(08-14-2015 01:06 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(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.

So the Big 12 should let West Virginia go and add McNeese St? That will help attendance? Do you seriously believe that? Do you believe if the Big 10 substituted Nebraska for Toledo that would improve attendance?

Go on stubhub. Look at the ticket prices for any big school for their big games this year, then look at prices for playing an FCS school. The cheapest price for an Virginia Tech-Ohio State ticket is $262. The following week they play Furman, it is $13.

The number one problem facing attendance in all sports is the in home viewing experience. Alabama fights this battle when they play SEC schools, do you think people will all of a sudden forego the creature comforts of home (HD, no lines, no high price concessions, no unruly fans) because they are playing Florida International instead of Florida?

We American's are short term thinkers and planners, the Japanese are long term planners they will take the long term view and develop a market even at a loss in the short term,, like they did here in the USA. People at first laughed at their cars in the 70's, we all know the rest of the story. Point I'm making is some of the P5's need to look beyond there noses and see the potential for developing a school with promise, accept they may not be all they want them to be at the time, but in time they can be, if the product is a solid one. Some G5's are solid in academia and sports, they just need the call up.

(08-13-2015 08:57 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  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.

The thing about using Greenville as the benchmark for Boise's population is that the ECU to the SEC argument is not credible, so "being a bigger market than Greenville" is not really relevant to SEC expansion.

(1) The SEC would like to include the Carolinas in its footprint.
(2) At present the schools it would like to invite are not available.
(3) ... {what you do here depends on whether you have conference realignment fever}

If what you do here is say, "(3) And so invite ECU and UNC-Charlotte", along with the original post, yeah, you got conference realignment fever.

ECU's TV market is nearly twice the size of Boise's

(08-13-2015 08:57 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(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.

People forget that Spokane's tv market includes Coure D' Laine and Post Falls, Idaho. If Boise has the whole state of Idaho for tv market for their team? Than, you must include the Spokane market. I used to lived there in Post Falls when I was a kid. We got the Spokane tv channels at the time by antennae. The local news cover news in eastern Washington, northern Idaho and western Montana, and also covered news from Boise as well.

(08-13-2015 06:18 PM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  

(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.

I get all of that but they were never, EVER going to take BYU. It's safe to say that BYU's popularity in Utah is a very unique situation.

(08-14-2015 09:11 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  I get all of that but they were never, EVER going to take BYU. It's safe to say that BYU's popularity in Utah is a very unique situation.

Quite. The line of argument, "the PAC-12 couldn't have taken the Utes for reasons X, Y, Z, because BYU has that and more!" overlooks that there are enough schools in the PAC-12 that would dig in their heels against inviting BYU that whatever advantages BYU has is a moot point.

I'm a heavy proponent of Boise to the Big 12. But ....

(08-13-2015 08:57 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  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.

Nielsen ratings disagree with Wikipedia:

http://www.tvb.org/media/file/Nielsen_20..._Ranks.pdf

As of the 2014-2015 DMA's listed by the Nielsen Television Ratings, Spokane is 73rd and Boise is 109 for TV homes - with 150K - 57% - more TV homes in Spokane (415K), than Boise (263K)...

(08-13-2015 08:57 PM)David St. Wrote:  People forget that Spokane's tv market includes Coure D' Laine and Post Falls, Idaho. If Boise has the whole state of Idaho for tv market for their team? Than, you must include the Spokane market. I used to lived there in Post Falls when I was a kid. We got the Spokane tv channels at the time by antennae. The local news cover news in eastern Washington, northern Idaho and western Montana, and also covered news from Boise as well.

Coeur d'Alene has about 46K population and Post Falls has about 30K population. Spokane's population is 550K.

http://www.spokesman.com/sports/

Spokane Sports News seems to focus on Washington St., Gonzaga and even Eastern Washington. No sight of Boise anywhere.

Boise does not deliver the Spokane market. Washington St. and Gonzaga do.

(08-12-2015 07:52 AM)B easy Wrote:  "The greater the obstacle, the more glory in overcoming it."
- Moliere

http://csnbbs.com/thread-6580.html


Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. 

-Thomas Paine

(08-13-2015 05:57 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(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.

You were the one saying their population and TV market work against them. I was just trying to provide a counter-argument.

(08-13-2015 09:52 PM)58-56 Wrote:  

(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.

But it wasn't Ex Post Facto. You can go back in the thread yourself, to see that I was just explaining the context of the previous discussion.

Regardless of what Alabama isn't, UAB is not a non-traditional flagship in Alabama.


But you've made your point. UAB has nice medical academics, probably nicer than any program Alabama has.

(08-12-2015 02:28 PM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  The problem with Tulane is that they have little to no fan-base and are in LSU's backyard.

Being in LSU's backyard is not a problem for Tulane, IHMO.

The problem with Tulane is that they de-emphasized football, first back when it left the SEC, and then more recently where they *almost* scaled back all of their athletics.

Even with that said, given Tulane's history with the old-guard (the former SOCON that spawn today's SEC and ACC), there are some folks on the ACC side (including me) that actually see Tulane as a legitimate option and wouldn't even sneeze if they were to receive an invite.

Sidebar
The fact that Tulane is in the middle of two home-and-home football deals with Georgia Tech and Duke give me a "pause" and make me wonder, "Hmmmm..."
Sometimes, 'odd' football scheduling means something (see Notre Dame's 2011 trip to Wake Forest) and sometimes it doesn't...

Remember, Tulane has a history with the schools that made up the SOCON and these presidents have long histories and established relationships.

It's really a matter if Tulane believes it can compete at the highest level and maintain their focus on academics.

(08-15-2015 10:45 AM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  

(08-12-2015 02:28 PM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  The problem with Tulane is that they have little to no fan-base and are in LSU's backyard.

Being in LSU's backyard is not a problem for Tulane, IHMO.

The problem with Tulane is that they de-emphasized football, first back when it left the SEC, and then more recently where they *almost* scaled back all of their athletics.

Even with that said, given Tulane's history with the old-guard (the former SOCON that spawn today's SEC and ACC), there are some folks on the ACC side (including me) that actually see Tulane as a legitimate option and wouldn't even sneeze if they were to receive an invite.

Sidebar -- the fact that Tulane is in the middle of two home-and-home football deals with Georgia Tech and Duke give me a "pause" and make me wonder, "Hmmmm..." Sometimes, 'odd' football scheduling means something (see Notre Dame's2011 trip to Wake Forest) and sometimes it doesn't...

Remember, Tulane has a history with the schools that made up the SOCON and these presidents have long histories and established relationships.

It's really a matter if Tulane believes it can compete at the highest level and maintain their focus on academics.

Tulane would also give the ACC a reasonable bridge to Texas if need be. UT, Baylor, and T.C.U. then become reasonable additions. The break across the tips of Alabama and Mississippi are only a blip on the map if considering contiguity.

(08-15-2015 10:59 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Tulane would also give the ACC a reasonable bridge to Texas if need be. UT, Baylor, and T.C.U. then become reasonable additions. The break across the tips of Alabama and Mississippi are only a blip on the map if considering contiguity.

There's movement toward restoring a daily Orlando / Jacksonville / Tallahassee / New Orleans train. Tallahassee 9:40pm, New Orleans 8:45am, get a sleeper and just sleep through Alabama and Mississippi.

(08-15-2015 10:45 AM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  

(08-12-2015 02:28 PM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  The problem with Tulane is that they have little to no fan-base and are in LSU's backyard.

Being in LSU's backyard is not a problem for Tulane, IHMO.

The problem with Tulane is that they de-emphasized football, first back when it left the SEC, and then more recently where they *almost* scaled back all of their athletics.

Even with that said, given Tulane's history with the old-guard (the former SOCON that spawn today's SEC and ACC), there are some folks on the ACC side (including me) that actually see Tulane as a legitimate option and wouldn't even sneeze if they were to receive an invite.

Sidebar
The fact that Tulane is in the middle of two home-and-home football deals with Georgia Tech and Duke give me a "pause" and make me wonder, "Hmmmm..."
Sometimes, 'odd' football scheduling means something (see Notre Dame's 2011 trip to Wake Forest) and sometimes it doesn't...

Remember, Tulane has a history with the schools that made up the SOCON and these presidents have long histories and established relationships.

It's really a matter if Tulane believes it can compete at the highest level and maintain their focus on academics.

The ACC will not be adding any teams that are not in the Eastern Time Zone.

(08-15-2015 11:04 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-15-2015 10:59 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Tulane would also give the ACC a reasonable bridge to Texas if need be. UT, Baylor, and T.C.U. then become reasonable additions. The break across the tips of Alabama and Mississippi are only a blip on the map if considering contiguity.

There's movement toward restoring a daily Orlando / Jacksonville / Tallahassee / New Orleans train. Tallahassee 9:40pm, New Orleans 8:45am, get a sleeper and just sleep through Alabama and Mississippi.

I rode some trains when I was young. It is a pleasant way to travel to an event. You can party some if you like, sleep, walk around, and enjoy scenery. I think that route you laid out would be extremely enjoyable. They only thing they need to work on is the cost. In most cases it's still cheaper to fly.

(08-15-2015 11:21 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-15-2015 10:45 AM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  

(08-12-2015 02:28 PM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  The problem with Tulane is that they have little to no fan-base and are in LSU's backyard.

Being in LSU's backyard is not a problem for Tulane, IHMO.

The problem with Tulane is that they de-emphasized football, first back when it left the SEC, and then more recently where they *almost* scaled back all of their athletics.

Even with that said, given Tulane's history with the old-guard (the former SOCON that spawn today's SEC and ACC), there are some folks on the ACC side (including me) that actually see Tulane as a legitimate option and wouldn't even sneeze if they were to receive an invite.

Sidebar
The fact that Tulane is in the middle of two home-and-home football deals with Georgia Tech and Duke give me a "pause" and make me wonder, "Hmmmm..."
Sometimes, 'odd' football scheduling means something (see Notre Dame's 2011 trip to Wake Forest) and sometimes it doesn't...

Remember, Tulane has a history with the schools that made up the SOCON and these presidents have long histories and established relationships.

It's really a matter if Tulane believes it can compete at the highest level and maintain their focus on academics.

The ACC will not be adding any teams that are not in the Eastern Time Zone.

Why not? If you don't they will eventually be adding you.

(08-14-2015 09:15 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-14-2015 09:11 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  I get all of that but they were never, EVER going to take BYU. It's safe to say that BYU's popularity in Utah is a very unique situation.

Quite. The line of argument, "the PAC-12 couldn't have taken the Utes for reasons X, Y, Z, because BYU has that and more!" overlooks that there are enough schools in the PAC-12 that would dig in their heels against inviting BYU that whatever advantages BYU has is a moot point.

BYU is very, very good at self-promotion and maximizing outward indicators of excellence. When conferences are given the chance to actually kick the tires and look under the hood, they see that it's Mercedes shell powered by a Daewoo engine.

The value of the school lies entirely in its connection to a social experiment- a social experiment that is floundering. As a university, it's success is derived more by acting as a Mormon eHarmony than it is by the quality of professors or research provided. As Mormon youth become increasingly less isolated and more secular, BYU's position as the center of Mormon orthodoxy becomes less important.

One would have to question the wisdom of making an investment in an ideology more so than a university, which is what partnering with BYU amounts to. With major leadership changes on the near horizon, there is a lot of uncertainty as to whether BYU's parent organization will change course to accommodate an increasingly secular/liberal membership base or whether it will maintain a hard line.

The precedent of unilaterally discontinuing athletics at BYU-Idaho and BYU-Hawaii also should raise flag's concerning the parent organization's commitment to athletics at BYU-P. That's a lot of risk for a school whose athletic achievements are almost entirely relegated to the tenure of one head coach and whose upside is potentially limited by it's honor code and history with African American rights.

(08-15-2015 11:47 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(08-14-2015 09:15 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-14-2015 09:11 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  I get all of that but they were never, EVER going to take BYU. It's safe to say that BYU's popularity in Utah is a very unique situation.

Quite. The line of argument, "the PAC-12 couldn't have taken the Utes for reasons X, Y, Z, because BYU has that and more!" overlooks that there are enough schools in the PAC-12 that would dig in their heels against inviting BYU that whatever advantages BYU has is a moot point.

BYU is very, very good at self-promotion and maximizing outward indicators of excellence. When conferences are given the chance to actually kick the tires and look under the hood, they see that it's Mercedes shell powered by a Daewoo engine.

The value of the school lies entirely in its connection to a social experiment- a social experiment that is floundering. As a university, it's success is derived more by acting as a Mormon eHarmony than it is by the quality of professors or research provided. As Mormon youth become increasingly less isolated and more secular, BYU's position as the center of Mormon orthodoxy becomes less important.

One would have to question the wisdom of making an investment in an ideology more so than a university, which is what partnering with BYU amounts to. With major leadership changes on the near horizon, there is a lot of uncertainty as to whether BYU's parent organization will change course to accommodate an increasingly secular/liberal membership base or whether it will maintain a hard line.

The precedent of unilaterally discontinuing athletics at BYU-Idaho and BYU-Hawaii also should raise flag's concerning the parent organization's commitment to athletics at BYU-P. That's a lot of risk for a school whose athletic achievements are almost entirely relegated to the tenure of one head coach and whose upside is potentially limited by it's honor code and history with African American rights.

Believe me please ... I would love to believe what you're saying is dead on true.

But I just don't give people that much credit. Religion might not be as powerful as it was hundreds of years ago ... but it's not going to shrink to zero. It's going to level off at some number of people who blindly accept it as truth.

Mormons also reproduce in abundance.


No doubt their HQ meticulously tracks some kind of metrics on "loss rates". I guess, if the number gets too high then they start ramping up the mind control in the youth classes? But point being, it's not going to shrink away to nothing.

Mormonism is in a weird place right now. After Joseph Smith was assassinated there was splintering with Brigham Young's faction taking most of the followers and heading West. Due to geographic isolation it went from being splintered to becoming a very monolithic institution which was able to maintain strict adherence and orthodoxy. That isolation has eroded both by changes in demographics and by modern communication/internet. Only Utah County (Provo) retains a Mormon majority and generally orthodox Mormon culture. In addition to a shrinking geographic footprint, orthodoxy is fighting a losing battle for young Mormons.

The Mormon church also opened the floodgates by saying that prior stances (including those against African Americans) weren't really doctrine but opinion. This has opened up sort of unprecedented questioning of Church leadership, and a lot of secular Mormons have been increasingly vocal in their beliefs concerning other social issues like women's rights and gay rights.

The head of the Mormon church has advanced Alzheimer's and will be replaced pretty soon. I think outright schism is unlikely because a potential very hardline possible replacement died, but there will be a continued shift away from orthodoxy unless there are big changes in the church leadership.

The bottom line is that Mormonism is no longer monolithic and the secular Mormon sentiment is growing at the expense of the orthodoxy. BYU is seen as an emblem of orthodoxy, and for many/most secular Mormons is really disliked for what it represents.