Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Big 12 Expansion Index - nice breakdown by FrankThe Tank
Author Message
lumberpack4 Offline
Banned

Posts: 4,336
Joined: Jun 2013
I Root For: ACC
Location:
Post: #121
RE: Big 12 Expansion Index - nice breakdown by FrankThe Tank
(11-10-2013 04:25 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  
(11-08-2013 05:08 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Maryland has long been an B10 "target".

Whatever fascination the B10 had with Maryland, consider that the conference went 20 years with 11 members. Only conference musical chairs and a failed Pac alliance brought about a scenario that made sense for further expansion.

So, while "fascination" may be possible (although it seems that only a handful of people would know that), it took far more than that to close the deal. So much so that it doesn't make sense to me to call Maryland a "target". Notre Dame may have been a target for a while, but I just can't see that label being applied to anyone else.

I agree with you. The quotations I put around the word target are due to the facts you cite. Maryland was a plan "C" type scenario for the B10, spurred in large part as a response to the Notre Dame move and the potential for destabilizing PSU's place in the B10.

Personally I don't think the B10's future problems were with demographics, as much with the moribund football played by Iowa, Minnesota, Indiana, Purdue, and Illinois and the resulting pressure that it applied to Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, PSU, and Nebraska to win all their OOC games.
11-12-2013 02:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #122
RE: Big 12 Expansion Index - nice breakdown by FrankThe Tank
(11-12-2013 01:58 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(11-12-2013 01:14 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  
(11-12-2013 10:26 AM)Underdog Wrote:  So why is Air Force in the MWC and Navy is joining the American? The B12 can give them football only memberships....

There are fundamental difference in the caliber of opponents in the B12 versus the MWC/AAC. It's not as if AFA has finished in the top 3 of the MWC since its formation. And there is nothing to say that Navy will be competitive in CFB in the AAC once they join.

Cadets did not come to the Academies to get into the NFL. They were hand-picked by their Congressman and others to become officers and serve their country. They do not need to be subjected to the P5 brutes. There are weight standards in the military which cadets have to meet. This alone takes them into dangerous territory when playing the big boys. I am not even sure they should not be playing at the FCS level. If these kids get hurt badly, they risk failing their commissioning physicals and a career as a military officer. That's a lot to put on the line every Saturday.

And its a lot for the country to put on the line, to lose these potential officers.
11-12-2013 02:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,109
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 763
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #123
RE: Big 12 Expansion Index - nice breakdown by FrankThe Tank
(11-12-2013 02:49 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Personally I don't think the B10's future problems were with demographics, as much with the moribund football played by Iowa, Minnesota, Indiana, Purdue, and Illinois and the resulting pressure that it applied to Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, PSU, and Nebraska to win all their OOC games.
And a lot of that is demographics, isn't it? Rivals.com's Top Ten Recruiting States are:

Tier 1: Texas (185), Florida (167), Florida (128)
Tier 2: Georgia (92), Ohio (69)
Tier 3: Pennsylvania (48), Virginia (54), Alabama (42), North Carolina (42), New Jersey (40)

Ohio & Pennsylvania in the Big Ten East combine to 117, so just about make a single Tier1 recruiting ground ... but not a single top 10 recruiting ground in the Big Ten West.
11-12-2013 03:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BewareThePhog Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,881
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 137
I Root For: KU
Location:
Post: #124
RE: Big 12 Expansion Index - nice breakdown by FrankThe Tank
(11-12-2013 03:04 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(11-12-2013 02:49 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Personally I don't think the B10's future problems were with demographics, as much with the moribund football played by Iowa, Minnesota, Indiana, Purdue, and Illinois and the resulting pressure that it applied to Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, PSU, and Nebraska to win all their OOC games.
And a lot of that is demographics, isn't it? Rivals.com's Top Ten Recruiting States are:

Tier 1: Texas (185), Florida (167), Florida (128)
Tier 2: Georgia (92), Ohio (69)
Tier 3: Pennsylvania (48), Virginia (54), Alabama (42), North Carolina (42), New Jersey (40)

Ohio & Pennsylvania in the Big Ten East combine to 117, so just about make a single Tier1 recruiting ground ... but not a single top 10 recruiting ground in the Big Ten West.
Wow, Florida's got a lot of good prospects! 04-cheers

Those are good points, although there's still plenty of recruits for the top schools to get, and the highest profile schools can reach outside of their areas to get good recruits. I wonder if style of play has also entered into things, with B1G schools perhaps being slower to embrace some of the wide-open offensive concepts since they need to win games outside in the north in cold and wet weather. It'll never happen, of course, since bowl games are at least as much vacation destinations and press junkets as they are determinants of championships, but it'd be interesting to see what impact rotating championship games to cold as well as warm and dry weather venues could have.
11-12-2013 03:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Underdog Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,747
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation: 124
I Root For: The American
Location: Cloud Nine
Post: #125
RE: Big 12 Expansion Index - nice breakdown by FrankThe Tank
(11-12-2013 02:59 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(11-12-2013 01:58 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(11-12-2013 01:14 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  
(11-12-2013 10:26 AM)Underdog Wrote:  So why is Air Force in the MWC and Navy is joining the American? The B12 can give them football only memberships....

There are fundamental difference in the caliber of opponents in the B12 versus the MWC/AAC. It's not as if AFA has finished in the top 3 of the MWC since its formation. And there is nothing to say that Navy will be competitive in CFB in the AAC once they join.

Cadets did not come to the Academies to get into the NFL. They were hand-picked by their Congressman and others to become officers and serve their country. They do not need to be subjected to the P5 brutes. There are weight standards in the military which cadets have to meet. This alone takes them into dangerous territory when playing the big boys. I am not even sure they should not be playing at the FCS level. If these kids get hurt badly, they risk failing their commissioning physicals and a career as a military officer. That's a lot to put on the line every Saturday.

And its a lot for the country to put on the line, to lose these potential officers.

You both must think the American and MWC plays touch football. Players do get injured in those conferences as well....
11-12-2013 05:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Sactowndog Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,100
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation: 114
I Root For: Fresno State Texas A&M
Location:
Post: #126
RE: Big 12 Expansion Index - nice breakdown by FrankThe Tank
(11-12-2013 01:14 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  
(11-12-2013 10:26 AM)Underdog Wrote:  So why is Air Force in the MWC and Navy is joining the American? The B12 can give them football only memberships....

There are fundamental difference in the caliber of opponents in the B12 versus the MWC/AAC. It's not as if AFA has finished in the top 3 of the MWC since its formation. And there is nothing to say that Navy will be competitive in CFB in the AAC once they join.

The gap is even bigger in women's sports where Air Force often struggles to win a game much less get out of the basement. That reason was a factor in why they didn't pursue the Big 12 last time.
11-14-2013 10:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #127
RE: Big 12 Expansion Index - nice breakdown by FrankThe Tank
(11-12-2013 05:17 PM)Underdog Wrote:  
(11-12-2013 02:59 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(11-12-2013 01:58 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(11-12-2013 01:14 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  
(11-12-2013 10:26 AM)Underdog Wrote:  So why is Air Force in the MWC and Navy is joining the American? The B12 can give them football only memberships....

There are fundamental difference in the caliber of opponents in the B12 versus the MWC/AAC. It's not as if AFA has finished in the top 3 of the MWC since its formation. And there is nothing to say that Navy will be competitive in CFB in the AAC once they join.

Cadets did not come to the Academies to get into the NFL. They were hand-picked by their Congressman and others to become officers and serve their country. They do not need to be subjected to the P5 brutes. There are weight standards in the military which cadets have to meet. This alone takes them into dangerous territory when playing the big boys. I am not even sure they should not be playing at the FCS level. If these kids get hurt badly, they risk failing their commissioning physicals and a career as a military officer. That's a lot to put on the line every Saturday.

And its a lot for the country to put on the line, to lose these potential officers.

You both must think the American and MWC plays touch football. Players do get injured in those conferences as well....

I emboldened another line of Medics that you must have missed.

My own opinion on the matter is that for the academies, the risk is worth the reward. It is about the intangibles. The Military branches are ALWAYS concerned with recruitment since they are all volunteer. That means this falls into the sphere of marketing. They have plenty of resources as Congress NEVER turns down their money requests. Military Recruiters always have plenty of resources at their disposal. The same goes for these sports programs which are multifaceted but part of that is marketing and recruitment. The Army/Navy game alone is put on as the show that it is in order to popularize the two services for potential recruits. The Media AND the NCAA play along by giving them their own week.

Any possible injuries from playing football against bigger and faster opponents is mitigated by the gain of doing so. Marketing is just one reason though. Just watch some interviews with coaches and other officers affiliated with the Academies. They will tell you the gain of having these men work together as a team against a force that is bigger, stronger and faster.

There is plenty of reason to follow the competition upwards if a split happens. These academies don't want to be relegated downwards so that they are less visible.
11-15-2013 07:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
lew240z Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 699
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 23
I Root For: Wyoming
Location: Saint Louis, MO
Post: #128
RE: Big 12 Expansion Index - nice breakdown by FrankThe Tank
(11-15-2013 07:36 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The Military branches are ALWAYS concerned with recruitment since they are all volunteer. That means this falls into the sphere of marketing. They have plenty of resources as Congress NEVER turns down their money requests. Military Recruiters always have plenty of resources at their disposal. The same goes for these sports programs which are multifaceted but part of that is marketing and recruitment. The Army/Navy game alone is put on as the show that it is in order to popularize the two services for potential recruits. The Media AND the NCAA play along by giving them their own week.

The academies' intercollegiate sports programs are 501.c.3 non-profit corporations. All their income is from media revenue, ticket sales and donations. They receive exactly nothing from the taxpayers.
11-15-2013 09:04 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,589
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 315
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #129
RE: Big 12 Expansion Index - nice breakdown by FrankThe Tank
(11-15-2013 09:04 AM)lew240z Wrote:  
(11-15-2013 07:36 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  The Military branches are ALWAYS concerned with recruitment since they are all volunteer. That means this falls into the sphere of marketing. They have plenty of resources as Congress NEVER turns down their money requests. Military Recruiters always have plenty of resources at their disposal. The same goes for these sports programs which are multifaceted but part of that is marketing and recruitment. The Army/Navy game alone is put on as the show that it is in order to popularize the two services for potential recruits. The Media AND the NCAA play along by giving them their own week.

The academies' intercollegiate sports programs are 501.c.3 non-profit corporations. All their income is from media revenue, ticket sales and donations. They receive exactly nothing from the taxpayers.

While you're correct Lew, H1 point about the SA's remaining apart of FBS football is still correct. How many people know that there is a Coast Guard and Merchant Marine Academy? From the perspective of Army, Navy and AFA, the fact that most people have no idea that there are actually five US Service Academies validates the position of keeping their respective CFB teams at the highest level.
11-15-2013 09:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SMUfrat Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 412
Joined: Jul 2012
Reputation: 24
I Root For: SMU / BEast
Location:
Post: #130
RE: Big 12 Expansion Index - nice breakdown by FrankThe Tank
(11-12-2013 03:04 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(11-12-2013 02:49 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Personally I don't think the B10's future problems were with demographics, as much with the moribund football played by Iowa, Minnesota, Indiana, Purdue, and Illinois and the resulting pressure that it applied to Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, PSU, and Nebraska to win all their OOC games.
And a lot of that is demographics, isn't it? Rivals.com's Top Ten Recruiting States are:

Tier 1: Texas (185), Florida (167), Florida (128)
Tier 2: Georgia (92), Ohio (69)
Tier 3: Pennsylvania (48), Virginia (54), Alabama (42), North Carolina (42), New Jersey (40)

Ohio & Pennsylvania in the Big Ten East combine to 117, so just about make a single Tier1 recruiting ground ... but not a single top 10 recruiting ground in the Big Ten West.

California?
11-15-2013 09:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Melky Cabrera Offline
Bill Bradley
*

Posts: 4,716
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 100
I Root For: UConn
Location:
Post: #131
RE: Big 12 Expansion Index - nice breakdown by FrankThe Tank
(11-12-2013 03:04 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(11-12-2013 02:49 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Personally I don't think the B10's future problems were with demographics, as much with the moribund football played by Iowa, Minnesota, Indiana, Purdue, and Illinois and the resulting pressure that it applied to Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, PSU, and Nebraska to win all their OOC games.
And a lot of that is demographics, isn't it? Rivals.com's Top Ten Recruiting States are:

Tier 1: Texas (185), Florida (167), Florida (128)
Tier 2: Georgia (92), Ohio (69)
Tier 3: Pennsylvania (48), Virginia (54), Alabama (42), North Carolina (42), New Jersey (40)

Ohio & Pennsylvania in the Big Ten East combine to 117, so just about make a single Tier1 recruiting ground ... but not a single top 10 recruiting ground in the Big Ten West.

I've always thought these lists were pretty silly. First, they're heavily influenced by population, so of course none of the smaller population states in the Big ten West are going to make it.

But secondly they're heavily influenced by where the Division I conferences are. I'm some parts of the country there are a lot lf such schools. The same quality of player that plays in the MAC, the Sun Belt, or CUSA plays Div I AA or II in some other parts of the country. The MAC is heavily concentrated in Ohio, so that shows up as a good recruiting state, but Illinois with a similar population does not show up and coincidentally they have very few IA programs.
11-18-2013 12:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kittonhead Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 122
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #132
RE: Big 12 Expansion Index - nice breakdown by FrankThe Tank
(11-18-2013 12:34 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  
(11-12-2013 03:04 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(11-12-2013 02:49 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Personally I don't think the B10's future problems were with demographics, as much with the moribund football played by Iowa, Minnesota, Indiana, Purdue, and Illinois and the resulting pressure that it applied to Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, PSU, and Nebraska to win all their OOC games.
And a lot of that is demographics, isn't it? Rivals.com's Top Ten Recruiting States are:

Tier 1: Texas (185), Florida (167), Florida (128)
Tier 2: Georgia (92), Ohio (69)
Tier 3: Pennsylvania (48), Virginia (54), Alabama (42), North Carolina (42), New Jersey (40)

Ohio & Pennsylvania in the Big Ten East combine to 117, so just about make a single Tier1 recruiting ground ... but not a single top 10 recruiting ground in the Big Ten West.

I've always thought these lists were pretty silly. First, they're heavily influenced by population, so of course none of the smaller population states in the Big ten West are going to make it.

But secondly they're heavily influenced by where the Division I conferences are. I'm some parts of the country there are a lot lf such schools. The same quality of player that plays in the MAC, the Sun Belt, or CUSA plays Div I AA or II in some other parts of the country. The MAC is heavily concentrated in Ohio, so that shows up as a good recruiting state, but Illinois with a similar population does not show up and coincidentally they have very few IA programs.

You must have not read the article because the count from above only counts players going to BCS schools. Players heading to MAC, CUSA and SBC are not included in the count.

Quote:As part of Rivals.com's commemorative series on 10 years of rankings, Keith Niebuhr crunched the numbers - whoa, those numbers - to find out which of the big three states was the biggest over the past decade. And you all know where the things are biggest, right? Here is a look at the top 10 states that produced BCS signees over the past 10 years. - See more at: http://footballrecruiting.rivals.com/con...ruxl8.dpuf

Ohio then is sending many more players to BCS schools than Illinois and at the next level down has many more MAC caliber players than Illinois but they have to be split among the 6 Ohio MAC schools.

Rivals is showing that 57 Ohio recruits signed with the MAC last season.

Toledo (10)
Miami (10)
Ohio (9)
Kent State (9)
Akron (6)
Bowling Green (4)
Eastern Michigan (3)
Northern Illinois (2)
Ball State (2)
Buffalo (2)

CUSA only signed 2 players from Ohio in 2013. The MAC is able to get anyone FBS capable from the state to stay home. Almost nobody from MAC country is going to CUSA.

The MAC by contrast signed 68 players from the south, many of which I'm sure had SBC/CUSA offers.

Ball State (8)
Bowling Green (8)
Kent State (8)
UMass (7)
Toledo (7)
Ohio (7)
Buffalo (5)
Miami (5)
Akron (4)
Western Michigan (4)
Northern Illinois (3)
Eastern Michigan (2)
11-18-2013 03:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #133
RE: Big 12 Expansion Index - nice breakdown by FrankThe Tank
(11-18-2013 03:10 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  
(11-18-2013 12:34 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  
(11-12-2013 03:04 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(11-12-2013 02:49 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Personally I don't think the B10's future problems were with demographics, as much with the moribund football played by Iowa, Minnesota, Indiana, Purdue, and Illinois and the resulting pressure that it applied to Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, PSU, and Nebraska to win all their OOC games.
And a lot of that is demographics, isn't it? Rivals.com's Top Ten Recruiting States are:

Tier 1: Texas (185), Florida (167), Florida (128)
Tier 2: Georgia (92), Ohio (69)
Tier 3: Pennsylvania (48), Virginia (54), Alabama (42), North Carolina (42), New Jersey (40)

Ohio & Pennsylvania in the Big Ten East combine to 117, so just about make a single Tier1 recruiting ground ... but not a single top 10 recruiting ground in the Big Ten West.

I've always thought these lists were pretty silly. First, they're heavily influenced by population, so of course none of the smaller population states in the Big ten West are going to make it.

But secondly they're heavily influenced by where the Division I conferences are. I'm some parts of the country there are a lot lf such schools. The same quality of player that plays in the MAC, the Sun Belt, or CUSA plays Div I AA or II in some other parts of the country. The MAC is heavily concentrated in Ohio, so that shows up as a good recruiting state, but Illinois with a similar population does not show up and coincidentally they have very few IA programs.

You must have not read the article because the count from above only counts players going to BCS schools. Players heading to MAC, CUSA and SBC are not included in the count.

Quote:As part of Rivals.com's commemorative series on 10 years of rankings, Keith Niebuhr crunched the numbers - whoa, those numbers - to find out which of the big three states was the biggest over the past decade. And you all know where the things are biggest, right? Here is a look at the top 10 states that produced BCS signees over the past 10 years. - See more at: http://footballrecruiting.rivals.com/con...ruxl8.dpuf

Ohio then is sending many more players to BCS schools than Illinois and at the next level down has many more MAC caliber players than Illinois but they have to be split among the 6 Ohio MAC schools.

Rivals is showing that 57 Ohio recruits signed with the MAC last season.

Toledo (10)
Miami (10)
Ohio (9)
Kent State (9)
Akron (6)
Bowling Green (4)
Eastern Michigan (3)
Northern Illinois (2)
Ball State (2)
Buffalo (2)

CUSA only signed 2 players from Ohio in 2013. The MAC is able to get anyone FBS capable from the state to stay home. Almost nobody from MAC country is going to CUSA.

The MAC by contrast signed 68 players from the south, many of which I'm sure had SBC/CUSA offers.

Ball State (8)
Bowling Green (8)
Kent State (8)
UMass (7)
Toledo (7)
Ohio (7)
Buffalo (5)
Miami (5)
Akron (4)
Western Michigan (4)
Northern Illinois (3)
Eastern Michigan (2)

That's because they needed to. CUSA schools don't need to recruit Ohio and don't waste their time when they've got sufficient talent close by.
11-18-2013 09:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #134
RE: Big 12 Expansion Index - nice breakdown by FrankThe Tank
Back in the 90s when Toledo had an unbeaten season (I think they had a tie) they did a trivia question. How many FBS schools that year did NOT have a player from California, Texas or Florida?

The answer was 1-Toledo. And they had about 10 players from Ontario.
11-18-2013 09:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.