I don't think a stellar academic reputation puts Boise in a P5 league because geography still remains a factor.

Take Utah. When Colorado was the bridge to Texas and Oklahoma, Utah was probably staying MWC. When CU became the eastern out-post a bridge to Colorado made sense and here academics mattered because in sport measurements (ie TV interest and tickets sold) BYU was the pick but Utah was a better fit overall.

Boise State was unlikely to be that bridge.

TCU had the resume and the geography to fit the Big XII's need.

WVU's resume coupled with Big XII's need meant geography be damned but I suspect Big XII likely believed that they would add again and would add a team or teams that matched WVU in geography. The rumor mill indicated Louisville was that school but the inability to agree on a 12th killed that addition.

Geography is ECU's enemy right now. ACC has no pressing need for another North Carolina team and the SEC has no pressing need to add any school that isn't a really big established brand.

If ECU were somewhere on a line between Morgantown and Dallas they'd probably be in Big XII right now.

(10-05-2014 01:00 AM)Knightbengal Wrote:  

(10-04-2014 09:58 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(10-04-2014 06:03 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Because a team is having a good season (sometimes, just a good start), they suddenly start getting touted to join a better conference? For example, with all due respect to ECU, who has a bigger stadium and fan base than many P5 let alone G5 schools, they instantly got touted for the ACC (and lesser extent) after a couple good wins. Are they not basically the same program as they were last year? Meanwhile, you almost no longer hear about UCF after their slow start.

It's just a little tiring dealing with the instant reaction society.

They're a flavor? ECU's been playing good football since the 90's. Even beat one of those fabled Miami teams. Couldn't even get a sniff from the Big East.

I agree with the greater point, and UCF is definitely one of those that would qualify for such a title, but ECU's been a relatively consistent contributor in football for almost 25 years now.

How so? We have been building the program since 1979. How are we the flavor? We won the d2 championship, kept winning titles at the fbs level, and were the youngest team ever to win an fbs bowl. The program has been building slowly over time. We have been talked about for the big east since the second round of defections. Get your facts straight.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

You might be waiting for a long time for the response. Some people like to spout off at the mouth without the ability to articulate the underlying basis for their opinions.

(10-05-2014 10:16 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(10-04-2014 08:20 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(10-04-2014 06:14 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Then how do you explain Butler to the Big East? Creighton made sense as program overall despite underachieving some but I said when Butler was in the process of being added that they may never get back to that level again and while "never" is not really the best term, so far it's looking like they are on par to becoming another Seton Hall as opposed to Duke.

2 Final Fours in 2 years, 4 Sweet Sixteens in 10 years is more than just a Flavor of the Moment. A decade equals a resume.

Plus, Indianapolis is a solid market, and Butler as a small private university fits well enough with the Catholic schools of the Big East.

Imagine Butler as Boise with solid academics. They' be in a power conference.

I agree with C2. One of my brothers is a Butler grad and one is a Dayton grad. It's clear that Dayton has a much stronger overall "program" than Butler. Larger fanbase, better attendance, more money, much bigger student body. Butler's in a bigger city, but it shares the city with the Colts and Pacers whereas UD is the only game in town (other than single-a baseball). Butler's only advantages over Dayton are a more historic arena and the good fortune to hire Brad Stevens.

It's amazing what Butler has built and the system they have in place. They are no means a fluke but no one, not even a Kentucky, North Carolina or Duke can sustain the level that they were at. They'll be heard from again but I doubt we'll see many Final Fours in their future, maybe a few Sweet 16's and 5-10 year streaks of making the Dance.

(10-05-2014 08:32 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-04-2014 08:36 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  I was just making an example. The fact is they were a flavor of the moment and a risk. Creighton at least had everything else together except for success on the court at a very high level. Imagine if the Pac-12 (ignoring academics for a moment) had added Boise State because of a solid decade and then be left with what they currently are.

And of course that's still very extreme compared to a team getting a few good wins or getting off to a good start and suddenly being mentioned for all expansion scenarios.

Butler was probably less of a risk than Creighton. They are in the center of the Big East geographically. And they have had solid fan support for a very long time. Creighton was leaving a lot of decades long rivalries.

Butler stopped selling out Hinkle pretty much as soon as they stopped being really good. They are in a pro sports market and will always, at best, be number 2 in Indiana to IU. And probably lower than that given the presence of Purdue and Notre Dame (though they are more national than local in following), not to mention the Pacers.

Creighton has been close to the top in national attendance for a long time and has solid resources despite being a mid-major for so long. They haven't competed for national titles but they resemble a major program more than Butler other than name brand recognition.