(08-27-2013 09:53 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 06:41 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  and their football program has more losses (638) than anyone else in FBS.

Northwestern has been playing FB since 1886. Of course they have more losses than a team that started playing in 1986. Their all-time winning percentage is still .440, which is not great but not nearly as awful as you're pretending.

Over the past 10 seasons (which is probably as long as any current CFB player remembers), Northwestern is 69-57.

If you want to argue that Miami-Ohio (or any other school) "belongs" in the Big Ten or ACC or wherever, prove that they're at least as good as the middle of the league (in other words, prove that they wouldn't pull down the average if they were there). Arguing that Northwestern or anyone else didn't belong 40 years ago when their football was terrible proves nothing about whether anyone else belongs there today.

Think of it this way: If I was applying for a job at say, Google, or wherever, which would be the better job interview strategy?

(A) Spending the entire interview complaining about some mediocre long-time Google employee, or

(B) Making the case that I'd be a well-above-average Google employee based on my experience and qualifications and that the company would be a better place if they hire me.

Everyone knows that the correct answer is (B), but far too many fans of "G5" CFB teams are just arguing (A).

Northwestern has won 69 games in the last 10 years, that puts them tied for 50th in FBS, not overly impressive.

From 1869-2012 there are 109 FBS schools that have been playing for at least 30% of that time, ranked by winning % Northwestern is 101st at 43.4%. Indiana and Wake Forrest are the only P5 schools with a worse winning percentage. I'm not pretending that their record is awful. It is awful.

You want Miami to prove that they belong by being average? They are 17th in winning percentage, is that average enough? They are also 7-3 in bowl games with wins over Texas Tech, Arizona State, Florida, Georgia, Louisville, hows that for average? They've won 22 conference championships, they've finished as high as 10th in the AP Poll as recently as 2003, is that average enough?

my point is not whether or not one team deserves to be in the P5 or if another one doesn't, my point is the selection process for who gets the big piece of the revenue pie has nothing to do with actual on field performance and everything to do with good ol boy croneyism. It's bad for the sport.

(08-27-2013 07:58 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 07:41 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  And all of those schools expect a spot in the proposed D-4, possibly ahead of UConn.

What a joke.

The joke is UConn folks thinking basketball matters anymore.

You should be glad that BB is only 10%-20% of the revenue since Clemson plays Division 2 BB.

(08-27-2013 10:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 08:23 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 04:37 PM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  I was surprised to see half of the Big East on that list.

Another way to think about it is that half of the Big East isn't on that list.

I was surprised to see Arkansas had fallen so far since joining the SEC. Both their fb and bb have collapsed in the SEC.

They cut themselves off from Texas recruiting with the move to the SEC. That may change a little with A&M now in the SEC.

(08-27-2013 11:30 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 07:58 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 07:41 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  And all of those schools expect a spot in the proposed D-4, possibly ahead of UConn.

What a joke.

The joke is UConn folks thinking basketball matters anymore.

You should be glad that BB is only 10%-20% of the revenue since Clemson plays Division 2 BB.

You should push for UConn to quit playing DII football and maybe you wouldn't be sweating being left at the little kids table once again.

Your argument is moronic.

ESPN makes money by selling advertising that airs during their content.

Now you're never going to believe this, but ESPN will make more money broadcasting Northwestern vs Purdue than they ever will with any game involving Miami OH or any other MAC team because (and again this is a shocker) NOBODY cares about the MAC game playing in a 15k stadium

(08-27-2013 10:50 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 09:53 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 06:41 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  and their football program has more losses (638) than anyone else in FBS.

Northwestern has been playing FB since 1886. Of course they have more losses than a team that started playing in 1986. Their all-time winning percentage is still .440, which is not great but not nearly as awful as you're pretending.

Over the past 10 seasons (which is probably as long as any current CFB player remembers), Northwestern is 69-57.

If you want to argue that Miami-Ohio (or any other school) "belongs" in the Big Ten or ACC or wherever, prove that they're at least as good as the middle of the league (in other words, prove that they wouldn't pull down the average if they were there). Arguing that Northwestern or anyone else didn't belong 40 years ago when their football was terrible proves nothing about whether anyone else belongs there today.

Think of it this way: If I was applying for a job at say, Google, or wherever, which would be the better job interview strategy?

(A) Spending the entire interview complaining about some mediocre long-time Google employee, or

(B) Making the case that I'd be a well-above-average Google employee based on my experience and qualifications and that the company would be a better place if they hire me.

Everyone knows that the correct answer is (B), but far too many fans of "G5" CFB teams are just arguing (A).

Northwestern has won 69 games in the last 10 years, that puts them tied for 50th in FBS, not overly impressive.

From 1869-2012 there are 109 FBS schools that have been playing for at least 30% of that time, ranked by winning % Northwestern is 101st at 43.4%. Indiana and Wake Forrest are the only P5 schools with a worse winning percentage. I'm not pretending that their record is awful. It is awful.

You want Miami to prove that they belong by being average? They are 17th in winning percentage, is that average enough? They are also 7-3 in bowl games with wins over Texas Tech, Arizona State, Florida, Georgia, Louisville, hows that for average? They've won 22 conference championships, they've finished as high as 10th in the AP Poll as recently as 2003, is that average enough?

my point is not whether or not one team deserves to be in the P5 or if another one doesn't, my point is the selection process for who gets the big piece of the revenue pie has nothing to do with actual on field performance and everything to do with good ol boy croneyism. It's bad for the sport.

And how many of those losses were in conference? Not making excuses just pointing out that the bulk of Northwestern's losses would have been in conference. Just as most of Miami's wins at least since 1946 have been against MAC opponents. This is not to discredit Miami, they beat the teams in their conference more often than not, and Northwestern did not. Some 100 years ago Northwestern was seen as a peer of the schools it is associated with today, and it has remained thus over time. Did they know then what would become of their conference of course not, did they see Miami as their peer then? Apparently not, and they have not at any time since. Some schools have 'moved up', others have 'moved down' but the overwhelming majority have maintained their status quo.

(08-27-2013 11:38 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 11:30 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 07:58 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 07:41 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  And all of those schools expect a spot in the proposed D-4, possibly ahead of UConn.

What a joke.

The joke is UConn folks thinking basketball matters anymore.

You should be glad that BB is only 10%-20% of the revenue since Clemson plays Division 2 BB.

You should push for UConn to quit playing DII football and maybe you wouldn't be sweating being left at the little kids table once again.

If basketball doesn't matter what are you doing with football powerhouses Syracuse, Pitt and Louisville? Your conference grabbed those schools because it was sick of looking at the Big East's ass in hoops. And I would play clemson in football anytime, anywhere. Big hat, no cattle.

(08-27-2013 11:46 PM)sundodger Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 10:50 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 09:53 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 06:41 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  and their football program has more losses (638) than anyone else in FBS.

Northwestern has been playing FB since 1886. Of course they have more losses than a team that started playing in 1986. Their all-time winning percentage is still .440, which is not great but not nearly as awful as you're pretending.

Over the past 10 seasons (which is probably as long as any current CFB player remembers), Northwestern is 69-57.

If you want to argue that Miami-Ohio (or any other school) "belongs" in the Big Ten or ACC or wherever, prove that they're at least as good as the middle of the league (in other words, prove that they wouldn't pull down the average if they were there). Arguing that Northwestern or anyone else didn't belong 40 years ago when their football was terrible proves nothing about whether anyone else belongs there today.

Think of it this way: If I was applying for a job at say, Google, or wherever, which would be the better job interview strategy?

(A) Spending the entire interview complaining about some mediocre long-time Google employee, or

(B) Making the case that I'd be a well-above-average Google employee based on my experience and qualifications and that the company would be a better place if they hire me.

Everyone knows that the correct answer is (B), but far too many fans of "G5" CFB teams are just arguing (A).

Northwestern has won 69 games in the last 10 years, that puts them tied for 50th in FBS, not overly impressive.

From 1869-2012 there are 109 FBS schools that have been playing for at least 30% of that time, ranked by winning % Northwestern is 101st at 43.4%. Indiana and Wake Forrest are the only P5 schools with a worse winning percentage. I'm not pretending that their record is awful. It is awful.

You want Miami to prove that they belong by being average? They are 17th in winning percentage, is that average enough? They are also 7-3 in bowl games with wins over Texas Tech, Arizona State, Florida, Georgia, Louisville, hows that for average? They've won 22 conference championships, they've finished as high as 10th in the AP Poll as recently as 2003, is that average enough?

my point is not whether or not one team deserves to be in the P5 or if another one doesn't, my point is the selection process for who gets the big piece of the revenue pie has nothing to do with actual on field performance and everything to do with good ol boy croneyism. It's bad for the sport.

And how many of those losses were in conference? Not making excuses just pointing out that the bulk of Northwestern's losses would have been in conference. Just as most of Miami's wins at least since 1946 have been against MAC opponents. This is not to discredit Miami, they beat the teams in their conference more often than not, and Northwestern did not. Some 100 years ago Northwestern was seen as a peer of the schools it is associated with today, and it has remained thus over time. Did they know then what would become of their conference of course not, did they see Miami as their peer then? Apparently not, and they have not at any time since. Some schools have 'moved up', others have 'moved down' but the overwhelming majority have maintained their status quo.

Miami conf record- 275-147-11
Miami non conf record- 89-102-5

NW conf record- 257-466-21
NW non conf record- 89-102-4

the thing to keep in mind is that P5 schools and G5 schools are already in the same subdivision- FBS. I'm not suggesting the P5 teams give anything to the G5, I'm simply advocating for the G5 conferences to be given the same opportunities to succeed.

what is wrong with giving every team within the same subdivision a chance to compete for a championship? I can't think of any other sport but college football where before the season starts 50% of the teams are denied a chance to play for a championship.

(08-28-2013 12:19 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 11:46 PM)sundodger Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 10:50 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 09:53 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 06:41 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  and their football program has more losses (638) than anyone else in FBS.

Northwestern has been playing FB since 1886. Of course they have more losses than a team that started playing in 1986. Their all-time winning percentage is still .440, which is not great but not nearly as awful as you're pretending.

Over the past 10 seasons (which is probably as long as any current CFB player remembers), Northwestern is 69-57.

If you want to argue that Miami-Ohio (or any other school) "belongs" in the Big Ten or ACC or wherever, prove that they're at least as good as the middle of the league (in other words, prove that they wouldn't pull down the average if they were there). Arguing that Northwestern or anyone else didn't belong 40 years ago when their football was terrible proves nothing about whether anyone else belongs there today.

Think of it this way: If I was applying for a job at say, Google, or wherever, which would be the better job interview strategy?

(A) Spending the entire interview complaining about some mediocre long-time Google employee, or

(B) Making the case that I'd be a well-above-average Google employee based on my experience and qualifications and that the company would be a better place if they hire me.

Everyone knows that the correct answer is (B), but far too many fans of "G5" CFB teams are just arguing (A).

Northwestern has won 69 games in the last 10 years, that puts them tied for 50th in FBS, not overly impressive.

From 1869-2012 there are 109 FBS schools that have been playing for at least 30% of that time, ranked by winning % Northwestern is 101st at 43.4%. Indiana and Wake Forrest are the only P5 schools with a worse winning percentage. I'm not pretending that their record is awful. It is awful.

You want Miami to prove that they belong by being average? They are 17th in winning percentage, is that average enough? They are also 7-3 in bowl games with wins over Texas Tech, Arizona State, Florida, Georgia, Louisville, hows that for average? They've won 22 conference championships, they've finished as high as 10th in the AP Poll as recently as 2003, is that average enough?

my point is not whether or not one team deserves to be in the P5 or if another one doesn't, my point is the selection process for who gets the big piece of the revenue pie has nothing to do with actual on field performance and everything to do with good ol boy croneyism. It's bad for the sport.

And how many of those losses were in conference? Not making excuses just pointing out that the bulk of Northwestern's losses would have been in conference. Just as most of Miami's wins at least since 1946 have been against MAC opponents. This is not to discredit Miami, they beat the teams in their conference more often than not, and Northwestern did not. Some 100 years ago Northwestern was seen as a peer of the schools it is associated with today, and it has remained thus over time. Did they know then what would become of their conference of course not, did they see Miami as their peer then? Apparently not, and they have not at any time since. Some schools have 'moved up', others have 'moved down' but the overwhelming majority have maintained their status quo.

Miami conf record- 275-147-11
Miami non conf record- 89-102-5

NW conf record- 257-466-21
NW non conf record- 89-102-4

the thing to keep in mind is that P5 schools and G5 schools are already in the same subdivision- FBS. I'm not suggesting the P5 teams give anything to the G5, I'm simply advocating for the G5 conferences to be given the same opportunities to succeed.

what is wrong with giving every team within the same subdivision a chance to compete for a championship? I can't think of any other sport but college football where before the season starts 50% of the teams are denied a chance to play for a championship.

You keep falling back on ancient history. That's just grasping for straws. No one cares today whether any of these teams played good football 50 or 100 years ago. I don't know or care why you have such a large bug up your butt about Northwestern, but they are indisputably good enough now that you look silly pretending they don't belong in the Big Ten (or in FBS if that's what you're arguing).

You still didn't make a case for Miami-OH belonging in the Big Ten. You had to change the question from whether they could be average in the Big Ten to whether they could be average in FBS, and even then you're only getting there by saying every win or loss in FBS is equal, and no one honestly believes that. To go back to my analogy about Google, it's as if you're applying for that job at Google, and you're not saying you'd be an above-average Google employee, you're only saying that your computer skills are above-average within the group of all humans who have ever used a computer.

(08-27-2013 09:53 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 06:41 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  and their football program has more losses (638) than anyone else in FBS.

Northwestern has been playing FB since 1886. Of course they have more losses than a team that started playing in 1986. Their all-time winning percentage is still .440, which is not great but not nearly as awful as you're pretending.

Over the past 10 seasons (which is probably as long as any current CFB player remembers), Northwestern is 69-57.

If you want to argue that Miami-Ohio (or any other school) "belongs" in the Big Ten or ACC or wherever, prove that they're at least as good as the middle of the league (in other words, prove that they wouldn't pull down the average if they were there). Arguing that Northwestern or anyone else didn't belong 40 years ago when their football was terrible proves nothing about whether anyone else belongs there today.

Think of it this way: If I was applying for a job at say, Google, or wherever, which would be the better job interview strategy?

(A) Spending the entire interview complaining about some mediocre long-time Google employee, or

(B) Making the case that I'd be a well-above-average Google employee based on my experience and qualifications and that the company would be a better place if they hire me.

Everyone knows that the correct answer is (B), but far too many fans of "G5" CFB teams are just arguing (A).

I agree. Right now there is only one school in the country that can make the argument that they are above the average Big 10 school in football, basketball, and academic research: Florida.

The only other schools that even come close to the Big 10 average in all three categories are UNC, Texas, Pitt, Arizona, Georgia Tech, and Cincinnati, Vandy, NC State, and Tennessee.

(08-27-2013 09:06 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 08:33 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 08:29 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 07:57 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 06:41 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  and their football program has more losses (638) than anyone else in FBS. But, because someone at that school had the good sense to join a new conference called the Big 10 way back in 1896 they've reaped the financial rewards of being associated with actual winning programs for 117 years and counting.

meanwhile a school like Miami(OH) has a bball team that's Danced 17 times, including a Sweet 16 appearance as recent as '99, and their football team has the 17th highest winning % in FBS, but any mention of them deserving a chance to move up is shouted down with outrage and indignation. go figure.

This figure in particular: 2012 Average attendance: 15,333

But yeah, TOTALLY deserves a spot in the B1G!

thats the best you've got? attendance? really? WOW.

and its a pretty solid reason

I just can't figure you why a program that is ignored by the national sports media and has to play 1/3 of its home games on weeknights isn't packing in 100K in the stands. It's a mystery.

Nice.

Kind of like using FCS playoff gates to justify not having them in FBS...these games are played during finals or break, at undesirable times, with little to no media attention. Nope, that's how it will be!

I agree about UMOH...I never understood how a Public Ivy (an original one, too) that has that much consistency to produce with what they have gets put down so readily.

Just blaming others for your own problems.

WHY is the national media ignoring MiamiOH? Because the national media makes its money off of big fan bases and Miami OH has no fan base.

You can whine about how unfair that is or you can actually make an effort to get your students to care about being (whatever Miami OH teams are called) and not just bandwagon buckeyes.

Thats your choice, but its pretty clear the "we're just going to whine and blame scape goats" is your option of choice

(08-27-2013 06:36 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Amazing that Clemson, a school who has never looked at hoops other than a bridge between football and spring football/baseball season, has been since some schools who are supposedly dedicated to fielding decent basketball teams like Arkansas, DePaul, New Mexico, and UVA. If we ever hit our head and started caring about the worthless sport imagine what we could do.

I remember thinking that Cliff Ellis would be able to establish Clemson hoops as a major brand. He had some success, but not nearly as much as I thought he would.

(08-28-2013 05:52 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 09:06 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 08:33 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 08:29 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 07:57 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  This figure in particular: 2012 Average attendance: 15,333

But yeah, TOTALLY deserves a spot in the B1G!

thats the best you've got? attendance? really? WOW.

and its a pretty solid reason

I just can't figure you why a program that is ignored by the national sports media and has to play 1/3 of its home games on weeknights isn't packing in 100K in the stands. It's a mystery.

Nice.

Kind of like using FCS playoff gates to justify not having them in FBS...these games are played during finals or break, at undesirable times, with little to no media attention. Nope, that's how it will be!

I agree about UMOH...I never understood how a Public Ivy (an original one, too) that has that much consistency to produce with what they have gets put down so readily.

Miami doesn't have that big a fan base, but they have finished top 10 in the final poll twice, more than the majority of schools in FBS. They have as many top 10 finishes in the BCS era as Texas A&M (who got their 1st in the era last year-never did it in the Big 12).

Unfortunately, I think Cincinnati to the Big East has hurt all the other MAC schools. Instead of Miami winning most of those games, Cincinnati has started dominating the series.

(08-28-2013 07:50 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-28-2013 05:52 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 09:06 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 08:33 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 08:29 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  thats the best you've got? attendance? really? WOW.

and its a pretty solid reason

I just can't figure you why a program that is ignored by the national sports media and has to play 1/3 of its home games on weeknights isn't packing in 100K in the stands. It's a mystery.

Nice.

Kind of like using FCS playoff gates to justify not having them in FBS...these games are played during finals or break, at undesirable times, with little to no media attention. Nope, that's how it will be!

I agree about UMOH...I never understood how a Public Ivy (an original one, too) that has that much consistency to produce with what they have gets put down so readily.

Miami doesn't have that big a fan base, but they have finished top 10 in the final poll twice, more than the majority of schools in FBS. They have as many top 10 finishes in the BCS era as Texas A&M (who got their 1st in the era last year-never did it in the Big 12).

Unfortunately, I think Cincinnati to the Big East has hurt all the other MAC schools. Instead of Miami winning most of those games, Cincinnati has started dominating the series.

Cincinnati passed Miami when they joined the Big East; however, I was shocked to see how quickly things fell from the Big Ben and Wally years.

(08-27-2013 10:50 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 09:53 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 06:41 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  and their football program has more losses (638) than anyone else in FBS.

Northwestern has been playing FB since 1886. Of course they have more losses than a team that started playing in 1986. Their all-time winning percentage is still .440, which is not great but not nearly as awful as you're pretending.

Over the past 10 seasons (which is probably as long as any current CFB player remembers), Northwestern is 69-57.

If you want to argue that Miami-Ohio (or any other school) "belongs" in the Big Ten or ACC or wherever, prove that they're at least as good as the middle of the league (in other words, prove that they wouldn't pull down the average if they were there). Arguing that Northwestern or anyone else didn't belong 40 years ago when their football was terrible proves nothing about whether anyone else belongs there today.

Think of it this way: If I was applying for a job at say, Google, or wherever, which would be the better job interview strategy?

(A) Spending the entire interview complaining about some mediocre long-time Google employee, or

(B) Making the case that I'd be a well-above-average Google employee based on my experience and qualifications and that the company would be a better place if they hire me.

Everyone knows that the correct answer is (B), but far too many fans of "G5" CFB teams are just arguing (A).

Northwestern has won 69 games in the last 10 years, that puts them tied for 50th in FBS, not overly impressive.

From 1869-2012 there are 109 FBS schools that have been playing for at least 30% of that time, ranked by winning % Northwestern is 101st at 43.4%. Indiana and Wake Forrest are the only P5 schools with a worse winning percentage. I'm not pretending that their record is awful. It is awful.

You want Miami to prove that they belong by being average? They are 17th in winning percentage, is that average enough? They are also 7-3 in bowl games with wins over Texas Tech, Arizona State, Florida, Georgia, Louisville, hows that for average? They've won 22 conference championships, they've finished as high as 10th in the AP Poll as recently as 2003, is that average enough?

my point is not whether or not one team deserves to be in the P5 or if another one doesn't, my point is the selection process for who gets the big piece of the revenue pie has nothing to do with actual on field performance and everything to do with good ol boy croneyism. It's bad for the sport.

Doesn't matter. OSU is in the Big Ten, and Miami resides in the same state.
The p5 have the overwhelming fan base market share, and that is all they need for control over the money.

(08-27-2013 10:50 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 09:53 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 06:41 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  and their football program has more losses (638) than anyone else in FBS.

Northwestern has been playing FB since 1886. Of course they have more losses than a team that started playing in 1986. Their all-time winning percentage is still .440, which is not great but not nearly as awful as you're pretending.

Over the past 10 seasons (which is probably as long as any current CFB player remembers), Northwestern is 69-57.

If you want to argue that Miami-Ohio (or any other school) "belongs" in the Big Ten or ACC or wherever, prove that they're at least as good as the middle of the league (in other words, prove that they wouldn't pull down the average if they were there). Arguing that Northwestern or anyone else didn't belong 40 years ago when their football was terrible proves nothing about whether anyone else belongs there today.

Think of it this way: If I was applying for a job at say, Google, or wherever, which would be the better job interview strategy?

(A) Spending the entire interview complaining about some mediocre long-time Google employee, or

(B) Making the case that I'd be a well-above-average Google employee based on my experience and qualifications and that the company would be a better place if they hire me.

Everyone knows that the correct answer is (B), but far too many fans of "G5" CFB teams are just arguing (A).

Northwestern has won 69 games in the last 10 years, that puts them tied for 50th in FBS, not overly impressive.

From 1869-2012 there are 109 FBS schools that have been playing for at least 30% of that time, ranked by winning % Northwestern is 101st at 43.4%. Indiana and Wake Forrest are the only P5 schools with a worse winning percentage. I'm not pretending that their record is awful. It is awful.

You want Miami to prove that they belong by being average? They are 17th in winning percentage, is that average enough? They are also 7-3 in bowl games with wins over Texas Tech, Arizona State, Florida, Georgia, Louisville, hows that for average? They've won 22 conference championships, they've finished as high as 10th in the AP Poll as recently as 2003, is that average enough?

my point is not whether or not one team deserves to be in the P5 or if another one doesn't, my point is the selection process for who gets the big piece of the revenue pie has nothing to do with actual on field performance and everything to do with good ol boy croneyism. It's bad for the sport.

No doubt the good ol boy exists in pretty much every business. But, who is already in a conference is a pointless argument.

I give the Big 10 (not a fan of theirs sports-wise) a lot of credit for sticking to their academic profile when choosing schools recently. AAU and large research institutions. Miami (OH) is a great school but is not AAU and not a large research ($$$) school. When I checked (2010 numbers), Miami (OH) was only doing about $20-30M/yr in research.

Northwestern does $600M. I would have to check again, but I think Indiana was at the bottom of the Big 10 at around $170M.

In the MAC, I think Buffalo is AAU and does around $350M in research.

(08-28-2013 01:07 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-28-2013 12:19 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 11:46 PM)sundodger Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 10:50 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 09:53 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Northwestern has been playing FB since 1886. Of course they have more losses than a team that started playing in 1986. Their all-time winning percentage is still .440, which is not great but not nearly as awful as you're pretending.

Over the past 10 seasons (which is probably as long as any current CFB player remembers), Northwestern is 69-57.

If you want to argue that Miami-Ohio (or any other school) "belongs" in the Big Ten or ACC or wherever, prove that they're at least as good as the middle of the league (in other words, prove that they wouldn't pull down the average if they were there). Arguing that Northwestern or anyone else didn't belong 40 years ago when their football was terrible proves nothing about whether anyone else belongs there today.

Think of it this way: If I was applying for a job at say, Google, or wherever, which would be the better job interview strategy?

(A) Spending the entire interview complaining about some mediocre long-time Google employee, or

(B) Making the case that I'd be a well-above-average Google employee based on my experience and qualifications and that the company would be a better place if they hire me.

Everyone knows that the correct answer is (B), but far too many fans of "G5" CFB teams are just arguing (A).

Northwestern has won 69 games in the last 10 years, that puts them tied for 50th in FBS, not overly impressive.

From 1869-2012 there are 109 FBS schools that have been playing for at least 30% of that time, ranked by winning % Northwestern is 101st at 43.4%. Indiana and Wake Forrest are the only P5 schools with a worse winning percentage. I'm not pretending that their record is awful. It is awful.

You want Miami to prove that they belong by being average? They are 17th in winning percentage, is that average enough? They are also 7-3 in bowl games with wins over Texas Tech, Arizona State, Florida, Georgia, Louisville, hows that for average? They've won 22 conference championships, they've finished as high as 10th in the AP Poll as recently as 2003, is that average enough?

my point is not whether or not one team deserves to be in the P5 or if another one doesn't, my point is the selection process for who gets the big piece of the revenue pie has nothing to do with actual on field performance and everything to do with good ol boy croneyism. It's bad for the sport.

And how many of those losses were in conference? Not making excuses just pointing out that the bulk of Northwestern's losses would have been in conference. Just as most of Miami's wins at least since 1946 have been against MAC opponents. This is not to discredit Miami, they beat the teams in their conference more often than not, and Northwestern did not. Some 100 years ago Northwestern was seen as a peer of the schools it is associated with today, and it has remained thus over time. Did they know then what would become of their conference of course not, did they see Miami as their peer then? Apparently not, and they have not at any time since. Some schools have 'moved up', others have 'moved down' but the overwhelming majority have maintained their status quo.

Miami conf record- 275-147-11
Miami non conf record- 89-102-5

NW conf record- 257-466-21
NW non conf record- 89-102-4

the thing to keep in mind is that P5 schools and G5 schools are already in the same subdivision- FBS. I'm not suggesting the P5 teams give anything to the G5, I'm simply advocating for the G5 conferences to be given the same opportunities to succeed.

what is wrong with giving every team within the same subdivision a chance to compete for a championship? I can't think of any other sport but college football where before the season starts 50% of the teams are denied a chance to play for a championship.

You keep falling back on ancient history. That's just grasping for straws. No one cares today whether any of these teams played good football 50 or 100 years ago. I don't know or care why you have such a large bug up your butt about Northwestern, but they are indisputably good enough now that you look silly pretending they don't belong in the Big Ten (or in FBS if that's what you're arguing).

You still didn't make a case for Miami-OH belonging in the Big Ten. You had to change the question from whether they could be average in the Big Ten to whether they could be average in FBS, and even then you're only getting there by saying every win or loss in FBS is equal, and no one honestly believes that. To go back to my analogy about Google, it's as if you're applying for that job at Google, and you're not saying you'd be an above-average Google employee, you're only saying that your computer skills are above-average within the group of all humans who have ever used a computer.

No, Miami is in the FBS and the B1G is in the FBS, to use your Google analogy, I'm saying Miami is a good software developer for a search engine and you're sayin- yeah but, Google is super duper special. It doesn't hold up.

But keep telling yourself winning doesn't matter.

(08-27-2013 07:58 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-27-2013 07:41 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  And all of those schools expect a spot in the proposed D-4, possibly ahead of UConn.

What a joke.

The joke is UConn folks thinking basketball matters anymore.

Why wouldn't it matter? It's a massive revenue stream and is a significant part of the rationale for creating a new division.

I'm not sure about how this turned into a Miami to the Big Ten thread, but I might as well chime in even if it's a few days late...

There's no way that Miami ever will become a member of the Big Ten, too many other schools have superior athletic programs for us even to be considered. The strength of our programs, budget levels, and facilities are nowhere close to what AQ schools can provide, and they'll never catch up unless we get a billionaire alum or two to pump in their life's savings towards Redhawk athletics. Hockey is the only sport that can be considered elite at Miami.

Academically, our undergrad programs go toe-to-toe with some of the best universities in the country (USNWR ranked our undergrad teaching third behind Princeton and Dartmouth, above schools like Brown, Yale, Chicago, and Stanford), but our graduate and research programs are minuscule because it's just not what we prioritize. Buffalo is the only MAC school with academics close to what the Big Ten is looking for.

Where perimeterpost has an argument is that we should've been considered in the past. The real time when we should've joined was in the infancy of college athletics, when colleges like Washington & Lee, Chicago, Wash U, and Sewanee were major programs. We're certainly old enough as a college (founded 1809, reopened 1885 after closing initially in 1873) that we could've gotten into what would become a big time conference, but obviously our administration didn't prioritize it.

Back in the sixties, Miami athletics were starting to peak in national competitiveness; by 1970 we had won 15 conference titles in football and made the NCAA tourney 6 times. Brand-new Millett Hall opening in 1968, and rumors of a big new stadium (see below) surfaced. That would've been about the last time you could've argued that we should be a candidate, but since the Big Ten was already at ten teams (imagine that!), they had no reason to invite any other university.



Since then we've fallen behind. Around a decade ago, our athletics reached a modern peak with our football winning behind Big Ben and our basketball not too far from the Wally days (poor Charlie Coles was eventually forced to pimp his program to fund the rest of our athletics). C-USA inquired about us and Toledo joining to replace the chunk of schools that left them, but both of us said not interested. Had we said yes, there's a chance that we'd have been invited to the Big East/AAC, but who knows what would've happened for real.

Schools like Northwestern are acceptable AQ schools because of their incredible academic reputations, and their athletic programs are good enough that they can be unconditionally grandfathered in to their conferences out of loyalty, rivalries, and the frequent success of their Olympic sports. Miami would never have been like those schools just because we're a public university, and had we been accepted into the Big Ten we probably would've sucked in most sports as time went on. Most of the other schools are state flagships, and OSU's presence would've killed out a lot of our long-term potential.

Sorry for the essay.