no.....

winning is not gonna help enhance ECU's name. no matter how many games they win they ARE NOT going to get around the obvious mid-major association that comes with having a directional name.

point to unc west virginia or usc all you want

but you for some reason cant get around the obvious apples to oranges comparison there. ECU will NEVER be on the same level as ncsu or UNC.

never...ever...ever


ever.......

John, I think you need to go back and read posts. I've said nothing here about UNC/SC/WV etc. Those are obvious apples to oranges. The only comparable schools are schools like USC/UCLA. Just because they are private, does not mean people do not view them as a directional school. Honestly, I wasn't a huge college sports fan until my senior year of HS. I had no idea USC was private until my freshman year of college.

You want to say that something will never happen, but you do not know that. With proper marketing anything is possible. A good marketer can sell anything to anyone.

There is a chance it may happen, there is a chance it may never happen. But it is not 100% either way.

For the record I said winning AND exposure. It takes both. Winning to get people to watch, exposure to provide the opportunity. Who would have thought a team named Boise St. would become a national brand? Marketing/winning/exposure gave people something to remember. When they see/hear ECU they would remember "hey that's that team that outdraws half of BCS conference teams but is no BCS? Let's watch them beat up on somebody ---------------------------To get that scenario like I said we have to 1. Establish a tradition of winning and 2. have the exposure.

(09-28-2013 04:59 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-28-2013 04:54 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(09-28-2013 04:59 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Yeah, Southern California and University of California at Los Angeles had better get on that. Texas A&M and Texas Tech probably should as well.

You bring up the one true exception for a directional name and state school at a city like either is the norm. They both benefitted from being in Los Angeles as the city grew to a major metropolis with little pro sports competition. Yet you will notice that both school go by their initials and not full names.

It's not a matter of what the norm is. The person I responded to made it as though it's a hard and fast rule, WITHOUT exception. My point stands. Objection overruled

ECU is not the exception........my point stands. overruled
[/quote]

Based on your rationale - that when it comes to geographically named schools, the name dictates perception - the following statements that are generally agreed upon to be true in terms of perception, could not be:

• - Ohio State, Cincinnati > Ohio
  - Texas A&M? Texas Tech, Houston, UTEP, North Texas, UTSA > Texas State
  - Syracuse > SUNY
  - Penn State, Pittsburgh > Pennsylvania
  - Providence > Rhode Island
  - Northwestern, Northern Illinois, Southern Illinois > Ill. State
  - Southern Cal, UCLA, Stanford (named after a city), San Diego State > - Cal State (this is essentially what is known as San Jose State University)
  - Southern Cal, UCLA, Stanford > California (this one takes the cake, as it has a directional school, a "secondary" branch, and a city named school all more popular than the "state-named" school."
  - Saint Louis - Missouri State
  - UNLV > Nevada
  - Memphis > Tennessee State, Tennesse Tech?
  - Louisville, Western Kentucky, Eastern Kentucky, Morehead State, Murray State, Northern Kentucky > Kentucky State
  - ECU > North Carolina (for this weekend, they get the nod )
  - LSU > University of Louisiana (essentially LA-Lafayette)
  - Auburn > Alabama St
  - Clemson > South Carolina St (dare I say South Carolina?)
  - Florida State = Florida (this isn't necessarily true to day, but it has been in the past. Miami too)
  - Georgia Tech? > Georgia State
  (? = not sure how 'A&M' or 'Tech' fit in the direction hierarchy)
  
  And....
  
  - EVERYBODY > American University.

ALL of these are examples that disprove your point. It may be a harder hill to climb, based on name, but there is simply nor proof that having a direction or city in your name automatically makes you seem lesser than a team with only the state name, or a non-direction within the name (A&M, Tech, etc).

And stop trying to steal my bits.

And you are turning into the new Buckaineer. Every time you post, someone calls you out and proves you wrong. And you respond with "nuh-uh," and can never back anything up and just argue. You need a new hobby.

(09-27-2013 12:42 PM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  To the original question, as a TN fan I think it would do 2 things:
1) Decrease attendance overall
2) Get us a better bowl game

By this I mean, this year we played Austin Peay, South Alabama, WKU and Oregon out of conference and still have to play Alabama, Georgia, Florida and South Carolina.

In the AAC, TN's probable schedule would be something like: UCF, Cincinnati, Louisville, Rutgers, UConn, Memphis, South Florida, Temple.

4 out of conference games if they remained the same would still give us a loss to Oregon and put us in the Fiesta Bowl this year.

If we were in a non-BCS qualifier like CUSA or the Sun Belt and say we had a different schedule but kept Vandy on it as an out of conference, lets say we end up 13-0. We would probably still wind up in Fiesta.

As a Vol fan I concur with your assessment. While a relagated UTK wouldn't fill the current Neyland, I'm sure I could craft a mostly G5 schedule with 2-3 P5 schools scattered in that would net 40-50K on Gameday.

(09-27-2013 06:53 AM)john01992 Wrote:  P5 or no P5 ECU & WKU aint going anywhere until they get a name change.

every time i see "eastern" i think mid-major like eastern michigan, eastern illinois etc.

Please tell my UCF friends this. With the opportunity to reclaim the old name of Florida Technological University, they remain steadfast on keeping the name Central Florida.

Hard to follow this through for Ohio State. I am going to assume the worst scandal in the history of college sports and it goes to the point there is a death penalty and so bad the Big Ten feels it has no choice. We'll say the football and basketball program come back after being gone for 5 full years.

At that point, even after everything, I can't see football staying down for long and I think the scandal and sanctions themselves would be the bigger deal than the conference (short term anyway). If basketball was forced to that level though it would go from being a sport with at least decent statewide following (not to the football extent) to one that would probably be quite local. In that, the conference affiliation would matter much more.

Edit:

I kind of feel like I ignored the real question there. Instead, I'm going to ignore the why and just put us in the MAC. In football, the demand for most games goes down and with time, we stop selling out most games (although still have 90,000+ regularly and sell out every big game). The bigger problem than pure attendance is the prices have to stop rising and probably go down. The program challenges itself big time out of conference. In basketball, the effect is far stronger. The recruiting classes don't disappear (the football money still leads to good facilities and coaches), but the feel is much more far time, especially when you add in basketball is very much the 2nd sport by a mile here. Attendance suffers very significantly over the long term if we aren't playing a competitive schedule.

(09-27-2013 11:50 AM)SMUfrat Wrote:  

(09-27-2013 09:01 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  My team is Pitt and we would be DESTROYED if we were relegated, as it were. That is why I was sweating so badly when the realignment carousel first began to spin back in 2009 or 2010. I knew that there were only so many available seats at the adults' table and if we didn't land one of them we would be hosed.

We already caught a glimpse of that phenomenon when Miami, Virginia Tech and Boston College left the original Big East and were replaced by South Florida, Louisville and Cincinnati. Even though the actual quality of the programs didn't change that much, the perception quickly became that the league had basically become a D2 league. As such, a game vs. Virginia Tech that would have garnered 53K fans turned into 43K fans when it was against Louisville.

To make matters worse, even after the defections, Pitt still struggled. Unfortunately, for most Pittsburghers the lesson wasn't, "Wow, I guess Cincinnati was pretty good" - as it should have been. Instead the reaction was, "Pitt can't even beat Cincinnati."

Please note that I do not hold those views personally, I am merely explaining the dominant mentality here.

You have to understand that schools that are located in pro sports markets are at an ENORMOUS disadvantage on every possible level right from the start. Take Pitt for example. Even when we're very good, we're still well behind the Steelers, Penguins and Pirates on the interest/media coverage front. That is a MAJOR obstacle to overcome and it is not factored in enough during these types of discussions. There is nothing harder than marketing minor league sports in major league towns. That is why it is so rare to see AHL teams in NHL towns and AAA baseball teams in MLB cities. Who wants to go watch the Chicago Wolves when they could watch the Chicago Blackhawks? Who wants to spend money on the Brooklyn Cyclones when they could use that money on the New York Yankees? Well, here, the attitude is, "Why should I spend time worrying about Pitt/Virginia this weekend when I could focus my attention (and money) on the Steelers/Vikings or the big Pirates/Reds series?"

That is EXTREMELY challenging to overcome and that is also true of Minnesota, Northwestern, Miami, Temple, Southern Methodist, Vanderbilt, Houston, South Florida and almost every other college football program that has to compete directly against an NFL team.

That is why I laugh when people bemoaned the fact that markets were determining teams' attractiveness to conferences. From my perspective, it was like, "It's about gawddamn time our location worked in our favor because it works against us on every other level." I would imagine that the Rutgers and Maryland folks feel the same way.

Well said - but it might help with college BB way moreso than FB. ECU gets 50,000 people and is in Bumfuc NC. SMU is in dallas and struggles to get 35K on average. TCUseless is a little easier since Ft. Worthless has nothing.

I think part of the good Dr's point is that in some ways it is an advantage to be in Bumfuc, NC instead of Dallas. ECU owns their part of the state, and isn't competing with anybody for fans. Your perception is that SMU struggles to get 35K on average. That would only be true if they actually came close to that, instead of the 20K they've been averaging for years.

But even with their ownership of eastern NC, and their long history of selling out their stadium, ECU had a modest but very noticeable decline in their attendance when C-USA lost several of its better teams to the BE/AAC. If they had not gotten into the AAC when they did, I'm afraid that attendance decline would have continued and accelerated with a steady diet of FAU's and Western Kentuckys.

Conversely, if the Pirates were promoted to the ACC, I don't think it would have as much effect on fan support as one might think. Their geography is a bit self limiting, IMO, and they are already close to maxing out on their potential. Competitively, though, they would exceed anything UNC or NC State have been able to sustain, just because success in football matters more to their fans than it does to their big brothers.

I suspect that if Wake Forest were relegated from the ACC, their decline in all sports would be dramatic. I think they would do well just to stay in Division I. Duke would fare a little better, at least for a while, thanks to their remarkable success in basketball. But continuing that success wouldn't be a slam dunk over, say, 20 years. I'm not sure they would even continue to offer football, and would try to latch on to a top hoops conference like the new Big East (which would take them in a heartbeat).

I think being relegated from the ACC would be a savage blow to NC State's ego. Too much of their identity is tied up in being a peer of UNC. Unless the Heels went along with them, they would have an existential crisis that would go beyond athletics. Carolina would probably die of embarrassment, so there's no telling how far they would fall if they weren't on the same level as South Carolina and Virginia.

(09-27-2013 09:28 AM)brista21 Wrote:  

(09-27-2013 09:23 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(09-27-2013 09:01 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  My team is Pitt and we would be DESTROYED if we were relegated, as it were. That is why I was sweating so badly when the realignment carousel first began to spin back in 2009 or 2010. I knew that there were only so many available seats at the adults' table and if we didn't land one of them we would be hosed.

We already caught a glimpse of that phenomenon when Miami, Virginia Tech and Boston College left the original Big East and were replaced by South Florida, Louisville and Cincinnati. Even though the actual quality of the programs didn't change that much, the perception quickly became that the league had basically become a D2 league. As such, a game vs. Virginia Tech that would have garnered 53K fans turned into 43K fans when it was against Louisville.

To make matters worse, even after the defections, Pitt still struggled. Unfortunately, for most Pittsburghers the lesson wasn't, "Wow, I guess Cincinnati was pretty good" - as it should have been. Instead the reaction was, "Pitt can't even beat Cincinnati."

Please note that I do not hold those views personally, I am merely explaining the dominant mentality here.

You have to understand that schools that are located in pro sports markets are at an ENORMOUS disadvantage on every possible level right from the start. Take Pitt for example. Even when we're very good, we're still well behind the Steelers, Penguins and Pirates on the interest/media coverage front. That is a MAJOR obstacle to overcome and it is not factored in enough during these types of discussions. There is nothing harder than marketing minor league sports in major league towns. That is why it is so rare to see AHL teams in NHL towns and AAA baseball teams in MLB cities. Who wants to go watch the Chicago Wolves when they could watch the Chicago Blackhawks? Who wants to spend money on the Brooklyn Cyclones when they could use that money on the New York Yankees? Well, here, the attitude is, "Why should I spend time worrying about Pitt/Virginia this weekend when I could focus my attention (and money) on the Steelers/Vikings or the big Pirates/Reds series?"

That is EXTREMELY challenging to overcome and that is also true of Minnesota, Northwestern, Miami, Temple, Southern Methodist, Vanderbilt, Houston, South Florida and almost every other college football program that has to compete directly against an NFL team.

That is why I laugh when people bemoaned the fact that markets were determining teams' attractiveness to conferences. From my perspective, it was like, "It's about gawddamn time our location worked in our favor because it works against us on every other level." I would imagine that the Rutgers and Maryland folks feel the same way.

Funny, Louisville fans never consider Pitt as a Big Boy like we did Miami, Virginia Tech and Syracuse. We considered Pitt more like BC, Rutgers, Temple and UConn.

People forget how big of a deal Pitt is historically speaking and how much smaller of a deal Virginia Tech is prior to the Frank Beamer era.

Pitt was one of the top in the country from the mid 70s to mid 80s. VPI was scheduled as Kentucky's homecoming game.

(09-27-2013 12:59 AM)ncbeta Wrote:  Since this is the realignment/college sports board, and realignment is slow, I figured a hypothetical thread may spark some interesting conversation. This scenario gauges where fans see their schools in terms of support.


P5 fans, if your school were to be kicked out of your conference and sought membership in a G5 conference, how would that change your football/basketball attendance? (depending on which type of school you are)general fan support? Your own support? Throw out some average numbers for continued membership of any G5 conference.

G5 fans, you get to take the place of the school above. How large does your fan base grow, how large does your attendance grow? (be realistic...if the majority of P5 schools are under 65k football attendance chances are yours will be do.....) How many fans do you steal from the flagship athletic programs of your state?


Also, feel free to pick the team who replaces you/ you replace and different #'s for different conferences.

Probably more fun for the G5 teams to proclaim what their school would do in a P5 conference....but it's always nice to hear some honesty from P5 fans on what their athletics would look like out of conference.

Any P5 fans want to take an honest shot of what would happen to their school? UK to AAC? Basketball stays legit, football avg's 35k and WKU is in the SEC pulling 50k fans a game.

I'll bet you...

Wake Forest would be in the AAC with Tulane. They would be a mid-budget G5 school (#78-90 range) with an athletic budget of around 32-35 mil.

(09-27-2013 11:30 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  apples and oranges

Those are the official name of the state and not a directional name for a state school

There is no state called "East Carolina"

"Southern" California Trojans....Northwestern..

(12-13-2014 04:12 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(09-27-2013 11:30 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  apples and oranges

Those are the official name of the state and not a directional name for a state school

There is no state called "East Carolina"

"Southern" California Trojans....Northwestern..

Those are two private schools, however.

If Marshall and WVU were to switch places, and Marshall join the B12 and WVU join CUSA, I could see us putting a second level on the east side of the stadium. That would likely give us around 60-65k seats. We may average 45-48K. Our basketball arena, the Henderson Center, seats just over 9k. We'd need a new, larger arena and we could average 10-12k. (We could do that in CUSA if we could string together a couple good to great seasons together. We've averaged 8k before.) I'd imagine most WVU fans would switch allegiances since most WVU fans aren't alumni anyway and just residents of the state.

Competitive-wise, I don't think we could compete for titles for the same reasons WVU won't be able to-at least consistently. West Virginia is too far out on an island, and while you'd win most of your home games, it's just too difficult to travel that far for so many conference games. 8-9 win seasons would probably be where we'd have to cap ourselves. And those would be the good years.

You can't take a G5 program and magically make them a contender by merely changing their conference affiliation. For most, if that were to happen, you are talking programs deeper in the basement than schools like Indiana and Kentucky. In the long run, those programs will be dead, forced to invest a lot more money for no appreciable return.

Programs need foundations, no cheat codes.

(12-13-2014 05:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  You can't take a G5 program and magically make them a contender by merely changing their conference affiliation. For most, if that were to happen, you are talking programs deeper in the basement than schools like Indiana and Kentucky. In the long run, those programs will be dead, forced to invest a lot more money for no appreciable return.

Programs need foundations, no cheat codes.

This ignores the fact that for some schools (not all) fan support would greatly increase, donations increase, tv money increases, bowl tie ins would be better... Add to that you're switching places with a current in state P5 (the only one in our case), and there's no reason to think schools couldn't rise. Look no further than Louisville or TCU.

(12-13-2014 05:49 PM)herdfan2013 Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 05:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  You can't take a G5 program and magically make them a contender by merely changing their conference affiliation. For most, if that were to happen, you are talking programs deeper in the basement than schools like Indiana and Kentucky. In the long run, those programs will be dead, forced to invest a lot more money for no appreciable return.

Programs need foundations, no cheat codes.

This ignores the fact that for some schools (not all) fan support would greatly increase, donations increase, tv money increases, bowl tie ins would be better... Add to that you're switching places with a current in state P5 (the only one in our case), and there's no reason to think schools couldn't rise. Look no further than Louisville or TCU.

I'm not ignoring that at all. You are simply overestimating the place many G5s are in while also overestimating how much of an increase they would see. You are also underestimating the difference between most G5s and the basement dwellers of the P5. That's the whole point.

(12-13-2014 05:51 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 05:49 PM)herdfan2013 Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 05:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  You can't take a G5 program and magically make them a contender by merely changing their conference affiliation. For most, if that were to happen, you are talking programs deeper in the basement than schools like Indiana and Kentucky. In the long run, those programs will be dead, forced to invest a lot more money for no appreciable return.

Programs need foundations, no cheat codes.

This ignores the fact that for some schools (not all) fan support would greatly increase, donations increase, tv money increases, bowl tie ins would be better... Add to that you're switching places with a current in state P5 (the only one in our case), and there's no reason to think schools couldn't rise. Look no further than Louisville or TCU.

I'm not ignoring that at all. You are simply overestimating the place many G5s are in while also overestimating how much of an increase they would see. You are also underestimating the difference between most G5s and the basement dwellers of the P5. That's the whole point.

But the right program at the right time, with the right people in the right positions, could successfully navigate the transition. It's been done before. It can - and most likely will - be done again.

When measuring the success rate between those who say it can't be done, and those who say it can, the odds favor those who say it can. When someone says something is impossible, it's a good bet that they're wrong.

At least, I think that's what herdfan is trying to tell you.

(12-14-2014 01:03 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 05:51 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 05:49 PM)herdfan2013 Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 05:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  You can't take a G5 program and magically make them a contender by merely changing their conference affiliation. For most, if that were to happen, you are talking programs deeper in the basement than schools like Indiana and Kentucky. In the long run, those programs will be dead, forced to invest a lot more money for no appreciable return.

Programs need foundations, no cheat codes.

This ignores the fact that for some schools (not all) fan support would greatly increase, donations increase, tv money increases, bowl tie ins would be better... Add to that you're switching places with a current in state P5 (the only one in our case), and there's no reason to think schools couldn't rise. Look no further than Louisville or TCU.

I'm not ignoring that at all. You are simply overestimating the place many G5s are in while also overestimating how much of an increase they would see. You are also underestimating the difference between most G5s and the basement dwellers of the P5. That's the whole point.

But the right program at the right time, with the right people in the right positions, could successfully navigate the transition. It's been done before. It can - and most likely will - be done again.

When measuring the success rate between those who say it can't be done, and those who say it can, the odds favor those who say it can. When someone says something is impossible, it's a good bet that they're wrong.

At least, I think that's what herdfan is trying to tell you.

This is exactly what I'm trying to say. It's been done before with Louisville and TCU. Beyond that, I think TAMU and Missouri took a step up in competition and have both had success, Utah has had success in the PAC. WVU has had success in the B12. In fact, it seems that finding success happens more often than not when moving conferences more recently.

To reply Adcorbett on post 43 (instead of creating yet another long quote), Stanford is named for a person, not a city. It in turn occupies land in Palo Alto that eventually became a US Census designated place.

And as a general rule, the school literally named after the state or in a few cases with a "state" after it are the most prestigious. Even Cal, despite worse athletics, is clearly the most prestigious academic school in the state despite less popularity than, say, UCLA.

(09-27-2013 09:01 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  My team is Pitt and we would be DESTROYED if we were relegated, as it were. That is why I was sweating so badly when the realignment carousel first began to spin back in 2009 or 2010. I knew that there were only so many available seats at the adults' table and if we didn't land one of them we would be hosed.

We already caught a glimpse of that phenomenon when Miami, Virginia Tech and Boston College left the original Big East and were replaced by South Florida, Louisville and Cincinnati. Even though the actual quality of the programs didn't change that much, the perception quickly became that the league had basically become a D2 league. As such, a game vs. Virginia Tech that would have garnered 53K fans turned into 43K fans when it was against Louisville.

To make matters worse, even after the defections, Pitt still struggled. Unfortunately, for most Pittsburghers the lesson wasn't, "Wow, I guess Cincinnati was pretty good" - as it should have been. Instead the reaction was, "Pitt can't even beat Cincinnati."

Please note that I do not hold those views personally, I am merely explaining the dominant mentality here.

You have to understand that schools that are located in pro sports markets are at an ENORMOUS disadvantage on every possible level right from the start. Take Pitt for example. Even when we're very good, we're still well behind the Steelers, Penguins and Pirates on the interest/media coverage front. That is a MAJOR obstacle to overcome and it is not factored in enough during these types of discussions. There is nothing harder than marketing minor league sports in major league towns. That is why it is so rare to see AHL teams in NHL towns and AAA baseball teams in MLB cities. Who wants to go watch the Chicago Wolves when they could watch the Chicago Blackhawks? Who wants to spend money on the Brooklyn Cyclones when they could use that money on the New York Yankees? Well, here, the attitude is, "Why should I spend time worrying about Pitt/Virginia this weekend when I could focus my attention (and money) on the Steelers/Vikings or the big Pirates/Reds series?"

That is EXTREMELY challenging to overcome and that is also true of Minnesota, Northwestern, Miami, Temple, Southern Methodist, Vanderbilt, Houston, South Florida and almost every other college football program that has to compete directly against an NFL team.

That is why I laugh when people bemoaned the fact that markets were determining teams' attractiveness to conferences. From my perspective, it was like, "It's about gawddamn time our location worked in our favor because it works against us on every other level." I would imagine that the Rutgers and Maryland folks feel the same way.

And now you see what has happened to Houston since politics and tectonic shifts, musical chairs, etc... dropped them from the place of the Gods. Yeah, it's scary and short of playing Penn State, West Virginia, Rutgers, Notre Dame and maybe Temple, Pitt would never draw 50,000 or more people if they were in an AAC level conference.

Houston was another Georgia Tech, Pitt, UCLA, BC or Syracuse before the SWC broke up. Now people assume Phi Slama Jama and Ware's Heisman were mid-major accomplishments.

(09-27-2013 09:58 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  A&M would take a hit, but not as bad as others would.

We'd definitely have to cancel our expansion to 100K and stay at the current 82K

Im assuming in this scenario we get relegated to something like the AAC so the interest in pretty much every opponent there would drop a lot.

The only thing would save us is that we don't rely on bandwagon fans to sell out the current stadium and we have enough loyalty, tradition and game day experience that fans would still show up and hold their noses and pretend to care about games against teams like Tulsa and Tulane and UH to partake in the game day festivities.

I would assume A&M would draw in the 60's. It's hard to get up for the Tulanes, Tulsas and Colorado States of the world after you've been playing and competing against the whose who's of college athletics for so long.

(12-14-2014 02:29 PM)herdfan2013 Wrote:  

(12-14-2014 01:03 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 05:51 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 05:49 PM)herdfan2013 Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 05:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  You can't take a G5 program and magically make them a contender by merely changing their conference affiliation. For most, if that were to happen, you are talking programs deeper in the basement than schools like Indiana and Kentucky. In the long run, those programs will be dead, forced to invest a lot more money for no appreciable return.

Programs need foundations, no cheat codes.

This ignores the fact that for some schools (not all) fan support would greatly increase, donations increase, tv money increases, bowl tie ins would be better... Add to that you're switching places with a current in state P5 (the only one in our case), and there's no reason to think schools couldn't rise. Look no further than Louisville or TCU.

I'm not ignoring that at all. You are simply overestimating the place many G5s are in while also overestimating how much of an increase they would see. You are also underestimating the difference between most G5s and the basement dwellers of the P5. That's the whole point.

But the right program at the right time, with the right people in the right positions, could successfully navigate the transition. It's been done before. It can - and most likely will - be done again.

When measuring the success rate between those who say it can't be done, and those who say it can, the odds favor those who say it can. When someone says something is impossible, it's a good bet that they're wrong.

At least, I think that's what herdfan is trying to tell you.

This is exactly what I'm trying to say. It's been done before with Louisville and TCU. Beyond that, I think TAMU and Missouri took a step up in competition and have both had success, Utah has had success in the PAC. WVU has had success in the B12. In fact, it seems that finding success happens more often than not when moving conferences more recently.

Moving from one P5 conference to another is an entirely different scenario. We are talking about moving a G5 program into the P5 wheelhouse.

Taking the average G5 program and throwing them into the P5 world means throwing programs into direct competition with schools twice to five times their size with resources up to 10x greater.

We've also yet to see how TCU and Lousiville will pan out over time. There is success and then sustained success. Right now TCU is playing well and having success but they are also spending a fortune. Will that pan out or will TCU find itself over time relegated further and further towards the back of the pack. We also have to look and see that the G5 move-ups have both moved into the two more modest conferences. The level of resources in the Big10 and SEC are much higher.

If you took USM, Louisiana, or Georgia State and put them into the SEC you honestly think you'd have the next 'TCU' in a few years? With all due respect, that's delusional. The basement dwellers have resources more than 3x what those schools have.

Staying power comes down to money. We'll have to wait and see if that pans out but the money alone says no.