(01-05-2014 12:22 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(01-04-2014 10:40 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  We are already seeing it across the board wether it be in athletics, academics, research etc.

People are the real resource and where they go everything else follows.

Saying otherwise is just good old fashion denial.

I assume when you say "we" you are not referring to Alabama and instead to the Midwest's growth issues. Yet... As for Alabama... Despite ranking 49th in private-sector growth(http://www.al.com/business/index.ssf/201...ama_4.html) Alabama's football team is doing alright. 49th, yet all the talk is about the Midwest.

If B1G's football teams were performing a little better (after all, only Michigan really stunk up the bowl game), would that solve our real and perceived problems? Time to sell out and do whatever it takes to bring Texas and Oklahoma into the fold?

What if Florida and Texas decided to start conferences exclusive to their states? It would be a brilliant move actually. Maybe the Carolinas and Georgia could partner up. Where would that leave Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, etc.? In better shape than Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, etc.?

We're already seeing growth in Texas and Florida fracture the hold that conferences once held on those states. UCF, USF, Houston, etc., will all be sharing bigger percentages of the pie. I'm not sure what's up with FIU, but many up-and-coming universities in Florida will be going after the same talent group, the same state funding dollars, national research grants, etc.

Moving on to North Carolina...(http://universityrelations.unc.edu/budge...isionsmade)

In fiscal 2011-2012, the University received a $100.7 million, or 17.9 percent, cut in permanent state appropriations. This fiscal year, that cut will be offset by $20 million transferred from UNC Health Care to help the University and the School of Medicine absorb the cuts.

What is up with that? How can that happen in a growth state? And why aren't we talking about that more. Denial, perhaps?

Sea Blue the paradigm has shifted and is shifting for higher education. The trend will be to fewer state schools. The larger more established ones will be protected. The others will either be converted to meeting the state's needs in technical or professional training or cut back severely if not cut out. That trend isn't going to change but is already affecting many states. In part that is what P5 realignment is all about, the grandfathering of the most publicly acclaimed schools across the nation in preparation of the downsizing that will occur with all of the others. Why else do you think so many small schools are making the push up from FCS to FBS. They not only need any new revenue stream they can find, but don't want to be caught in the wrong group when it really hits the fan.

Automation is coming in full strength to grade schools as well. The emphasis is already on fewer facilities, more at home online class experiences to cut the dependence on buildings, buses, lunches, and all of the ancillary staff required to do work the old way. A class taught from a DVD is a class that doesn't need to pay a teacher for a full year and can not only standardize the content nationwide, but eliminate thousands of teachers for that one subject.

When UPS or FEDERAL EXPRESS figures out the fine details on drone deliveries it will be bye bye truck operators.

The top tier Universities will continue to do research, train physicians and lawyers (not that we need any more) and all other manner of white collar professionals. They will pool resources and seek larger followings for their athletic programs through exclusion.

That will provide the Big 10 schools what they really need which is less competition for the talent that is already there.

BTW my lengthy post points out quite clearly that on the whole the Big 10 is still gaining population, just not at the rate of the that in most of the coastal South. But to think that the economic climate and the robust demographics are within the footprint of the Big 10 the way the were in the 1960's is not realistic. To think that they are what they were in the 1980's is not realistic either. Football may be cyclical, but the overall ramifications of economy are not. And again the issue is degree. The South is not exactly brimming over with good jobs. But, due to our more non-union profile it is preferable to some parts of the North, but nowhere near as appealing as sweatshops in Indonesia.

The destruction of the family business has severely crippled small towns all across the South because chains don't bank and trade, or provide jobs with benefits the way Mom & Pop did. And more to the point the chains lobby at the state levels for breaks in taxation that Mom & Pop don't get. The advantage before any other factors are considered will range between an 8 point to 13 point advantage in overhead before the first sale is ever registered. There is no way they can compete with that so their businesses and the jobs they supplied vanish. In the end the consumer bears the brunt of any small amount they saved because their ad valorum rates are increased to cover the kick back in state sales taxes and local property taxes that the big box stores received. What is being practiced is not capitalism it is money paid to the government power brokers for unfair advantages. The crony politicians make money, the big box stores make money, the worker gets less hours at less wage, with less benefits, and what amounts to a subsistence standard. Corruption is not capitalism.

But get ready, the same kinds of practices will be coming to institutions of higher education near you sooner than any of us is willing to believe. They've already cut the quality of education, eliminated the analytical aspects of education (the part that requires thought and synthesis) and produced in many fields an inferior product for a much higher cost, with less earning potential than those who were cheaper to educate and better educated as a whole in the past.

The young don't recognize this as much because they are unfamiliar with what transpired before they were of age, and because they haven't been given the skills to analyze the difference.

Therefore, demographics will not be as major of a factor in the future for Northern schools, because the number of Norther schools competing for those students and athletes will be fewer. The same will happen all over the nation. The coming deflation of the American paycheck versus the inflation of their commodities as they compete with wealthier nations for those products will eventually be a contributing factor to the demise of many, but not all professional sports teams. The WNBA is on the chopping block now. It will be the first of many. Have a nice day.

(01-04-2014 11:37 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-04-2014 10:40 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  We are already seeing it across the board wether it be in athletics, academics, research etc.

People are the real resource and where they go everything else follows.

Saying otherwise is just good old fashion denial.

Yes, you are right. We are in denial that Big Ten schools are crumbling and falling apart due to the absolute tidal wave of people leaving the north.

Many of them leaving....don't have college educations. Many of those that do....are retired.

Bless your heart.

(01-05-2014 12:25 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(01-04-2014 10:38 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Well done. Probably too well done as most of these folks clamoring about "population growth" seem to think that such a simple point is a good one.

Oh my god! All the football players are moving South! All of the football fans are moving South!


It doesn't even make sense....

The big difference as I can attest to after having lived in multiple areas of the country is that in the South the kids start playing football at an earlier age in large numbers. They also play it for much more of the year. It is a bigger part of Southern Culture than it is in the North. That is starting to change but I doubt there will ever be parity in that regard.


What the Big Ten needs to do is pay it's coaches equally as what conferences like the SEC do. They need to fill out the coaching staff's fully and they need to commit to the arms race of the future which will be unrestrained recruiting. If the Big Ten is willing to do what it has been unwilling to previously do then there will be no problem.

On top of that what needs to be done is HC's have their assistants and players to the local neighborhoods and host youth camps, if they're not already. High Schools should do more than just 7 on 7 competitions, such as spring football. Trying to pull classes strictly from the south is unreasonable due to costs. So efforts to get the Rust Belt back to the level it used to be is mandatory, or the local HS ball will continue to get worse. We still produce some very good talent up north, the pool isn't as deep as it used to be. Ohio and NJ still produces some quality kids.

Change takes time. The game itself has been changed to a more speed based game. I know the usual folks will come say this is crazy but the game absolutely changed when they decreased the size of padding drastically. Anyone who has actually played the game back when the pads were gargantuan and bulky would know exactly what I am talking about. They allowed the NFL size padding in college football and then a year later the SEC starts its 7 year run. It truly is not just coincidence and folks in the business know this.

Change takes time and that is the case for northern kids, coaches and parents when it comes to those starting at an early age prepping their kids for football. More speed will be worked into these kids at an early age and that is where the difference is made. It is not a Southern genetic thing. It is simply a difference in activities thing at an early age.

That is simple enough to change but it is not a quick fix. As I said, we are seven years into this new paradigm. We are still a few years away from seeing the catch up happen but it will happen.

The coaching thing is something that the Big Ten can do much more quickly but they have the largest anchor holding them back from going all in with sporting costs. The folks down in SEC land have a different moral compass. I am not saying it is wrong because that is not true. The administrations have different pressures upon them, that is all.

(01-05-2014 08:21 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-05-2014 12:25 AM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(01-04-2014 10:38 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Well done. Probably too well done as most of these folks clamoring about "population growth" seem to think that such a simple point is a good one.

Oh my god! All the football players are moving South! All of the football fans are moving South!


It doesn't even make sense....

The big difference as I can attest to after having lived in multiple areas of the country is that in the South the kids start playing football at an earlier age in large numbers. They also play it for much more of the year. It is a bigger part of Southern Culture than it is in the North. That is starting to change but I doubt there will ever be parity in that regard.


What the Big Ten needs to do is pay it's coaches equally as what conferences like the SEC do. They need to fill out the coaching staff's fully and they need to commit to the arms race of the future which will be unrestrained recruiting. If the Big Ten is willing to do what it has been unwilling to previously do then there will be no problem.

On top of that what needs to be done is HC's have their assistants and players to the local neighborhoods and host youth camps, if they're not already. High Schools should do more than just 7 on 7 competitions, such as spring football. Trying to pull classes strictly from the south is unreasonable due to costs. So efforts to get the Rust Belt back to the level it used to be is mandatory, or the local HS ball will continue to get worse. We still produce some very good talent up north, the pool isn't as deep as it used to be. Ohio and NJ still produces some quality kids.

Change takes time. The game itself has been changed to a more speed based game. I know the usual folks will come say this is crazy but the game absolutely changed when they decreased the size of padding drastically. Anyone who has actually played the game back when the pads were gargantuan and bulky would know exactly what I am talking about. They allowed the NFL size padding in college football and then a year later the SEC starts its 7 year run. It truly is not just coincidence and folks in the business know this.

Change takes time and that is the case for northern kids, coaches and parents when it comes to those starting at an early age prepping their kids for football. More speed will be worked into these kids at an early age and that is where the difference is made. It is not a Southern genetic thing. It is simply a difference in activities thing at an early age.

That is simple enough to change but it is not a quick fix. As I said, we are seven years into this new paradigm. We are still a few years away from seeing the catch up happen but it will happen.

The coaching thing is something that the Big Ten can do much more quickly but they have the largest anchor holding them back from going all in with sporting costs. The folks down in SEC land have a different moral compass. I am not saying it is wrong because that is not true. The administrations have different pressures upon them, that is all.

That's a good post He1nous. I think I would add a few things to it though. The number of parents encouraging their children's participation in football is down across the country, just not as much in the South. As the head injury issues continue to come to light I think that the number of middle class children playing football will drop significantly (not totally and not by half, but say by 25% anyway). The poor kids will play as long as the NFL pays big cash. But even poor kids have an access problem due to the expense of the equipment.

High school coaching talent has improved at the upper echelon but deteriorated significantly at the lower echelon of that sport, even in the South. One reason people are moving to the spread is because the kids coming in from high school ball for the most part don't have the fundamental skill sets that they had 30 or 40 years ago. They don't know how to block, or ball fake, or run proper routes, or tackle. The best athletes are placed on offense and the game moved to speed because that and size are the main points of differentiation in high school sports of all kinds. Therefore the spread offers college coaches an offensive style that can assimilate the high school kid much quicker into the college game. The reason there is so much development between a kids first year and senior year in college ball is because they learn all of the fundamentals during their college years.

Now that said the best high school teams (which coincidentally have the best coaches and those coaches who are most likely to move into the college ranks) have no such problem and their kids are miles ahead of the rest in training. That's why we have many good athletes today, but the truly great ones either had tremendous self discipline or great coaching at a young age. Since the South treasures football he have more really great High School coaches by percentage and more athletes who are better prepared for immediate success in college ball, but that too is just because of percentages. At the lower echelon our kids are very ill prepared. I'd place the top high schools down here represent about 10% of the total high school programs. In most places and in most sports the top programs only represent about 5% of the total programs. In the South in basketball I'd say the top programs represent less than 5% of the total programs. Most high school basketball in the South is coached by the football coach.

So I think when you add this to what you speaking about you can see why the game is changing, and why the South's culture is the difference in football, but it is also the difference in basketball. Our stud kids want to play what gains them the most attention and down here it's not hoops.

A couple of things:

(1) Population growth isn't evenly distributed throughout the South. The growth is largely in Florida, Texas, Georgia and the non-SEC state of North Carolina. Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana have had growth just as anemic as the Midwest and they don't even have the large in-place population of places like Illinois, Ohio and Michigan.

(2) High growth isn't sustainable forever. Eventually, the factors that made a destination enticing in the first place (such as low costs for real estate and businesses) will go away. California is a prime example - it had been growing faster than any state in the county for decades, but it has come largely to a halt as its metro areas have matured. It may be hard to believe now, but real estate prices in LA used to be not much different than buying in Atlanta or Dallas compared to prices in the Midwest or Northeast. Eventually, the prices will rise when a place get popular enough, and that curbs growth no matter how nice the weather is.

(01-05-2014 04:46 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  A couple of things:

(1) Population growth isn't evenly distributed throughout the South. The growth is largely in Florida, Texas, Georgia and the non-SEC state of North Carolina. Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana have had growth just as anemic as the Midwest and they don't even have the large in-place population of places like Illinois, Ohio and Michigan.

(2) High growth isn't sustainable forever. Eventually, the factors that made a destination enticing in the first place (such as low costs for real estate and businesses) will go away. California is a prime example - it had been growing faster than any state in the county for decades, but it has come largely to a halt as its metro areas have matured. It may be hard to believe now, but real estate prices in LA used to be not much different than buying in Atlanta or Dallas compared to prices in the Midwest or Northeast. Eventually, the prices will rise when a place get popular enough, and that curbs growth no matter how nice the weather is.

Atlanta and Dallas don't have the same geographical limitations of the northeast and the left coasts. Always having developable land keeps a lid on land prices.

The Midwest is suffering a long painful correction from the old manufacturing economy. Some places like Chicago and Minneapolis and Columbus are doing well. Cleveland, Detroit and Toledo, not so much. The South didn't have the heavy manufacturing and the slow/negative growth areas are pretty small metros, not large areas like those 3 cities.

(01-05-2014 07:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-05-2014 04:46 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  A couple of things:

(1) Population growth isn't evenly distributed throughout the South. The growth is largely in Florida, Texas, Georgia and the non-SEC state of North Carolina. Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana have had growth just as anemic as the Midwest and they don't even have the large in-place population of places like Illinois, Ohio and Michigan.

(2) High growth isn't sustainable forever. Eventually, the factors that made a destination enticing in the first place (such as low costs for real estate and businesses) will go away. California is a prime example - it had been growing faster than any state in the county for decades, but it has come largely to a halt as its metro areas have matured. It may be hard to believe now, but real estate prices in LA used to be not much different than buying in Atlanta or Dallas compared to prices in the Midwest or Northeast. Eventually, the prices will rise when a place get popular enough, and that curbs growth no matter how nice the weather is.

Atlanta and Dallas don't have the same geographical limitations of the northeast and the left coasts. Always having developable land keeps a lid on land prices.

Excellent understanding of the effect of spatial constraints and price.

(01-04-2014 12:52 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  A healthy Aaron Murray would have driven their bowl record to 1-6.

And if you aunt had balls she's be your uncle. All the games were competitive Nebraska won by 4, MSU by 3, Iowa lost to a ranked LSU by 7, MN lost to Syracuse by 4, Wisky to SC by 10 that was the largest margin of loss/victory out of all 7 games.

The ACC well, BC lost to AZ 42-19, Miami lost to Lville 36-9, Va Tech lost to UCLA 42-12.

Pitt played surprisingly well in their win and Duke in their loss but 3 ACC teams got manhandled and Md lost to a CUSA team (Marshall),

Conferences that are 3-7 with 1 game left, have nothing to bark about when 3 of those losses were by 23 or more.

(01-05-2014 07:29 PM)bullet Wrote:  The Midwest is suffering a long painful correction from the old manufacturing economy. Some places like Chicago and Minneapolis and Columbus are doing well. Cleveland, Detroit and Toledo, not so much. The South didn't have the heavy manufacturing and the slow/negative growth areas are pretty small metros, not large areas like those 3 cities.

States that rely on low wages to attract job growth will only see those jobs eventually leave for MX, Thailand, VIetnam or the next nation on the hotlist of the multinational 1% ers who don't give a damn about the US and never will.