Do the math.

6. The ACC would better off dumping money into Stoneybrook's FCS team on Long Island, or cajoling St. John's into starting a program, or even attempting to get the University of Toronto to join the NCAA, than to add Temple to the ACC.

7. The ACC does not make dumb decisions. The took a weak hand back in the 1990's and have over the course of the last two decades, ensured itself a spot at the top - not bad for a conference that in 1990 only consisted of MD, UVA, Wake, Duke, UNC, NC State, Clemson and GT.

Nice analysis. Let me quibble with a few points if you don't mind.

Regarding #2, do you really think that the B1G added Rutgers and Maryland as steps to retain Penn State? Seriously? Penn State wasn't going anywhere and the B1G knew that.

The importance of that is that the B1G added Rutgers and Maryland for another reason and it wasn't for their stellar athletic programs. It wasn't for their markets.

If markets moved the B1G into Nj and MD, the same principle could move the ACC into Philadelphia. It isn't whether the individual new member can add enough value by themselves. The analysis by the conferences is more complex than that. What they want to know is whether the conference as a whole can generate an increase in revenue by being introduced into a new market.

What's in Temple's favor? As much as Philly is a pro town for football and baseball, it's a great college basketball town. The ACC is a big time college basketball conference. As much as some want to believe that all decisions come down to football, the ACC makes a lot of its money from basketball. If their analysis leads them to believe that they can increase their revenues from the combination of basketball and football in Philly, then they will seriously consider it.

Another factor is that the ACC apparently has interest in moving its postseason basketball tournament into New York City. Possibly Madison Square Garden. Currently the ACC doesn't have a member within 200 miles of NYC. Temple doesn't give the ACC a presence in NY, but it does give them a presence less than 100 miles away. There's some advantage to that for the conference if it is serious about MSG.

Regarding point #5, I don't buy for a second that any ACC members have the slightest qualm about pursuing the conference's best interests if that means injuring Villanova in some way. No way do Villanova's interests calculate in their decision making at all.

Regarding #6 and #7, exactly the same things could have been said about the B1G adding Rutgers. But they did. Or about the Pac XII adding Utah. But they did. Or about the Big XII adding West Virginia. But they did.

Sometimes the conferences have a game plan that's not obvious to the outsider. I'm not predicting that the ACC will add Temple. I think they won't. But if they did, I wouldn't be shocked.

Yes, the B10 was afraid. And several of their folks stated so. They pissed PSU off with the additional sanctions and there are other issues that are cultural in play. The Maryland and NJ markets are okay markets but they are already saturated with pro teams. That was Maryland's problem sandwiched between 8 NFL, NHL, MLB and NBA teams within 50 miles. I'm not saying the B10 will be losing money adding MD and Rutgers, but they wont gain big money as the ACC has with it's additions. Even the B10's revenue model may not survive ala carte.

Look, Temple is not an ACC-type school. They barely have an endowment - it's in the $200,000,000 range. That's smaller than ACC's schools campaigns. The ACC office and some of the schools have specific and long standing reasons to hate Philly and avoid Philly. The reasons have NOTHING to do with Temple. The reasons have to do with the unsavory side of Philly and that side bit UNC and NC State a number of decades ago and it's not forgotten.

The ACC's institutional memory is ancient and it's older than the ACC itself, it goes back to the begining of the Southern Conference in 1921, it remembers why the SEC left in 1933 and why the ACC had to leave in 1953. You can't get into the ACC with more than 3 blackballs. UNC, UVa, VT, NC State, Wake and Duke will not vote for Temple on reasons that have very little to do with Temple. FSU and Clemson will not vote to add Temple to their football schedule. It's that simple. The votes are not there.

There are 12 votes in the ACC to add just two schools - Texas and Penn State, and there will be 12 votes in the near or distant future. NO one else has 12 votes.

As i said, I don't expect Temple to get into the ACC.

As for Penn State leaving the B1G, that was never going to happen. I don't care what several of their folks stated. No university president is going to recommend to his board that he leave the Big Ten because leaving the athletic conference means leaving the CIC, which is even more valuable to a university. Regardless who was pissed off about what, it was just not going to happen over temporary petty squabbles. Cooler heads would prevail.

(07-18-2013 03:35 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 01:19 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 12:42 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  6. The ACC would better off dumping money into Stoneybrook's FCS team on Long Island, or cajoling St. John's into starting a program, or even attempting to get the University of Toronto to join the NCAA, than to add Temple to the ACC.

That is one of the most absurd statements ever posted on this board, which is saying a lot. I'm not sure what your problem with Temple is, but wow.

It's not personal. There are 6 million people in the greater Toronto area. NYC is NYC. Philadelphia is part of the State of PA and while not the top draw, the Pitt Panthers will be televised in your market. If you want it to be personal, how is it that your school only has an endowment of $200 and some million? That's pawltry and says something about Temple. Now that's personal.

You serious with 'pawltry'?

(07-18-2013 03:32 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 02:07 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 12:42 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Mr. Smith makes good points to counter the madness in this thread.

I'll add some more:

1. The ONLY three schools that have ANY chance of gaining an ACC invite have to be able to get the votes of 12 of the 15 school presidents and chancellors. That means any 4 can blackball your application.

2. Any addition to the ACC has to move the money meter in a huge way. The only schools that COULD do that for the ACC would be Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Alabama, Tennessee, LSU, Florida, and Texas. No one is leaving the SEC. The B10 took steps to retain Penn State by adding Rutgers and MD in an attempt to shore up their relationship with PSU. Who does that leave - only Texas.

3. Only Texas - keep that in mind.

4. Again - only Texas.

5. UNC, UVa, Wake, and Duke, have a lot of professional and cultural connections to Villanova - none of these four will cut Nova's throat in favor of Temple. Do the math.

6. The ACC would better off dumping money into Stoneybrook's FCS team on Long Island, or cajoling St. John's into starting a program, or even attempting to get the University of Toronto to join the NCAA, than to add Temple to the ACC.

7. The ACC does not make dumb decisions. The took a weak hand back in the 1990's and have over the course of the last two decades, ensured itself a spot at the top - not bad for a conference that in 1990 only consisted of MD, UVA, Wake, Duke, UNC, NC State, Clemson and GT.

Nice analysis. Let me quibble with a few points if you don't mind.

Regarding #2, do you really think that the B1G added Rutgers and Maryland as steps to retain Penn State? Seriously? Penn State wasn't going anywhere and the B1G knew that.

The importance of that is that the B1G added Rutgers and Maryland for another reason and it wasn't for their stellar athletic programs. It wasn't for their markets.

If markets moved the B1G into Nj and MD, the same principle could move the ACC into Philadelphia. It isn't whether the individual new member can add enough value by themselves. The analysis by the conferences is more complex than that. What they want to know is whether the conference as a whole can generate an increase in revenue by being introduced into a new market.

What's in Temple's favor? As much as Philly is a pro town for football and baseball, it's a great college basketball town. The ACC is a big time college basketball conference. As much as some want to believe that all decisions come down to football, the ACC makes a lot of its money from basketball. If their analysis leads them to believe that they can increase their revenues from the combination of basketball and football in Philly, then they will seriously consider it.

Another factor is that the ACC apparently has interest in moving its postseason basketball tournament into New York City. Possibly Madison Square Garden. Currently the ACC doesn't have a member within 200 miles of NYC. Temple doesn't give the ACC a presence in NY, but it does give them a presence less than 100 miles away. There's some advantage to that for the conference if it is serious about MSG.

Regarding point #5, I don't buy for a second that any ACC members have the slightest qualm about pursuing the conference's best interests if that means injuring Villanova in some way. No way do Villanova's interests calculate in their decision making at all.

Regarding #6 and #7, exactly the same things could have been said about the B1G adding Rutgers. But they did. Or about the Pac XII adding Utah. But they did. Or about the Big XII adding West Virginia. But they did.

Sometimes the conferences have a game plan that's not obvious to the outsider. I'm not predicting that the ACC will add Temple. I think they won't. But if they did, I wouldn't be shocked.

Yes, the B10 was afraid. And several of their folks stated so. They pissed PSU off with the additional sanctions and there are other issues that are cultural in play. The Maryland and NJ markets are okay markets but they are already saturated with pro teams. That was Maryland's problem sandwiched between 8 NFL, NHL, MLB and NBA teams within 50 miles. I'm not saying the B10 will be losing money adding MD and Rutgers, but they wont gain big money as the ACC has with it's additions. Even the B10's revenue model may not survive ala carte.

Look, Temple is not an ACC-type school. They barely have an endowment - it's in the $200,000,000 range. That's smaller than ACC's schools campaigns. The ACC office and some of the schools have specific and long standing reasons to hate Philly and avoid Philly. The reasons have NOTHING to do with Temple. The reasons have to do with the unsavory side of Philly and that side bit UNC and NC State a number of decades ago and it's not forgotten.

The ACC's institutional memory is ancient and it's older than the ACC itself, it goes back to the begining of the Southern Conference in 1921, it remembers why the SEC left in 1933 and why the ACC had to leave in 1953. You can't get into the ACC with more than 3 blackballs. UNC, UVa, VT, NC State, Wake and Duke will not vote for Temple on reasons that have very little to do with Temple. FSU and Clemson will not vote to add Temple to their football schedule. It's that simple. The votes are not there.

There are 12 votes in the ACC to add just two schools - Texas and Penn State, and there will be 12 votes in the near or distant future. NO one else has 12 votes.

I have no idea what supposed incident you are talking about but absolutely no one will vote against a school because of something that happened in a city decades ago. You seem to have personal animus against Temple and Philadelphia which is fine but it's clearly clouding your judgment. Philadelphia is one of the great cities in the whole country with one of the best downtowns and has the 4th biggest media market in the country. If the Ivy League can deal with Philadelphia, I'm pretty sure the ACC can stoop down to its level.

A few other things: ACC schools have zero connection with Villanova. Villanova is a small, regional catholic school that has almost nothing in common with national universities like Duke and UVA (it's not even in the national university rankings). It's more like Holy Cross or Providence. To say the ACC schools would block Temple because of Villanova is laughable.

Second, Temple is a good school that is higher ranked than many of the other candidates including Cincy, West Virginia, and recently admitted Louisville. It also very good grad programs including the 56th ranked law school in the country, 51st best medical school, 58th ranked business school etc. It may be left out for other things but it will not be left out because of its academics.

All that said, I don't think they're getting an invite any time soon because their football program has sucked for so long but some of the things you are saying make absolutely no sense. Just to note, this is coming from someone that has zero connection to either school.

(07-18-2013 03:32 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 02:07 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 12:42 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Mr. Smith makes good points to counter the madness in this thread.

I'll add some more:

1. The ONLY three schools that have ANY chance of gaining an ACC invite have to be able to get the votes of 12 of the 15 school presidents and chancellors. That means any 4 can blackball your application.

2. Any addition to the ACC has to move the money meter in a huge way. The only schools that COULD do that for the ACC would be Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Alabama, Tennessee, LSU, Florida, and Texas. No one is leaving the SEC. The B10 took steps to retain Penn State by adding Rutgers and MD in an attempt to shore up their relationship with PSU. Who does that leave - only Texas.

3. Only Texas - keep that in mind.

4. Again - only Texas.

5. UNC, UVa, Wake, and Duke, have a lot of professional and cultural connections to Villanova - none of these four will cut Nova's throat in favor of Temple. Do the math.

6. The ACC would better off dumping money into Stoneybrook's FCS team on Long Island, or cajoling St. John's into starting a program, or even attempting to get the University of Toronto to join the NCAA, than to add Temple to the ACC.

7. The ACC does not make dumb decisions. The took a weak hand back in the 1990's and have over the course of the last two decades, ensured itself a spot at the top - not bad for a conference that in 1990 only consisted of MD, UVA, Wake, Duke, UNC, NC State, Clemson and GT.

Nice analysis. Let me quibble with a few points if you don't mind.

Regarding #2, do you really think that the B1G added Rutgers and Maryland as steps to retain Penn State? Seriously? Penn State wasn't going anywhere and the B1G knew that.

The importance of that is that the B1G added Rutgers and Maryland for another reason and it wasn't for their stellar athletic programs. It wasn't for their markets.

If markets moved the B1G into Nj and MD, the same principle could move the ACC into Philadelphia. It isn't whether the individual new member can add enough value by themselves. The analysis by the conferences is more complex than that. What they want to know is whether the conference as a whole can generate an increase in revenue by being introduced into a new market.

What's in Temple's favor? As much as Philly is a pro town for football and baseball, it's a great college basketball town. The ACC is a big time college basketball conference. As much as some want to believe that all decisions come down to football, the ACC makes a lot of its money from basketball. If their analysis leads them to believe that they can increase their revenues from the combination of basketball and football in Philly, then they will seriously consider it.

Another factor is that the ACC apparently has interest in moving its postseason basketball tournament into New York City. Possibly Madison Square Garden. Currently the ACC doesn't have a member within 200 miles of NYC. Temple doesn't give the ACC a presence in NY, but it does give them a presence less than 100 miles away. There's some advantage to that for the conference if it is serious about MSG.

Regarding point #5, I don't buy for a second that any ACC members have the slightest qualm about pursuing the conference's best interests if that means injuring Villanova in some way. No way do Villanova's interests calculate in their decision making at all.

Regarding #6 and #7, exactly the same things could have been said about the B1G adding Rutgers. But they did. Or about the Pac XII adding Utah. But they did. Or about the Big XII adding West Virginia. But they did.

Sometimes the conferences have a game plan that's not obvious to the outsider. I'm not predicting that the ACC will add Temple. I think they won't. But if they did, I wouldn't be shocked.

Yes, the B10 was afraid. And several of their folks stated so. They pissed PSU off with the additional sanctions and there are other issues that are cultural in play. The Maryland and NJ markets are okay markets but they are already saturated with pro teams. That was Maryland's problem sandwiched between 8 NFL, NHL, MLB and NBA teams within 50 miles. I'm not saying the B10 will be losing money adding MD and Rutgers, but they wont gain big money as the ACC has with it's additions. Even the B10's revenue model may not survive ala carte.

Look, Temple is not an ACC-type school. They barely have an endowment - it's in the $200,000,000 range. That's smaller than ACC's schools campaigns. The ACC office and some of the schools have specific and long standing reasons to hate Philly and avoid Philly. The reasons have NOTHING to do with Temple. The reasons have to do with the unsavory side of Philly and that side bit UNC and NC State a number of decades ago and it's not forgotten.

The ACC's institutional memory is ancient and it's older than the ACC itself, it goes back to the begining of the Southern Conference in 1921, it remembers why the SEC left in 1933 and why the ACC had to leave in 1953. You can't get into the ACC with more than 3 blackballs. UNC, UVa, VT, NC State, Wake and Duke will not vote for Temple on reasons that have very little to do with Temple. FSU and Clemson will not vote to add Temple to their football schedule. It's that simple. The votes are not there.

There are 12 votes in the ACC to add just two schools - Texas and Penn State, and there will be 12 votes in the near or distant future. NO one else has 12 votes.

It's true that Temple poorly managed its endowment until the last administration. It will grow. And the endowment is smaller than our campaigns too. In 2009, Temple concluded a $380 million campaign called Access to Excellence. I believe there is a new campaign on-going as well.

I think you also lack an understanding of how endowments financially contribute to a university's operational budget since you are putting so much weight on them as a factor for conference expansion.

(07-18-2013 11:51 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 10:56 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-17-2013 09:27 PM)FromTheInside Wrote:  

(07-17-2013 09:17 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(07-17-2013 08:45 PM)FromTheInside Wrote:  Speaking of the Mac. I hate to inform you but most schools in the Mac will be downgrading in 2015. Umass and ny(buffalo) are working hard to join the American or what they think the American will be. Ohio and north ill are very 50/50 about up or downgrading. The others are going fcs together and will fill in a coupe slots. Wvu has been in talks to move I think it's soccer and another program to the big east from what I hear.

Miami and Toledo? Can't see Toledo not fighting this the entire way and would hope Miami would too and saw the previous post that you showed Miami in the "Big Country" Conference.

.

Its a money and access thing. You will never have a seat at the highest level nor a chance for a bid like you did in the past. The feeling in Ohio and Illinois is that both states could support 3 teams but 2 seems better and less of a strain. Especially when those 2 each will not be left behind in the long term view of it.

The feeling is ball, nill, Ohio, Miami, Akron, Toledo, wm, em, cm, bg and kent together can add a ind st or wkentucky and have a nice small tight geography league. One that keeps history mostly and can function as a dominate league at a lower level where money and other issues becomes way less. The previous thread was just a example of how things can go. Based on expansion teams will go many different ways. What's important is the scope and formula towards max revenue and exposure. I can have fun all day throwing teams around but its th 4x16 and 4x20 type formulas that are the important part to a ending.

Where do you get this "feeling?" As the other poster says, I can't imagine Toledo moving down. Its hard to imagine NIU being 50/50 after last year. The MAC already has a tight geographic league. They got a BCS bid for the first time last year and have made tremendous strides competitively since their 20 year slump after they expanded in the 70s. Akron just built a new stadium. They had a chance to move down but chose to invest.

Now the MAC may be resigned to getting relegated if there is a new division for the top 5-7 conferences, but I can't imagine them moving down if FBS stays as it is.

I wonder why the feeling in Ohio and Illinois, states of 11 - 13 million population can only support 2 teams?

Indiana sits between them, has a population of less than 7 million, and supports 3 teams - IU, Purdue, and Notre Dame.

Kentucky sits just to their south and supports 2 teams - UK and Louisville with a population of only 4 million.

Iowa sits just to their west and supports 2 teams - Iowa and Iowa State with a population of only 3 million.

A state of similar size like North Carolina (10 million) supports 4 teams.

Are you talking P5 teams?
Notre Dame, while located in Indiana, gets much of it's support from the Chicago area.
I would be curious as to the state breakdown of ND season ticket holders.

Notre Dame is huge here in Chicago and the surrounding Chicagoland area. NW Indiana (incl South Bend) are included in the Chicagoland market.

All football and men's bball games are carried on WLS locally, that's huge.

Chicago is the hub of the B1G Ten and Notre Dame in regards to college athletics, NIU has enough presence, local grads and students to carve out enough interest to hold their own too.

(07-18-2013 01:19 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 12:42 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  6. The ACC would better off dumping money into Stoneybrook's FCS team on Long Island, or cajoling St. John's into starting a program, or even attempting to get the University of Toronto to join the NCAA, than to add Temple to the ACC.

That is one of the most absurd statements ever posted on this board, which is saying a lot. I'm not sure what your problem with Temple is, but wow.

the stupid burns bright

(07-18-2013 03:51 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 11:51 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 10:56 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-17-2013 09:27 PM)FromTheInside Wrote:  

(07-17-2013 09:17 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  Miami and Toledo? Can't see Toledo not fighting this the entire way and would hope Miami would too and saw the previous post that you showed Miami in the "Big Country" Conference.

.

Its a money and access thing. You will never have a seat at the highest level nor a chance for a bid like you did in the past. The feeling in Ohio and Illinois is that both states could support 3 teams but 2 seems better and less of a strain. Especially when those 2 each will not be left behind in the long term view of it.

The feeling is ball, nill, Ohio, Miami, Akron, Toledo, wm, em, cm, bg and kent together can add a ind st or wkentucky and have a nice small tight geography league. One that keeps history mostly and can function as a dominate league at a lower level where money and other issues becomes way less. The previous thread was just a example of how things can go. Based on expansion teams will go many different ways. What's important is the scope and formula towards max revenue and exposure. I can have fun all day throwing teams around but its th 4x16 and 4x20 type formulas that are the important part to a ending.

Where do you get this "feeling?" As the other poster says, I can't imagine Toledo moving down. Its hard to imagine NIU being 50/50 after last year. The MAC already has a tight geographic league. They got a BCS bid for the first time last year and have made tremendous strides competitively since their 20 year slump after they expanded in the 70s. Akron just built a new stadium. They had a chance to move down but chose to invest.

Now the MAC may be resigned to getting relegated if there is a new division for the top 5-7 conferences, but I can't imagine them moving down if FBS stays as it is.

I wonder why the feeling in Ohio and Illinois, states of 11 - 13 million population can only support 2 teams?

Indiana sits between them, has a population of less than 7 million, and supports 3 teams - IU, Purdue, and Notre Dame.

Kentucky sits just to their south and supports 2 teams - UK and Louisville with a population of only 4 million.

Iowa sits just to their west and supports 2 teams - Iowa and Iowa State with a population of only 3 million.

A state of similar size like North Carolina (10 million) supports 4 teams.

Are you talking P5 teams?
Notre Dame, while located in Indiana, gets much of it's support from the Chicago area.
I would be curious as to the state breakdown of ND season ticket holders.

Yes, I'm talking about P5 teams.

Who cares where Notre Dame gets their supporters? The fact is that they get them. You don't think that other college teams get support from out of state alums and other fans? ND has successfully built its fan base and supporters for almost a century. That's why they get fans from Chicago and elsewhere.

And they don't get Chicago fans because of proximity. It's not like Notre Dame sits on the state line. It's not part of the greater Chicago metro area. They're almost 100 miles away from Chicago. Purdue is much closer to the Illinois state line than ND is.

(07-18-2013 03:32 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Yes, the B10 was afraid. And several of their folks stated so. They pissed PSU off with the additional sanctions and there are other issues that are cultural in play. The Maryland and NJ markets are okay markets but they are already saturated with pro teams. That was Maryland's problem sandwiched between 8 NFL, NHL, MLB and NBA teams within 50 miles. I'm not saying the B10 will be losing money adding MD and Rutgers, but they wont gain big money as the ACC has with it's additions. Even the B10's revenue model may not survive ala carte.

It seems that every time anyone wants to explain why college sports can't succeed in an East Coast city, they call it a pro town, "saturated with pro teams" as is said here.

Let me address the Maryland example. AFAIK, there are only 6 pro teams in the Washington/Baltimore market. Somehow, Maryland has managed to win national championships in both major college sports in this market. So, how are pro teams in the area an excuse?

Let's look at some other examples. Michigan and Michigan State are both less than 50 miles from Deroit, which has a team in all 4 professional sports. Not 6 but 4, which is still pushing saturation. Despite the competition from pro sports, both Michigan and Michign State run highly successful programs in both major sports with both schools having won national championships in both major sports. Maryland may have a little more pro competition but they're the only game in town in college football with no college competition in that sport.

How about LA? No pro football, which helps to explain USC's recent success in football. But it doesn't explain UCLA's success in basketball while they're in competition with one of the NBA's premium franchises as well as 2 baseball teams, 2 basketball teams, and a hockey team as well as 2 college teams. And both UCLA and USC were winning national championships when there was pro football in LA.

Kansas is less than 50 miles from KC where there are teams in all 3 major pro sports and with a much lower population than Baltimore/Washington. KU also has nearby college competition from KSU. Yet, KU has built one of the best programs in college basketball history.

Miami, Georgia Tech, and Washington have all won national championships in football in the past 25 years in cities with pro teams in every conceivable sport in their cities. Arizona, Georgetown, and Villanova have all won national championships in basketball within the past 30 years in pro cities.

Labeling some place a pro sports town just seems like an excuse to me. College and pro sports can thrive side by side. It canned one and it has been done.

(07-18-2013 05:13 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 03:51 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 11:51 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 10:56 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-17-2013 09:27 PM)FromTheInside Wrote:  Its a money and access thing. You will never have a seat at the highest level nor a chance for a bid like you did in the past. The feeling in Ohio and Illinois is that both states could support 3 teams but 2 seems better and less of a strain. Especially when those 2 each will not be left behind in the long term view of it.

The feeling is ball, nill, Ohio, Miami, Akron, Toledo, wm, em, cm, bg and kent together can add a ind st or wkentucky and have a nice small tight geography league. One that keeps history mostly and can function as a dominate league at a lower level where money and other issues becomes way less. The previous thread was just a example of how things can go. Based on expansion teams will go many different ways. What's important is the scope and formula towards max revenue and exposure. I can have fun all day throwing teams around but its th 4x16 and 4x20 type formulas that are the important part to a ending.

Where do you get this "feeling?" As the other poster says, I can't imagine Toledo moving down. Its hard to imagine NIU being 50/50 after last year. The MAC already has a tight geographic league. They got a BCS bid for the first time last year and have made tremendous strides competitively since their 20 year slump after they expanded in the 70s. Akron just built a new stadium. They had a chance to move down but chose to invest.

Now the MAC may be resigned to getting relegated if there is a new division for the top 5-7 conferences, but I can't imagine them moving down if FBS stays as it is.

I wonder why the feeling in Ohio and Illinois, states of 11 - 13 million population can only support 2 teams?

Indiana sits between them, has a population of less than 7 million, and supports 3 teams - IU, Purdue, and Notre Dame.

Kentucky sits just to their south and supports 2 teams - UK and Louisville with a population of only 4 million.

Iowa sits just to their west and supports 2 teams - Iowa and Iowa State with a population of only 3 million.

A state of similar size like North Carolina (10 million) supports 4 teams.

Are you talking P5 teams?
Notre Dame, while located in Indiana, gets much of it's support from the Chicago area.
I would be curious as to the state breakdown of ND season ticket holders.

Yes, I'm talking about P5 teams.

Who cares where Notre Dame gets their supporters? The fact is that they get them. You don't think that other college teams get support from out of state alums and other fans? ND has successfully built its fan base and supporters for almost a century. That's why they get fans from Chicago and elsewhere.

And they don't get Chicago fans because of proximity. It's not like Notre Dame sits on the state line. It's not part of the greater Chicago metro area. They're almost 100 miles away from Chicago. Purdue is much closer to the Illinois state line than ND is.

I don't think you realize how popular ND is among the millions of Catholics in Chicagoland.

Could Illinois support another P5 team? Maybe - but who?

(07-18-2013 05:13 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  And they don't get Chicago fans because of proximity. It's not like Notre Dame sits on the state line. It's not part of the greater Chicago metro area. They're almost 100 miles away from Chicago. Purdue is much closer to the Illinois state line than ND is.

You don't know what the heck you're talking about, it doesn't have anything to do with how close to the Illinois state line ND or Purdue is, it's how close "Chicago" is.

As you mentioned, ND has cultivated its support for decades, and Chicago is their prime market. People travel from Chicagoland every week to attend football and bball games. Chicago is the closest large city, world class city where ND has a large presence.

Chicago IS Notre Dame. The city is gaga over the Irish.

(07-18-2013 06:27 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 05:13 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 03:51 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 11:51 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 10:56 AM)bullet Wrote:  Where do you get this "feeling?" As the other poster says, I can't imagine Toledo moving down. Its hard to imagine NIU being 50/50 after last year. The MAC already has a tight geographic league. They got a BCS bid for the first time last year and have made tremendous strides competitively since their 20 year slump after they expanded in the 70s. Akron just built a new stadium. They had a chance to move down but chose to invest.

Now the MAC may be resigned to getting relegated if there is a new division for the top 5-7 conferences, but I can't imagine them moving down if FBS stays as it is.

I wonder why the feeling in Ohio and Illinois, states of 11 - 13 million population can only support 2 teams?

Indiana sits between them, has a population of less than 7 million, and supports 3 teams - IU, Purdue, and Notre Dame.

Kentucky sits just to their south and supports 2 teams - UK and Louisville with a population of only 4 million.

Iowa sits just to their west and supports 2 teams - Iowa and Iowa State with a population of only 3 million.

A state of similar size like North Carolina (10 million) supports 4 teams.

Are you talking P5 teams?
Notre Dame, while located in Indiana, gets much of it's support from the Chicago area.
I would be curious as to the state breakdown of ND season ticket holders.

Yes, I'm talking about P5 teams.

Who cares where Notre Dame gets their supporters? The fact is that they get them. You don't think that other college teams get support from out of state alums and other fans? ND has successfully built its fan base and supporters for almost a century. That's why they get fans from Chicago and elsewhere.

And they don't get Chicago fans because of proximity. It's not like Notre Dame sits on the state line. It's not part of the greater Chicago metro area. They're almost 100 miles away from Chicago. Purdue is much closer to the Illinois state line than ND is.

I don't think you realize how popular ND is among the millions of Catholics in Chicagoland.

Could Illinois support another P5 team? Maybe - but who?

Yes. Northern Illinois is 70 miles from Chicago. NIU, if they can build a fan base, can. This is a big school with lots of alums.

I'd trade Wake straight up for Temple RIGHT NOW. I've said that for the last year.

(07-18-2013 06:40 PM)Blackhawk-eye Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 05:13 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  And they don't get Chicago fans because of proximity. It's not like Notre Dame sits on the state line. It's not part of the greater Chicago metro area. They're almost 100 miles away from Chicago. Purdue is much closer to the Illinois state line than ND is.

You don't know what the heck you're talking about, it doesn't have anything to do with how close to the Illinois state line ND or Purdue is, it's how close to "Chicago" is.

As you mentioned, ND has cultivated its support for decades, and Chicago is their prime market. People travel from Chicagoland every week to attend football and bball games. Chicago is the closest large city, world class city where ND has a large presence.

I understand that.

But I was replying to a post that said that Indiana doesn't support Notre Dame because a lot of their support comes from Chicago.

My point was that it's not like they're a Chicago suburb and should be counted as an extension of Illinois. They are well into Indiana and should be counted as part of Indiana.

Not every school gets its support just from instate, Regardless the geography is what it is and they're successful in the place where they are. As such, they're successful in that place. It's not like they're actually someplace else.

Penn State gets much of its support from Philadelphia, not just from central Pennsylvania. Not out of state, but a lot farther away than Chicago is from ND.

Duke gets its support from all over.

Nebraska fans are quick to point out that their market is not limited to the 2 million people in their state.

BYU gets support from all over as well as from Utah.

All of the top teams market themselves all over the place and draw support from wherever they can. Chicago is a hot bed of Big Ten alums, so a lot of big Ten schools have supporters there.

It's kind of crazy to say that Ohio can only support 2 schools as if Ohio State isn't drawing fans from outside Ohio.

(07-18-2013 06:27 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 05:13 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 03:51 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 11:51 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(07-18-2013 10:56 AM)bullet Wrote:  Where do you get this "feeling?" As the other poster says, I can't imagine Toledo moving down. Its hard to imagine NIU being 50/50 after last year. The MAC already has a tight geographic league. They got a BCS bid for the first time last year and have made tremendous strides competitively since their 20 year slump after they expanded in the 70s. Akron just built a new stadium. They had a chance to move down but chose to invest.

Now the MAC may be resigned to getting relegated if there is a new division for the top 5-7 conferences, but I can't imagine them moving down if FBS stays as it is.

I wonder why the feeling in Ohio and Illinois, states of 11 - 13 million population can only support 2 teams?

Indiana sits between them, has a population of less than 7 million, and supports 3 teams - IU, Purdue, and Notre Dame.

Kentucky sits just to their south and supports 2 teams - UK and Louisville with a population of only 4 million.

Iowa sits just to their west and supports 2 teams - Iowa and Iowa State with a population of only 3 million.

A state of similar size like North Carolina (10 million) supports 4 teams.

Are you talking P5 teams?
Notre Dame, while located in Indiana, gets much of it's support from the Chicago area.
I would be curious as to the state breakdown of ND season ticket holders.

Yes, I'm talking about P5 teams.

Who cares where Notre Dame gets their supporters? The fact is that they get them. You don't think that other college teams get support from out of state alums and other fans? ND has successfully built its fan base and supporters for almost a century. That's why they get fans from Chicago and elsewhere.

And they don't get Chicago fans because of proximity. It's not like Notre Dame sits on the state line. It's not part of the greater Chicago metro area. They're almost 100 miles away from Chicago. Purdue is much closer to the Illinois state line than ND is.

I don't think you realize how popular ND is among the millions of Catholics in Chicagoland.

Could Illinois support another P5 team? Maybe - but who?

Of course I do. I'm Irish Catholic and grew up in NYC where they're just as crazy about Notre Dame. but it's not like Catholics are the only folks in town or like the Catholics root only for ND.

Illinois is one of the biggest states in the country with a population of 13 million. But they can only support one state university? Come on. Even with Notre Dame moving in on their territory, there's room for more than one state team in a state that big.

But it doesn't happen because someone waves a magic wand. Some school would have to invest in their program and commit to building it over time. Of course there's no one in that position right now. It takes time.

Look at Florida with UF, FL St, and Miami all with multiple nation championships to their credit and with growing programs at USF and UCF as well as 3 NFL teams, 2 of whom have won super bowls.

Look at Alabama, a state of 5 million, less than half the population of Illinois or Ohio and they have 2 teams that have won national championships.

Texas has big time programs at UT, TAM, TCU, Tech, and Baylor with a past NC at SMU and an emerging program at Houston.

Little old Utah, a state of 3 million has both BYU and UU.

It obviously can be done in a state the size of Illinois.

I understand, but you're trying to stay withing the mental guidelines given by the original poster, that's horrible flaw.

NW Indiana is in the Chicago market, well within our TV and radio market. Stick with your God given logic, and not the OP's, I've seen your other posts before - you have it.

Here's a list of the top 5 states with the most FBS programs and the number of which are in P5 conferences noted in ()-

1. Texas- 12 (5)
2. Ohio- 8 (1)
3. California- 7 (4)
3. Florida- 7 (3)
5. N Carolina- 5 (4)
5. Michigan- 5 (2)
5. Alabama- 5 (2)
5. Louisiana- 5 (1)

Ohio is the 7th most populated state and has a passion for football that rivals any state. It's absurd to say that there's only room for 1 of the 8 FBS teams to enjoy the large payouts.

For that matter, will Pennsylvania ever have a fourth FBS team? Indiana and West Chester have enrollments comparable to some FBS schools, but they aren't even Division I now. Villanova has no reason to move up now with Big East football gone (although it would be funny if they joined the American for football only), and Penn moves up only if the whole Ivy League reclassifies.

(07-18-2013 08:48 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  For that matter, will Pennsylvania ever have a fourth FBS team? Indiana and West Chester have enrollments comparable to some FBS schools, but they aren't even Division I now. Villanova has no reason to move up now with Big East football gone (although it would be funny if they joined the American for football only), and Penn moves up only if the whole Ivy League reclassifies.

No.