(08-13-2015 07:31 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Expansion targets for the SEC and Big 10 are relatively the same.

For the SEC:

Brand targets that add revenue: Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Virginia Tech

Market targets that add revenue: Virginia, N.C. State

Schools that could travel with a brand or market additions besides other brand or market additions: Florida State, Duke

For the Big 10:

Brand targets that add revenue: Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Notre Dame, and possibly Syracuse.

Market targets that add revenue: Virginia Tech, N.C. State, Georgia Tech, and possibly Boston College.

Schools that could travel with brand or market additions besides other brand or market additions: Kansas and Duke.

Conclusions:

The Big 12 may be in the weakest position within the P5 logistically and because of defections, but it certainly is not the most desirable product in total, and it is not going to be the easiest conference from which to grow the other P5 conferences.

Texas is strong enough that they likely will not be forced to go anywhere, unless they just want to go.

Oklahoma doesn't know where it wants to go. Sure Boren may lean Big 10, the donors may lean SEC, and other of their supporters may still see the PAC as the choicest destination, but in reality they are too conflicted at this time to move anywhere.

Kansas would jump to the Big 10 almost faster than they could be asked. But do they really move the Big 10's needle that much? No. Not as long as there are targets to the East.

So we've spent another year on this board coddling the notions that this or that G5 program could make the move up. Frankly the only way that happens is if the Big 12 decides to expand and that isn't likely. We've spent another year arguing the merits of the Big 10 vs the SEC and vice versa with regards to OU and UT and in reality that isn't likely either.

What remains the most likely thing to happen the board refuses to acknowledge largely because of its composition and that remains that only the ACC really satisfies the yearnings of the Big 10 and the any movement from the ACC would thereby enable the SEC to seek what it desires the most as well. And that it easier to build a viable and competitive 4th power conference by building one around Texas and Oklahoma than it is to overcome the dichotomous thinking and construction of the ACC. But, having said that I don't think the ACC is that vulnerable at this juncture.

So we wait another year and rehash the same stuff yet again. Yawn! And next year the situation will remain the same, the goals will remain the same, and only the pressure of economic disparity and time will inch the ACC or Big 12 closer to further changes.

The proof of all of this is simply in the numbers: total revenue, size of alumni bases, attendance and travel figures, market size, and national brand recognition.
The rest is just hogwash and wishful thinking.

B1G has an additional requirement for research performance. So that axes Syracuse, Oklahoma and Boston College as possibilities. (Notre Dame too ... but they're a special case)

I don't see why Duke and Virginia wouldn't be on the "Markets" list for the B1G, if NC St and VT are on it.

Kansas would be a target for the B1G if it had Missouri to partner with. Now if their partner is Oklahoma, no dice.

(08-13-2015 09:13 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 07:35 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  People were arguing the same thing that TCU, Utah and Louisville did not bring much like East Carolina, and look were they wound up at? It is gonna happen since the P5 conference schools know that they are actually leaving money on the table if they do not add more of the Top G5 schools.

Who the hell was arguing ANY of that? FFS, TCU and Utah are tier 1 schools that have won BCS bowls. One is a rich private school in a large media market in a football crazy state. The other is a flagship U in a large market. Louisville is a tier 1 school in a large market with little competition and literally a powerhouse athletic program ($90+ million budget to boot).

These threads have just gotten embarrassing for ECU fans. We were a last resort pick for the Big East. That's a simple fact. I used to pimp ECU a lot on here because, yes, we do have a lot of positives but we've also got some warts, some BIG warts. Directional academics, located in over saturated state for sports, not in a large media market, basically a one (maybe 2 trick pony if you include baseball ) and absolutely HORRID basketball. We're a 7 to 9 win program basically. That's not really enough to overcome all those warts. Look at all Boise has done compared to us and where they sit, likely forever.

Not every conference has the same flawed standards that the Big East had.

ECU was ranked #181 just a year ago in the USNWR (thats only 10-20 spots behind WVU, TT and Louisville). I'm not sure why we fell out but the new rankings will be coming out in a month and it wouldn't be a surprise if we shot back up. If we do and we have a great year in football then there will be all sorts of speculation about our viability as an expansion candidate for both the SEC & the Big XII. That's just the realignment world we're living in. We are much closer academically than Boise, ECU may have the best football history over the last 30 years or so throughout the G5 other than BYU, and we have the best fan support in all of the G5 outside of BYU. ECU brings a lot to the table despite all the skepticism and detraction on this board.

(08-13-2015 10:48 AM)Indiana Bones Wrote:  ECU was ranked #181 just a year ago in the USNWR (thats only 10-20 spots behind WVU, TT and Louisville).

USNWR undergraduate rankings is not the kind of academic status that University Presidents are thinking of. They want high USNWR rankings for themselves, of course, since it helps increase the competitiveness of the applicant pool and gain a cohort of undergraduates that are less of a distraction from research, but that is not where academic status lays for academic snobs.

While not perfect (its biased toward Chinese sensibilities, so strong STEM institutions have an easier path), the ARWU (Academic Ranking of World Universities) is more along the lines of academic snobbery.

After filtering down to US Universities, there are 146 US Universities among the top 500 Universities in the world on the AWRU/US rankings for 2014. The four with "Carolina" in their name are UNC - Chapel Hill (#27), NC State - Raleigh (#65-77), University of South Carolina - Columbia (#78-104), and the Medical University of South Carolina (#126-146). (And, of course, Duke is #23 and Wake Forest is #105-125).

The old Big East picked ECU FB-only because they needed a FB add, ECU was the most attractive among the left-overs available to them, and picking ECU all-sports was seen as likely provoking a revolt of the Olympic-sports-only members. Then when the C7 broke away anyway, added ECU all-sports because they then needed the numbers in Olympic Sports. But desperation back-fills of a conference can't really be compared to realignment by a conference that is in a position to stand pat where they are on an indefinite basis, which is the position that the SEC is in.

I believe its wishful thinking on the part of some here to think that anyone in The ACC would jump to The Big Ten. Remember that every program in The ACC signed the GOR locking them to the conference knowing what The Big Ten money was and what it was being projected to be. Delaney dangled that carrot in front of ACC membership in 2012 and had Maryland respond. If other, more coveted programs, had wanted to join The Big Ten they would have then. Culturally The Big Ten is just not a good fit for most ACC schools except perhaps Pitt or Syracuse.

The SEC, on the other hand, is a different story.
CJ

(08-13-2015 09:58 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 09:13 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 07:35 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  People were arguing the same thing that TCU, Utah and Louisville did not bring much like East Carolina, and look were they wound up at? It is gonna happen since the P5 conference schools know that they are actually leaving money on the table if they do not add more of the Top G5 schools.

Who the hell was arguing ANY of that? FFS, TCU and Utah are tier 1 schools that have won BCS bowls. One is a rich private school in a large media market in a football crazy state. The other is a flagship U in a large market. Louisville is a tier 1 school in a large market with little competition and literally a powerhouse athletic program ($90+ million budget to boot).

These threads have just gotten embarrassing for ECU fans. We were a last resort pick for the Big East. That's a simple fact. I used to pimp ECU a lot on here because, yes, we do have a lot of positives but we've also got some warts, some BIG warts. Directional academics, located in over saturated state for sports, not in a large media market, basically a one (maybe 2 trick pony if you include baseball ) and absolutely HORRID basketball. We're a 7 to 9 win program basically. That's not really enough to overcome all those warts. Look at all Boise has done compared to us and where they sit, likely forever.

Honestly though, if ECU had the kind of success Boise has had, I think you guys would have been an absolute lock for the Big East years ago. While you're not in a major market, you're also not in the middle of nowhere like Boise is. Fan base is also considerably better and you're basically Harvard compared to Boise State.

I wouldn't exactly call Boise the middle of nowhere but that's just me. It's metro area is still 600k+ and it's the 3rd largest city in the Pacific Northwest. I get what you're saying though but that's WAY over played.

(08-13-2015 10:48 AM)Indiana Bones Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 09:13 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 07:35 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  People were arguing the same thing that TCU, Utah and Louisville did not bring much like East Carolina, and look were they wound up at? It is gonna happen since the P5 conference schools know that they are actually leaving money on the table if they do not add more of the Top G5 schools.

Who the hell was arguing ANY of that? FFS, TCU and Utah are tier 1 schools that have won BCS bowls. One is a rich private school in a large media market in a football crazy state. The other is a flagship U in a large market. Louisville is a tier 1 school in a large market with little competition and literally a powerhouse athletic program ($90+ million budget to boot).

These threads have just gotten embarrassing for ECU fans. We were a last resort pick for the Big East. That's a simple fact. I used to pimp ECU a lot on here because, yes, we do have a lot of positives but we've also got some warts, some BIG warts. Directional academics, located in over saturated state for sports, not in a large media market, basically a one (maybe 2 trick pony if you include baseball ) and absolutely HORRID basketball. We're a 7 to 9 win program basically. That's not really enough to overcome all those warts. Look at all Boise has done compared to us and where they sit, likely forever.

Not every conference has the same flawed standards that the Big East had.

ECU was ranked #181 just a year ago in the USNWR (thats only 10-20 spots behind WVU, TT and Louisville). I'm not sure why we fell out but the new rankings will be coming out in a month and it wouldn't be a surprise if we shot back up. If we do and we have a great year in football then there will be all sorts of speculation about our viability as an expansion candidate for both the SEC & the Big XII. That's just the realignment world we're living in. We are much closer academically than Boise, ECU may have the best football history over the last 30 years or so throughout the G5 other than BYU, and we have the best fan support in all of the G5 outside of BYU. ECU brings a lot to the table despite all the skepticism and detraction on this board.

Still pathetic and completely unacceptable to fall out of the rankings like that. Frankly, that pisses me off a lot more than some stupid sports conference affiliation.

(08-12-2015 03:12 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Purdue and Texas A&M are traditional flagships. The entire UC system is the "flagship" in CA. Florida St and Arizona St are "non-traditional" flagships.

FSU, ASU, Louisville, Texas Tech, Georgia Tech and Pitt are the only P5 publics that aren't traditional flagships or land grants. GT is an engineering flagship.

(08-13-2015 01:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-12-2015 03:12 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Purdue and Texas A&M are traditional flagships. The entire UC system is the "flagship" in CA. Florida St and Arizona St are "non-traditional" flagships.

FSU, ASU, Louisville, Texas Tech, Georgia Tech and Pitt are the only P5 publics that aren't traditional flagships or land grants. GT is an engineering flagship.

And GT is a better school that its state's flagship. That's about the only one that can lay that claim.

(08-13-2015 12:37 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  I believe its wishful thinking on the part of some here to think that anyone in The ACC would jump to The Big Ten.

I believe the technical term is conference realignment fever ... pretending that the GOR have no weight makes it much easier to imagine all sorts of realignment scenarios.

The reality of big conference realignment is that it tends to happen in waves, and then things settle down for a while. Its only lower down the totem pole that realignment is a more constantly ongoing thing.

(08-13-2015 01:51 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  And GT is a better school that its state's flagship. That's about the only one that can lay that claim.

There's at least one more.

If SEC expansion is 10 years from now, I think ECU will be a realistic candidate. The next 5 years will say a lot.

(08-13-2015 01:06 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  I wouldn't exactly call Boise the middle of nowhere but that's just me. It's metro area is still 600k+ and it's the 3rd largest city in the Pacific Northwest. I get what you're saying though but that's WAY over played.

First, Boise is actually the FOURTH DMA in the "Northwest" behind Spokane:

#14 Seattle = 1.8M tv households
#23 Portland = 1.1M tv households
#73 Spokane = 428K tv households
#109 Boise = 262K tv households

Second, you can't ignore the rest of the Western DMAs:

#2 Los Angeles = 5.5 million tv households
#6 Bay area = 2.5 million tv households
#11 Phoenix = 1.8M tv households
#17 Denver = 1.5M tv households
#20 Sacramento = 1.3M tv households
#28 San Diego = 1.05 M tv households
#34 Salt Lake City = 897K tv households
#41 Las Vegas = 718K tv households
#54 Fresno = 568K tv households
#69 Honolulu = 438K tv households
#71 Tuscon = 428K tv households
#89 Colorado Springs = 348K tv households
even #107 Reno = 265K tv household

So, Boise actually comes in at like #17 in the West, with a quarter of the population of San Diego and Salt Lake and less than half of Fresno.

Third, if you've ever been to Idaho, you absolutely know that Boise truly is out in the middle of nowhere. 430 miles from Portland, 495 miles from Seattle, 426 miles from Spokane, and 345 miles from Salt Lake - with really nothing but fields, mountains, and farming towns in between...



It's closer to the vast and sparsely-populated corners of Montana and Wyoming than to Portland or Seattle.

Btw - I still think Boise St. is a legitimate expansion candidate, despite being in a small market right in the center of the middle of nowhere.

(08-13-2015 02:33 PM)58-56 Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 01:51 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  And GT is a better school that its state's flagship. That's about the only one that can lay that claim.

There's at least one more.

I was talking about non-traditional flagships that are better schools than any of the traditional flagships in the state.

No one would consider UAB a non-traditional flagship in Alabama. Do they have great Medical school and life sciences research? Yes. That doesn't make a flagship, though.

(08-13-2015 03:17 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 01:06 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  I wouldn't exactly call Boise the middle of nowhere but that's just me. It's metro area is still 600k+ and it's the 3rd largest city in the Pacific Northwest. I get what you're saying though but that's WAY over played.

First, Boise is actually the FOURTH DMA in the "Northwest" behind Spokane:

#14 Seattle = 1.8M tv households
#23 Portland = 1.1M tv households
#73 Spokane = 428K tv households
#109 Boise = 262K tv households

Second, you can't ignore the rest of the Western DMAs:

#2 Los Angeles = 5.5 million tv households
#6 Bay area = 2.5 million tv households
#11 Phoenix = 1.8M tv households
#17 Denver = 1.5M tv households
#20 Sacramento = 1.3M tv households
#28 San Diego = 1.05 M tv households
#34 Salt Lake City = 897K tv households
#41 Las Vegas = 718K tv households
#54 Fresno = 568K tv households
#69 Honolulu = 438K tv households
#71 Tuscon = 428K tv households
#89 Colorado Springs = 348K tv households
even #107 Reno = 265K tv household

So, Boise actually comes in at like #17 in the West, with a quarter of the population of San Diego and Salt Lake and less than half of Fresno.

Third, if you've ever been to Idaho, you absolutely know that Boise truly is out in the middle of nowhere. 430 miles from Portland, 495 miles from Seattle, 426 miles from Spokane, and 345 miles from Salt Lake - with really nothing but fields, mountains, and farming towns in between...


It's closer to the vast and sparsely-populated corners of Montana and Wyoming than to Portland or Seattle.

Btw - I still think Boise St. is a legitimate expansion candidate, despite being in a small market right in the center of the middle of nowhere.

"Nothing but fields, mountains and farming towns in between..."

Oh, so you mean it's in the West?


Boise may not have the raw population or TV households that, say Fresno does. But there's something to be said for buying power, too. (A TV doesn't cost that much these days)

I know Micron is in the Boise area. Probably some big Ag company too.

More money in Boise than Fresno? I don't know, but that's a question.

(08-13-2015 05:38 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Boise may not have the raw population or TV households that, say Fresno does. But there's something to be said for buying power, too. (A TV doesn't cost that much these days)

I know Micron is in the Boise area. Probably some big Ag company too.

More money in Boise than Fresno? I don't know, but that's a question.

Boise St. has a tremendous football resume and can bring eyeballs to televisions nationwide. I would love for Boise and BYU to join the Big 12 as a rivalry tandem.

But Micron or the Boise DMA or the price of TVs in Idaho or whatever should stay out of the sales pitch.

(08-13-2015 09:13 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Who the hell was arguing ANY of that? FFS, TCU and Utah are tier 1 schools that have won BCS bowls. One is a rich private school in a large media market in a football crazy state. The other is a flagship U in a large market. Louisville is a tier 1 school in a large market with little competition and literally a powerhouse athletic program ($90+ million budget to boot).

These threads have just gotten embarrassing for ECU fans. We were a last resort pick for the Big East. That's a simple fact. I used to pimp ECU a lot on here because, yes, we do have a lot of positives but we've also got some warts, some BIG warts. Directional academics, located in over saturated state for sports, not in a large media market, basically a one (maybe 2 trick pony if you include baseball ) and absolutely HORRID basketball. We're a 7 to 9 win program basically. That's not really enough to overcome all those warts. Look at all Boise has done compared to us and where they sit, likely forever.

Actually, it wasn't too long ago that BYU was averaging over twice the attendance of the other university, and I'm not sure the Salt Lake market is that large. Further, a large amount of top academic students in the state of Utah go to BYU. The Pac-12 had reasons to expand, but I'm not convinced it was the reasons you stated.

(08-13-2015 03:17 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 01:06 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  I wouldn't exactly call Boise the middle of nowhere but that's just me. It's metro area is still 600k+ and it's the 3rd largest city in the Pacific Northwest. I get what you're saying though but that's WAY over played.

First, Boise is actually the FOURTH DMA in the "Northwest" behind Spokane:

#14 Seattle = 1.8M tv households
#23 Portland = 1.1M tv households
#73 Spokane = 428K tv households
#109 Boise = 262K tv households

Second, you can't ignore the rest of the Western DMAs:

3rd largest dma in the Pacific NW.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boise_metropolitan_area

Quote:"As of the 2010 census, the MSA had a population of 616,561. The metro area is currently the third largest in the US section of the Pacific Northwest after Seattle and Portland, and is the 83rd largest metropolitan area in the United States.

Why can't I ignore those? I was making a comparison to ECU and Boises market situation. They're city is more than double the size of Greenville, NC. I was just pointing out that it's not some small town like some try to portray here.

(08-13-2015 05:33 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 02:33 PM)58-56 Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 01:51 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  And GT is a better school that its state's flagship. That's about the only one that can lay that claim.

There's at least one more.

I was talking about non-traditional flagships that are better schools than any of the traditional flagships in the state.

No one would consider UAB a non-traditional flagship in Alabama. Do they have great Medical school and life sciences research? Yes. That doesn't make a flagship, though.

Introducing additional qualifiers post facto is what they call "moving the goalposts."

In only one other state (South Dakota) is the so-called "flagship" school not a Tier One research institution.

(08-13-2015 02:25 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-13-2015 12:37 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  I believe its wishful thinking on the part of some here to think that anyone in The ACC would jump to The Big Ten.

I believe the technical term is conference realignment fever ... pretending that the GOR have no weight makes it much easier to imagine all sorts of realignment scenarios.

The reality of big conference realignment is that it tends to happen in waves, and then things settle down for a while. Its only lower down the totem pole that realignment is a more constantly ongoing thing.

One thing that a lot of G5 schools and some FCS as well that they do bring something to the table if the school Presidents stop looking at them with snobbery like a bunch of rich kids that attends the Ivy League schools. You can't the schools that you want. Plus, you can't get similar schools that do not fit your geographic region. The PAC 12 schould be looking towards MWC and Big Sky schools instead.
Big 12 should let West Virginia go and look at MWC, Big Sky, C-USA. ACC, Southland, MVFC or the Sun Belt for some schools. Same thing with the Big 10. They should look at some of the MAC schools who are not very shabby in the academics department themselves. You do wonder why people do not show up to games right now? You had fans showing up to games that are driven distance. Now, fans do not drive from Denver to LA to watch games. I noticed the drop off in attendance when conferences added schools that are not even in their regions.