Why do Wake Forest and Washington State deserve to be Power 5, especially when Cincinnati and UCF apparently do not?

It isn't a matter of 'deserving'.

UCF hasn't been around as long as other programs. But I do not want to be in the Big 12. Period.

Because they were founding members of those conferences.

Bringing something into existence is a lot more deserving than "but I really really want to be in it!"

(12-17-2013 09:35 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Because they were founding members of those conferences.

Bringing something into existence is a lot more deserving than "but I really really want to be in it!"

Yes, some around here have the idea that sometime in the past, some kind of lottery was held and some schools drew a lucky ticket into a conference and others didn't. But that's not the way it happened.

(12-16-2013 11:30 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 07:21 PM)CPslograd Wrote:  UCF hasn't even sold 5,000 tickets to the Fiesta Bowl.

case closed.

LSU has only sold 6,000.....

Case Open! LOL.

(12-17-2013 11:31 AM)saxamoophone Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 11:30 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 07:21 PM)CPslograd Wrote:  UCF hasn't even sold 5,000 tickets to the Fiesta Bowl.

case closed.

LSU has only sold 6,000.....

Case Open! LOL.

And LSU is providing free tickets to all students that attend. Isn't attendance smack productive? ****

(12-17-2013 10:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 09:35 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Because they were founding members of those conferences.

Bringing something into existence is a lot more deserving than "but I really really want to be in it!"

Yes, some around here have the idea that sometime in the past, some kind of lottery was held and some schools drew a lucky ticket into a conference and others didn't. But that's not the way it happened.

I'm not saying that. Look back at SWC, where the upper members decided to "trim the fat" and start their own conference without Rice, Houston, etc. Wouldn't it make sense for this to happen every ten years considering how dynamic college athletics is? Get rid of the schools that are not carrying their weight. Believe in boldness and bring in schools that bring value. Wake doesn't bring much. Neither does Wazzu. Yet these schools are collecting huge TV revenue checks because of their stature and connections in 1953 and 1917, respectively. The logic for keeping them around doesn't add up.

(12-16-2013 10:58 PM)S11 Wrote:  Just a note on Big 12 and Pac 12 ratings- they are artificially low due to two factors:
1- Fox an FS1 aren't really established in most viewers minds as well as ABC/ESPN outlets
2- Third tier networks like LHN or P12Network aren't as widely distributed.

UCF has done well and I would not be opposed to them being added but lets put the numbers in the proper context.

Yeah, I don't see how the OP's numbers are even close to statistically relevant for the B12 or AAC for that matter. You are comparing TV ratings for ABC to ones for channels like FS1, ESPNNews (which just started showing full games this year), and the P12 Network.

UCF had excellent timeslots and channels this year. I don't doubt UCF's TV ratings are solid, but in a given year I doubt they are even #1 in the AAC, let alone higher than most B12 schools.

(12-17-2013 07:23 AM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 10:08 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 08:46 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 06:46 PM)RobUCF Wrote:  Cool, I honestly don't think that the B12 will expand anytime soon so the point may be moot. That being said, you're "word on the street" means less than nothing in terms of conference realignment. These decisions are made by university presidents, conference commisioners, and TV execs looking at numbers, not fans opinions. How much were the B10 fans enamored with the prospect of landing Rutgers before the decision was made? Realignment talk in fun, but we are all armchair quaterbacks serving our own agendas.

Spot on. Remind me again how much TV money the aac generates with UCF, uh and cincy as league partners?

About the same as Texas Tech (if added to the AAC) when they don't get to play the real big dogs in the B12.

Care to compare our Tier 3 TV deal compared to your Tier 1 TV deal? We make more and its only 1 football game against against a scrub.

I have no problems with UCF. If you guys can add another 20mm to our TV deal, then I hope we are writing up the invite.

This isn't a remotely comparable situation either. Look, I don't agree the OP's premise even in the slightest, but it has nothing to do with the AAC TV deal. You can't compare any TV deal in a conference like the B12 to one in a lower tier conference, tier 1 or not. There are so many other factors in play, its not a relevant comparison in the way you say it is.

(12-16-2013 04:00 PM)NestaKnight1 Wrote:  Maybe not this year or next, but UCF being the second largest University in the nation will continue to develop fans that are interested in the program (their fan-base will outgrow any current B12 member simply because they are churning out more graduates). UCF's time to belong to the P5 will come, and don't be surprised if they beat OU and UT when that time does come. Besides no team currently in a P5 conference would leave that conference for the B12. So, if they do expand they will draw from the MWC or AAC and UCF appears to be the cream of the crop in the AAC this year. And they were always competitive in CUSA (played in half of the championship games while a member, yes that 50% for you math folks). So UCF routinely puts a competitive product on the field. I'm sure the OUs and TUs of the world look forward to playing the doormat known as KU in football regularly too, I'm sure it really pumps up their respective fan-bases. Same old "elitest propaganda." Besides I'd personally prefer UCF to be playing OSU and Penn St. over OU and UT.

When did that happen?(being the second largest)

Also, saying that you slapped around CUSA while you were there is not saying much. Besides, other than one year, you could not win in the MAC, including a 0-11 you last year there.(10-25)

(12-17-2013 12:02 PM)SouthPhillyFall Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 10:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 09:35 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Because they were founding members of those conferences.

Bringing something into existence is a lot more deserving than "but I really really want to be in it!"

Yes, some around here have the idea that sometime in the past, some kind of lottery was held and some schools drew a lucky ticket into a conference and others didn't. But that's not the way it happened.

I'm not saying that. Look back at SWC, where the upper members decided to "trim the fat" and start their own conference without Rice, Houston, etc. Wouldn't it make sense for this to happen every ten years considering how dynamic college athletics is? Get rid of the schools that are not carrying their weight. Believe in boldness and bring in schools that bring value. Wake doesn't bring much. Neither does Wazzu. Yet these schools are collecting huge TV revenue checks because of their stature and connections in 1953 and 1917, respectively. The logic for keeping them around doesn't add up.

Except thats not what happened with the SWC.

The SWC didnt trim the fat, it ultimately fell apart because it was a failed model for a power conference in the modern television age with all but one school located in one state market (and that one being the first to jump).

And who are you to say Wake brings nothing? Not everyone can be a power football school in a conference but the Deacs bring great academics, basketball and olympic sports.

They helped build the ACC into what it is today from the very begining and they dont deserve to be kicked out because ECU or UCF throw a temper tantrum about how unfair it is that Wake gets to reap the fruit of their labor.

And ultimately the reason is this: UNC and Duke WANT Wake as a member. They DONT want ECU or UCF as a member.

So instead of crying about how the mean club wont let them in, they should be making their own club more desirable.

(12-16-2013 08:46 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 06:46 PM)RobUCF Wrote:  Cool, I honestly don't think that the B12 will expand anytime soon so the point may be moot. That being said, you're "word on the street" means less than nothing in terms of conference realignment. These decisions are made by university presidents, conference commisioners, and TV execs looking at numbers, not fans opinions. How much were the B10 fans enamored with the prospect of landing Rutgers before the decision was made? Realignment talk in fun, but we are all armchair quaterbacks serving our own agendas.

Spot on. Remind me again how much TV money the aac generates with UCF, uh and cincy as league partners?

If Texas Tech were to switch places with UCF the AAC contract would not go up and the Big 12 contract would not go down. Texas and Oklahoma are the only reason the Big 12 is getting paid.

(12-17-2013 12:02 PM)SouthPhillyFall Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 10:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 09:35 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Because they were founding members of those conferences.

Bringing something into existence is a lot more deserving than "but I really really want to be in it!"

Yes, some around here have the idea that sometime in the past, some kind of lottery was held and some schools drew a lucky ticket into a conference and others didn't. But that's not the way it happened.

I'm not saying that. Look back at SWC, where the upper members decided to "trim the fat" and start their own conference without Rice, Houston, etc. Wouldn't it make sense for this to happen every ten years considering how dynamic college athletics is? Get rid of the schools that are not carrying their weight. Believe in boldness and bring in schools that bring value. Wake doesn't bring much. Neither does Wazzu. Yet these schools are collecting huge TV revenue checks because of their stature and connections in 1953 and 1917, respectively. The logic for keeping them around doesn't add up.

Excellent point.

Washington State should probably be in the MWC like Colorado State.

Wake Forest should be in the A10 like Davidson.

(12-17-2013 12:28 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  This isn't a remotely comparable situation either. Look, I don't agree the OP's premise even in the slightest, but it has nothing to do with the AAC TV deal. You can't compare any TV deal in a conference like the B12 to one in a lower tier conference, tier 1 or not. There are so many other factors in play, its not a relevant comparison in the way you say it is.

Why not?

Listen, I understand that FS1 is a "new" network that nobody knows exists. A game on ABC is no doubt going to draw more ratings than ESPNEWS.

Things are Apples & Oranges, but you can at least use this to see good fruit versus bad fruit.

Let me pick on Cincy ( who I really do like as a school, and love having them in the American with us.. ). ESPN picks which games go on which networks. More often than not, they picked UCF over Cincy this year. Cincy averaged a 0.3 TV Rating versus UCF's 1.0+. That's a huge difference.

UCF and Cincy both played similar schedules (teams), and were both "in the hunt" for the auto BCS bid. So explain to me the huge difference?

I understand this isn't a perfect Metric, but it's still a metric.

Cincy is still one of the best 'non-P5' schools on the table, so I don't think 1 year of ratings is a big enough sample size to make any action on, but that still has to mean 'something.'

And would anyone disagree that potential TV Ratings (and new markets) are driving (or have) conference expansion. If that's the case, OF COURSE this metric is something they will look at.

The fact USF got a 0.6 average despite being alwful says a lot. Lets see what UCF's metric is next year if they go 6-6. Let's see what BYU pulls.

By the way, UCF averaged a 1.03 TV Rating for 2012 football season.

(12-17-2013 01:28 PM)saxamoophone Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 12:28 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  This isn't a remotely comparable situation either. Look, I don't agree the OP's premise even in the slightest, but it has nothing to do with the AAC TV deal. You can't compare any TV deal in a conference like the B12 to one in a lower tier conference, tier 1 or not. There are so many other factors in play, its not a relevant comparison in the way you say it is.

Why not?

Listen, I understand that FS1 is a "new" network that nobody knows exists. A game on ABC is no doubt going to draw more ratings than ESPNEWS.

Things are Apples & Oranges, but you can at least use this to see good fruit versus bad fruit.

Let me pick on Cincy ( who I really do like as a school, and love having them in the American with us.. ). ESPN picks which games go on which networks. More often than not, they picked UCF over Cincy this year. Cincy averaged a 0.3 TV Rating versus UCF's 1.0+. That's a huge difference.

UCF and Cincy both played similar schedules (teams), and were both "in the hunt" for the auto BCS bid. So explain to me the huge difference?

I understand this isn't a perfect Metric, but it's still a metric.

And would anyone disagree that potential TV Ratings (and new markets) are driving (or have) conference expansion. If that's the case, OF COURSE this metric is something they will look at.

The fact USF got a 0.6 average despite being alwful says a lot. Lets see what UCF's metric is next year if they go 6-6. Let's see what BYU pulls.

Cincinnati's television ratings were the worst its been in several years. I think it was likely due to the effect of the collapse of the Big East, a coaching change, a slow start, terrible opponents, getting stuck on ESPN News and ESPN U and some unfavorable scheduling matchups (one of their national spots was pitted against the final game of the world series and another the Sound of Music and the NFL).

(12-17-2013 08:34 AM)SouthPhillyFall Wrote:  Why do Wake Forest and Washington State deserve to be Power 5, especially when Cincinnati and UCF apparently do not?

Because Scott and Swofford are more effective than Marinato and Aresco. On their own, Cincy, Univ Fla at Orlando (UFO) and ECU deserve better.

(12-17-2013 12:47 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 08:46 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 06:46 PM)RobUCF Wrote:  Cool, I honestly don't think that the B12 will expand anytime soon so the point may be moot. That being said, you're "word on the street" means less than nothing in terms of conference realignment. These decisions are made by university presidents, conference commisioners, and TV execs looking at numbers, not fans opinions. How much were the B10 fans enamored with the prospect of landing Rutgers before the decision was made? Realignment talk in fun, but we are all armchair quaterbacks serving our own agendas.

Spot on. Remind me again how much TV money the aac generates with UCF, uh and cincy as league partners?

If Texas Tech were to switch places with UCF the AAC contract would not go up and the Big 12 contract would not go down. Texas and Oklahoma are the only reason the Big 12 is getting paid.

^^^^^THIS^^^^^

There are maybe a dozen true power schools---Texas, USC, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St, Oklahoma, Alabama, LSU, Florida---maybe a few more that actually drive conference values. All the rest of the teams in the conference are just easily interchangeable mid-majors. Plug in Houston and pull out Tech--no real difference in the pay check of either conference. Plug in ECU and pull out Pitt---no real difference in the value of either conference. Cant say that if you take Texas from the Big012 or USC from the Pac-12.

It's Davidson's own fault that they are not in the ACC with us. They made a conscious in the 1930's to not engage in "big time" recruiting and dropped us off their schedules. At the time, Davidson was very much a part of what was known as the Big Five (UNC, NC State, Duke, WF and Davidson) in North Carolina. Davidson decided to drop down a level in competition and it became the Big Four.

Can you imagine how envious you all would be if North Carolina had five schools, three of them private, in the ACC now? It would have been fun to read.

(12-17-2013 12:47 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 12:02 PM)SouthPhillyFall Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 10:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 09:35 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Because they were founding members of those conferences.

Bringing something into existence is a lot more deserving than "but I really really want to be in it!"

Yes, some around here have the idea that sometime in the past, some kind of lottery was held and some schools drew a lucky ticket into a conference and others didn't. But that's not the way it happened.

I'm not saying that. Look back at SWC, where the upper members decided to "trim the fat" and start their own conference without Rice, Houston, etc. Wouldn't it make sense for this to happen every ten years considering how dynamic college athletics is? Get rid of the schools that are not carrying their weight. Believe in boldness and bring in schools that bring value. Wake doesn't bring much. Neither does Wazzu. Yet these schools are collecting huge TV revenue checks because of their stature and connections in 1953 and 1917, respectively. The logic for keeping them around doesn't add up.

Except thats not what happened with the SWC.

The SWC didnt trim the fat, it ultimately fell apart because it was a failed model for a power conference in the modern television age with all but one school located in one state market (and that one being the first to jump).

And who are you to say Wake brings nothing? Not everyone can be a power football school in a conference but the Deacs bring great academics, basketball and olympic sports.

They helped build the ACC into what it is today from the very begining and they dont deserve to be kicked out because ECU or UCF throw a temper tantrum about how unfair it is that Wake gets to reap the fruit of their labor.

And ultimately the reason is this: UNC and Duke WANT Wake as a member. They DONT want ECU or UCF as a member.

So instead of crying about how the mean club wont let them in, they should be making their own club more desirable.

If it were that easy, it would have been done.