(02-25-2014 05:33 PM)Wedge Wrote:  IMO football potential and local support is a more important factor for potential FBS success than having strong Olympic sports, though having chronically underfunded Olympic sports would probably mean that the school can't raise the revenue necessary to be a strong FBS athletic program.

New Hampshire is an unrepresented small population (1.3 million), in an area of the country where college football interest is lukewarm at best. If there was an unrepresented small state in the south with 1.3 million people, that would be a different story.

Very true. And you just can't analyze without market and political considerations that are not easily quantified. Idaho is now a former flagship, giving it less political clout to go with its small market in a remote corner, in a tightwad of a state, as far as funding goes. They are just swimming against the currents of forces that might shame them as the first FBS school to downgrade to FCS.

New Hamphire's issue is not unlike Maine and Rhode Island. They receive very little total funding from their states, some of the lowest rates in the nation. New Hampshire has proposed a stadium project that would only bring them closer to average CAA football standards, and it is already getting flack from people questioning why they need it. I read in a story UNH has received ~$780mil in total facility funds from the state..since 1991. There are research institutions that receive that much project funding in 1-2 years. As others pointed out, Delaware and Montana have greater means.

(02-25-2014 05:54 PM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 05:33 PM)Wedge Wrote:  IMO football potential and local support is a more important factor for potential FBS success than having strong Olympic sports, though having chronically underfunded Olympic sports would probably mean that the school can't raise the revenue necessary to be a strong FBS athletic program.

New Hampshire is an unrepresented small population (1.3 million), in an area of the country where college football interest is lukewarm at best. If there was an unrepresented small state in the south with 1.3 million people, that would be a different story.

Very true. And you just can't analyze without market and political considerations that are not easily quantified. Idaho is now a former flagship, giving it less political clout to go with its small market in a remote corner, in a tightwad of a state, as far as funding goes. They are just swimming against the currents of forces that might shame them as the first FBS school to downgrade to FCS.

New Hamphire's issue is not unlike Maine and Rhode Island. They receive very little total funding from their states, some of the lowest rates in the nation. New Hampshire has proposed a stadium project that would only bring them closer to average CAA football standards, and it is already getting flack from people questioning why they need it. I read in a story UNH has received ~$780mil in total facility funds from the state..since 1991. There are research institutions that receive that much project funding in 1-2 years. As others pointed out, Delaware and Montana have greater means.

Idaho is still the flagship academically whether they call it that or not. However the population center and growth is now Boise.

(02-25-2014 05:23 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 04:47 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 04:28 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 04:14 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 04:06 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I wouldn't be averse to losing UMass and maybe Buffalo but the Dakota schools are too far away and all FCS schools - we'd be weakening a conference that already has too many bottom-feeders (for football). Though NDSU could compete right away. Anyway, Illinois State isn't close to being ready.

Right, some schools, including Illinois State, have a ways to go in football as I noted above, but they generally have everything else in place. I would rather have adequate student population, funding, academics, and welfare of all other sports in place and just have to concentrate on football than the other way around.

There's a big difference of opinion among NIU and MAC fans about adding ISU. Probably more non-NIU fans are in favor of it. Not sure what the MAC bigwigs think.

Sure, it is easy for me to say what the MAC should do sitting here in Nashville. However, Illinois State does make a lot more sense than the Arkansas State banter that had been going around for a while. That one baffled me. Northern Illinois has moved to the top of the pecking order in the MAC, so most potential new adds for the MAC will not be exciting to you guys. Something to this effect makes sense to me, assuming the AAC does not wish to court anyone currently in the MAC:

MAC (midwest driven)

North Dakota State
North Dakota (both ND schools are not bad adds as long as the schedule was arranged to allow travel partners and only one visit per year in FB)
Northern Illinois
Illinois State
Ball State
Western Michigan
Central Michigan
Eastern Michigan (unless you can talk them into dropping)
Bowling Green
Toledo
Miami
add Missouri State or Southern Illinois

New Northeastern FBS conference

Akron
Kent State
Ohio
Buffalo
SUNY - Albany
Stony Brook
Towson
James Madison
Delaware
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
possibly add Navy or Army as a full member (perhaps preferred over football only AAC)

I'd rather have Arkansas State than Illinois State, and it wouldn't be close.

I would certainly hope we would make a bigger tick on the radar than a middling Missouri Valley Program, but Realignment is a very weird animal.

(02-25-2014 06:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 05:54 PM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  [quote='Wedge' pid='10471064' dateline='1393367581']

Idaho is still the flagship academically whether they call it that or not. However the population center and growth is now Boise.

It is odd how things turn out sometimes. If you picked up the University of Idaho and merged it with Boise State, you have a low level PAC school. They would have around 20,000 students, academics in the same ballpark as Oregon, an endowment of $250 million (good starting point), and a strong athletic department that keeps getting better. I guess you could make the same argument, though, if you merged Nevada and UNLV, New Mexico and New Mexico State, and Montana and Montana State. That would create a PAC 16 that makes geographical and cultural sense. Oh well.

(02-26-2014 09:51 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 06:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 05:54 PM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  [quote='Wedge' pid='10471064' dateline='1393367581']

Idaho is still the flagship academically whether they call it that or not. However the population center and growth is now Boise.

It is odd how things turn out sometimes. If you picked up the University of Idaho and merged it with Boise State, you have a low level PAC school. They would have around 20,000 students, academics in the same ballpark as Oregon, an endowment of $250 million (good starting point), and a strong athletic department that keeps getting better. I guess you could make the same argument, though, if you merged Nevada and UNLV, New Mexico and New Mexico State, and Montana and Montana State. That would create a PAC 16 that makes geographical and cultural sense. Oh well.

Idaho's academics are not nearly that good.

Look at research university rankings like ARWU. ARWU has Idaho ranked in the tier between 401-500. Oregon and Wazzu are in the 201-300 tier. Oregon State is 101-150. The other 9 Pac-12 schools are all ranked in the top 100 worldwide.

Neither Nevada school makes the top 500. Montana is 301-400. New Mexico is 201-300. Colorado State and Hawaii are both in the 151-200 tier.

(02-26-2014 11:42 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-26-2014 09:51 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 06:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 05:54 PM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  [quote='Wedge' pid='10471064' dateline='1393367581']

Idaho is still the flagship academically whether they call it that or not. However the population center and growth is now Boise.

It is odd how things turn out sometimes. If you picked up the University of Idaho and merged it with Boise State, you have a low level PAC school. They would have around 20,000 students, academics in the same ballpark as Oregon, an endowment of $250 million (good starting point), and a strong athletic department that keeps getting better. I guess you could make the same argument, though, if you merged Nevada and UNLV, New Mexico and New Mexico State, and Montana and Montana State. That would create a PAC 16 that makes geographical and cultural sense. Oh well.

Idaho's academics are not nearly that good.

Look at research university rankings like ARWU. ARWU has Idaho ranked in the tier between 401-500. Oregon and Wazzu are in the 201-300 tier. Oregon State is 101-150. The other 9 Pac-12 schools are all ranked in the top 100 worldwide.

Neither Nevada school makes the top 500. Montana is 301-400. New Mexico is 201-300. Colorado State and Hawaii are both in the 151-200 tier.

Sure, I should have clarified... I meant if those flagship/state schools combined all of their resources and efforts. Put the two major universities in Idaho, New Mexico, Montana, and Nevada together (even add Idaho State in Idaho for more assistance), and you have some low level PAC schools or at least the structures to support them. It will never happen, of course, but it would be nice to have some options for the PAC moving forward since potential Big 12 additions other than Texas Tech and maybe UT are really stretching the geography and culture. Think how far Utah has come in public perception in just a generation.

As the mountain west region continues to trend up in growth, those states could have a chance to bridge the region. As you point out, though, there is a long way to go, especially if these states keep splitting the resources among two schools. On paper, there is not that much of a difference in the non-athletic profiles for the two schools of Montana, New Mexico, or Nevada. I don't think it is outlandish to assume that if Montana and Montana State combined efforts, their 300-400 individual research scores would combine to form a school in that scores in the 200's.

What does an average to below average P5 public school look like? Around 20,000 undergrads, half a billion give or take in endowment, top 150 USNWR, 250ish ARWU, 100ish CMUP, 8,000 average basketball attendance, 50,000 football attendance, a dedicated following of around 1 million folks, whether split in a state or representing the whole state... I think Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, and Montana could hit near those numbers and exceed in some if all of their efforts were funneled into one flagship school like Wyoming decided to do. Speaking of, Wyoming's decision to funnel all of their efforts into the flagship gained them an entry to the MWC while similar states with several hundred thousand more in population (Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota) split their efforts and have no FBS institutions. Opinions can differ on the subject, but I'd rather by in Wyoming's shoes than those other three states at this point.

(02-26-2014 11:42 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-26-2014 09:51 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 06:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 05:54 PM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  [quote='Wedge' pid='10471064' dateline='1393367581']

Idaho is still the flagship academically whether they call it that or not. However the population center and growth is now Boise.

It is odd how things turn out sometimes. If you picked up the University of Idaho and merged it with Boise State, you have a low level PAC school. They would have around 20,000 students, academics in the same ballpark as Oregon, an endowment of $250 million (good starting point), and a strong athletic department that keeps getting better. I guess you could make the same argument, though, if you merged Nevada and UNLV, New Mexico and New Mexico State, and Montana and Montana State. That would create a PAC 16 that makes geographical and cultural sense. Oh well.

Idaho's academics are not nearly that good.

Look at research university rankings like ARWU. ARWU has Idaho ranked in the tier between 401-500. Oregon and Wazzu are in the 201-300 tier. Oregon State is 101-150. The other 9 Pac-12 schools are all ranked in the top 100 worldwide.

Neither Nevada school makes the top 500. Montana is 301-400. New Mexico is 201-300. Colorado State and Hawaii are both in the 151-200 tier.

400-500 in the world isn't that bad.

That puts them with Auburn, Arkansas, Kent St., SMU, Texas Tech, Boston College, Utah St. and Wyoming. Among the P5, it puts them ahead of Alabama, Mississippi, Mississippi St., Louisville, Baylor, TCU, Oklahoma St. and West Virginia. And Idaho is much smaller than any of those schools except for the private ones.

Not sure how this is going to format. I probably have posted this before, but its relevant to this discussion.
By conference based on 2015 lineups, it shows a) number of schools; b) number with a Carnegie designation as "Very High Research"; c) number with designation as "High Research"; d) number with designation as "Doctoral Research University"; e) number without one of those designations; f) number ranked in top 500 of ARWU; g) % ranked ARWU; h) number ranked in top 400 of World University Rankings; I) % ranked in WU

Carnegie Designation Ranked
# VH H DRU O ARWU WU
ACC 14 10 4 0 0 13 92.9% 9 64.3%
Big 10 14 14 0 0 0 14 100.0% 14 100.0%
Big 12 10 4 5 1 0 6 60.0% 5 50.0%
Pac 12 12 12 0 0 0 12 100.0% 11 91.7%
SEC 14 11 3 0 0 11 78.6% 6 42.9%
AAC 12 6 3 2 1 8 66.7% 6 50.0%
CUSA 14 2 8 2 2 2 14.3% 2 14.3%
MAC 13 2 9 1 1 3 23.1% 2 15.4%
MWC 12 3 5 0 4 6 50.0% 3 25.0%
Sun Belt 11 1 4 1 5 1 9.1% 0 0.0%
Independent 3 1 1 0 1 2 66.7% 1 33.3%

129 66 42 7 14 78 59

(02-26-2014 12:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  Not sure how this is going to format. I probably have posted this before, but its relevant to this discussion.
By conference based on 2015 lineups, it shows a) number of schools; b) number with a Carnegie designation as "Very High Research"; c) number with designation as "High Research"; d) number with designation as "Doctoral Research University"; e) number without one of those designations; f) number ranked in top 500 of ARWU; g) % ranked ARWU; h) number ranked in top 400 of World University Rankings; I) % ranked in WU

Carnegie Designation Ranked
# VH H DRU O ARWU WU
ACC 14 10 4 0 0 13 92.9% 9 64.3%
Big 10 14 14 0 0 0 14 100.0% 14 100.0%
Big 12 10 4 5 1 0 6 60.0% 5 50.0%
Pac 12 12 12 0 0 0 12 100.0% 11 91.7%
SEC 14 11 3 0 0 11 78.6% 6 42.9%
AAC 12 6 3 2 1 8 66.7% 6 50.0%
CUSA 14 2 8 2 2 2 14.3% 2 14.3%
MAC 13 2 9 1 1 3 23.1% 2 15.4%
MWC 12 3 5 0 4 6 50.0% 3 25.0%
Sun Belt 11 1 4 1 5 1 9.1% 0 0.0%
Independent 3 1 1 0 1 2 66.7% 1 33.3%

129 66 42 7 14 78 59

I remember when you posted that, and it is a great overview. The PAC is definitely superb. Just curious... does anyone know the academic profile for Utah over the last 50 years or so? I am just trying to understand if there is a precedent for other mountain west states to make similar strides with more population growth and academic priorities.

(02-26-2014 11:42 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Look at research university rankings like ARWU. ARWU has Idaho ranked in the tier between 401-500. Oregon and Wazzu are in the 201-300 tier. Oregon State is 101-150. The other 9 Pac-12 schools are all ranked in the top 100 worldwide.

Neither Nevada school makes the top 500. Montana is 301-400. New Mexico is 201-300. Colorado State and Hawaii are both in the 151-200 tier.

Cal is # 3. UC Santa Barbara is # 35. Seven UC's in the top 50, two in the 101-150 range. Just how we roll

(02-26-2014 01:37 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(02-26-2014 11:42 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Look at research university rankings like ARWU. ARWU has Idaho ranked in the tier between 401-500. Oregon and Wazzu are in the 201-300 tier. Oregon State is 101-150. The other 9 Pac-12 schools are all ranked in the top 100 worldwide.

Neither Nevada school makes the top 500. Montana is 301-400. New Mexico is 201-300. Colorado State and Hawaii are both in the 151-200 tier.

Cal is # 3. UC Santa Barbara is # 35. Seven UC's in the top 50, two in the 101-150 range. Just how we roll

The California system on its own is probably better than any country other than the rest of the U.S. and Great Britain.

(02-25-2014 04:47 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 04:28 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 04:14 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 04:06 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 03:53 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

I wouldn't be averse to losing UMass and maybe Buffalo but the Dakota schools are too far away and all FCS schools - we'd be weakening a conference that already has too many bottom-feeders (for football). Though NDSU could compete right away. Anyway, Illinois State isn't close to being ready.

Right, some schools, including Illinois State, have a ways to go in football as I noted above, but they generally have everything else in place. I would rather have adequate student population, funding, academics, and welfare of all other sports in place and just have to concentrate on football than the other way around.

There's a big difference of opinion among NIU and MAC fans about adding ISU. Probably more non-NIU fans are in favor of it. Not sure what the MAC bigwigs think.

Sure, it is easy for me to say what the MAC should do sitting here in Nashville. However, Illinois State does make a lot more sense than the Arkansas State banter that had been going around for a while. That one baffled me. Northern Illinois has moved to the top of the pecking order in the MAC, so most potential new adds for the MAC will not be exciting to you guys. Something to this effect makes sense to me, assuming the AAC does not wish to court anyone currently in the MAC:

MAC (midwest driven)

North Dakota State
North Dakota (both ND schools are not bad adds as long as the schedule was arranged to allow travel partners and only one visit per year in FB)
Northern Illinois
Illinois State
Ball State
Western Michigan
Central Michigan
Eastern Michigan (unless you can talk them into dropping)
Bowling Green
Toledo
Miami
add Missouri State or Southern Illinois

New Northeastern FBS conference

Akron
Kent State
Ohio
Buffalo
SUNY - Albany
Stony Brook
Towson
James Madison
Delaware
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
possibly add Navy or Army as a full member (perhaps preferred over football only AAC)

Here is the biggest problem with your model; regional conferences are something of the past.

The contemporary model is to have conferences that contain two regions, preferably a different region representing each division.

The MAC sort of has a 2 region setup going right now with Buffalo, Akron, Kent and Ohio in the Appalachian plateau with the other school strictly in the Midwest. The point of MAC expansion East is to move more toward that bi-regional look.

East: UMass, SBU, Del, JMU, Buffalo, Akron, Kent, Ohio
West: Miami, BGSU, Toledo, EMU, CMU, WMU, Ball St, NIU

As a fan I'd much rather have that than a Northeastern based regional conference that includes Albany, New Hampshire and Towson. That is like adding 3 Eastern Michigan level football programs right there. You're better served just taking the cream of the FCS crop from the NE over trying to split with smaller programs into two conferences.

Bigger conferences, IMO are also more fun to compete in. More schools to play. The Mid American conference name is general enough that it can cover all middle america schools.