(10-12-2015 10:56 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The way I see things, the ACC will not expanding anytime soon for anyone. Everyone is settling from the last round, getting used to new realities, and enjoying some actual stabliity. The only way power 5 conference that might expand is the Big 12 and my impression is the nays remain a majority there.

In my opinion, the last round changed a lot of dynamics and people greatly underestimate the risks of over-expansion. I dont see anyone who is going to want serious change again until they at least see how the current dynamic will play out over the medium term.

That sounds right for the B1G, PAC and SEC. (the PAC mainly because there is no one left on their island to add that moves the needle considerably)


For the ACC - it wants a fully fledged, national cable network for the conference. If it was told that it had to expand to make that a reality, I do think they would consider it. No idea how realistic that is. It would love to get Notre Dame fully in its "new Big East" fold. Don't know if that will ever happen.

For the XII - if they don't get their champion(s) into the CFP -- again -- I think that's enough to initiate a heated CCG/expansion fight between the nays (as you put it) and the pro-expansion wing.

(10-12-2015 10:48 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 10:40 AM)malenko2 Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 10:18 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 09:25 AM)malenko2 Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 08:11 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  Not happening.


I take that back......it's a possibility if the entire southern tier of the conference leaves because everybody left will not care about crippling football.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But if Temple continues to draw, your league presidents and league officials will certainly look at Temple as a serious possibility. The Philadelphia market is too lucrative to pass on when creating a network.

And Temple would compete very favorably in the ACC this year.

Two things-

35k fans is awesome for a G5. Congrats! It's still crap and wouldn't be a favorable factor in your hypothetical interest from the ACC.

And saying you would compete in this year's ACC isn't saying very much. Outside of Clemson, FSU, and maybe Duke that's like saying you could compete in the Special Olympics.


Neither factor is going to overcome the fact that Temple is one of the worst football programs historically, has no stadium, and doesn't help football.

We are a G5 for now. I said if a G5 team is considered and an ACC network is developed, Temple will be looked at seriously. If Texas, etc. are considering a deal with the ACC, they would obviously be looked at first.

And we can compare how competitive we are vs. ND on Halloween. And we may have a on campus stadium coming. If we don't, we stay at the Linc. And Rutgers and Maryland surely helped the Big 10 in football.

If by considered you mean something like:

Swofford - "Hey anybody interested in Temple?"

ACC Presidents - <crickets>

Swofford - "OK then, moving along."


The football schools were fully prepared to look at other options besides the ACC if they had added UConn and UConn brings a hell of a lot more to the table than Temple. Let that sink in a little bit then tell me how much consideration Temple is going to get.

We'll agree to disagree. You have been pretty condescending but that is ok. Clemson is a great program. You keep writing what you think you know and I will write what I think I know. We will see down the line who is correct.

(10-12-2015 11:24 AM)malenko2 Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 10:48 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 10:40 AM)malenko2 Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 10:18 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 09:25 AM)malenko2 Wrote:  You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But if Temple continues to draw, your league presidents and league officials will certainly look at Temple as a serious possibility. The Philadelphia market is too lucrative to pass on when creating a network.

And Temple would compete very favorably in the ACC this year.

Two things-

35k fans is awesome for a G5. Congrats! It's still crap and wouldn't be a favorable factor in your hypothetical interest from the ACC.

And saying you would compete in this year's ACC isn't saying very much. Outside of Clemson, FSU, and maybe Duke that's like saying you could compete in the Special Olympics.


Neither factor is going to overcome the fact that Temple is one of the worst football programs historically, has no stadium, and doesn't help football.

We are a G5 for now. I said if a G5 team is considered and an ACC network is developed, Temple will be looked at seriously. If Texas, etc. are considering a deal with the ACC, they would obviously be looked at first.

And we can compare how competitive we are vs. ND on Halloween. And we may have a on campus stadium coming. If we don't, we stay at the Linc. And Rutgers and Maryland surely helped the Big 10 in football.

If by considered you mean something like:

Swofford - "Hey anybody interested in Temple?"

ACC Presidents - <crickets>

Swofford - "OK then, moving along."


The football schools were fully prepared to look at other options besides the ACC if they had added UConn and UConn brings a hell of a lot more to the table than Temple. Let that sink in a little bit then tell me how much consideration Temple is going to get.

We'll agree to disagree. You have been pretty condescending but that is ok. Clemson is a great program. You keep writing what you think you know and I will write what I think I know. We will see down the line who is correct.

My point with Pitt is with an ACC Network, The entire cable systems in Pennsylvania will carry the Network. The same when and if Cincinnati were admitted would carry the ACC network through out the state of Ohio. Or if any of Texas, Texas tech, TCU, Baylor or Houston, SMU were added. Any of those get fulltime Texas cable TV coverage with the ACC Network. ND probably would open up many areas of the country, if not all. Nothing against Temple at all.

Carry at all? Probably. But carry on the main tier that most subscribers pay for? Maybe not.

The conference network can only make big bucks if it can get every network in the state to give it a carriage fee for ALL of their subscribers, not just those who subscribe to an optional sports tier.

(10-12-2015 11:01 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 10:56 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The way I see things, the ACC will not expanding anytime soon for anyone. Everyone is settling from the last round, getting used to new realities, and enjoying some actual stabliity. The only way power 5 conference that might expand is the Big 12 and my impression is the nays remain a majority there.

In my opinion, the last round changed a lot of dynamics and people greatly underestimate the risks of over-expansion. I dont see anyone who is going to want serious change again until they at least see how the current dynamic will play out over the medium term.

That sounds right for the B1G, PAC and SEC. (the PAC mainly because there is no one left on their island to add that moves the needle considerably)


For the ACC - it wants a fully fledged, national cable network for the conference. If it was told that it had to expand to make that a reality, I do think they would consider it. No idea how realistic that is. It would love to get Notre Dame fully in its "new Big East" fold. Don't know if that will ever happen.

For the XII - if they don't get their champion(s) into the CFP -- again -- I think that's enough to initiate a heated CCG/expansion fight between the nays (as you put it) and the pro-expansion wing.

If the ACC could get Notre Dame in, they'd expand in a second (so would any other conference for that matter). I put the odds at that at very close to zero. Notre Dame institutional identity is tied to being an independent. They actually lose a lot of their football value imo if they are just another team in a conference.

Outside Notre Dame, I just don't see how anyone adds more than they cost as far as a network goes. A few might be break even candidates, but you don't go to another round of expansion, difficult divisional decisions, etc for break even. Louiville, praised though it may be, was only in itself as the conference needed a replacement.

With regards to Herman, I think he waits it out a little while. I don't imagine he'll stay at Houstin if he is highly successful, but given his trajectory, he'll hold up for a good opening for him. He'll probably want a big name Big 12/western SEC team given the area he's primarily been in.

(10-12-2015 09:39 AM)malenko2 Wrote:  Have you ever looked at a map of Pennsylvania? Pitt is on the other side of the state which is 5-7 hours away. Pitt is not even remotely close to entering the Philadelphia market. New York City and Washington D.C. are closer than Pittsburgh and Philadelphia are.

As for Penn State, they are 3 hours away from Philadelphia in the middle of the state. They have had a big presence in Philadelphia due to Temple's ineptness over the years. However, Temple's victory over them is changing perceptions about things in Philadelphia. Temple is garnering more local TV coverage, news coverage, etc. than ever. Separately, PSU is a Big 10 program and will make more money there than the ACC ever will. Forget about them, they are not going to the ACC.

I wrote this above, Temple needs to continue to draw people and be competitive. They have seriously improved their facilities and decisions are being made about building an on campus stadium and/or continuing to play at the Linc. As I stated earlier, they drew an actual 35K+ for a noon game vs. Tulane. One of the many stigmas out there has been that Temple only draws for PSU. However, this number (against a team that brings no fans) is changing the perception. The question is, can they keep it up?

General fans of other teams have no idea about the progress Temple has made and still point to them as the team from 10-20 years ago. But I can assure you, the league presidents, officials, etc. will take notice. The point of an ACC network is to increase revenues, etc. for the league. A competitive, Temple team that draws in the #4 TV market will be seriously considered.

Temple is having a good year but they need to prove it long term. They'll likely be back to what they have historically done not because it's usually a bad program but because it's tough being a urban school with other in-state powers and pro sports. Temple doesn't even monopolize it's own college sports market, sharing it with Delaware, Rutgers and the other Big 5, let alone Penn State.

(10-12-2015 12:36 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 11:01 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 10:56 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The way I see things, the ACC will not expanding anytime soon for anyone. Everyone is settling from the last round, getting used to new realities, and enjoying some actual stabliity. The only way power 5 conference that might expand is the Big 12 and my impression is the nays remain a majority there.

In my opinion, the last round changed a lot of dynamics and people greatly underestimate the risks of over-expansion. I dont see anyone who is going to want serious change again until they at least see how the current dynamic will play out over the medium term.

That sounds right for the B1G, PAC and SEC. (the PAC mainly because there is no one left on their island to add that moves the needle considerably)


For the ACC - it wants a fully fledged, national cable network for the conference. If it was told that it had to expand to make that a reality, I do think they would consider it. No idea how realistic that is. It would love to get Notre Dame fully in its "new Big East" fold. Don't know if that will ever happen.

For the XII - if they don't get their champion(s) into the CFP -- again -- I think that's enough to initiate a heated CCG/expansion fight between the nays (as you put it) and the pro-expansion wing.

If the ACC could get Notre Dame in, they'd expand in a second (so would any other conference for that matter). I put the odds at that at very close to zero. Notre Dame institutional identity is tied to being an independent. They actually lose a lot of their football value imo if they are just another team in a conference.

Outside Notre Dame, I just don't see how anyone adds more than they cost as far as a network goes. A few might be break even candidates, but you don't go to another round of expansion, difficult divisional decisions, etc for break even. Louiville, praised though it may be, was only in itself as the conference needed a replacement.

Everything you said is right, I think.

I was just trying to pose a hypothetical where some network partner said "We'll give you a national, cable network for the ACC, if you expand". I have no idea why that would be a valid scenario. Probably isn't.

(10-12-2015 12:40 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 09:39 AM)malenko2 Wrote:  Have you ever looked at a map of Pennsylvania? Pitt is on the other side of the state which is 5-7 hours away. Pitt is not even remotely close to entering the Philadelphia market. New York City and Washington D.C. are closer than Pittsburgh and Philadelphia are.

As for Penn State, they are 3 hours away from Philadelphia in the middle of the state. They have had a big presence in Philadelphia due to Temple's ineptness over the years. However, Temple's victory over them is changing perceptions about things in Philadelphia. Temple is garnering more local TV coverage, news coverage, etc. than ever. Separately, PSU is a Big 10 program and will make more money there than the ACC ever will. Forget about them, they are not going to the ACC.

I wrote this above, Temple needs to continue to draw people and be competitive. They have seriously improved their facilities and decisions are being made about building an on campus stadium and/or continuing to play at the Linc. As I stated earlier, they drew an actual 35K+ for a noon game vs. Tulane. One of the many stigmas out there has been that Temple only draws for PSU. However, this number (against a team that brings no fans) is changing the perception. The question is, can they keep it up?

General fans of other teams have no idea about the progress Temple has made and still point to them as the team from 10-20 years ago. But I can assure you, the league presidents, officials, etc. will take notice. The point of an ACC network is to increase revenues, etc. for the league. A competitive, Temple team that draws in the #4 TV market will be seriously considered.

Temple is having a good year but they need to prove it long term. They'll likely be back to what they have historically done not because it's usually a bad program but because it's tough being a urban school with other in-state powers and pro sports. Temple doesn't even monopolize it's own college sports market, sharing it with Delaware, Rutgers and the other Big 5, let alone Penn State.

Houston should know all about being an urban school with other instate powers overshadowing them. And you clearly have no idea about the Philadelphia market. Delaware, really?

Of course Houston knows about it. And even if minor, is Delaware not in Philly's TV market? If not, I apologize.

(10-12-2015 01:28 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Of course Houston knows about it. And even if minor, is Delaware not in Philly's TV market? If not, I apologize.

It's either Philadelphia or Baltimore. Looks like the boundary is the state line.

Rice and The Baylor College of Medicine had merger discussions several years back that got pretty in depth

at that time the BCoM had a new building they had built to be their teaching hospital as they had recently left their affiliation with Methodist Hospitals for residencies and were not liking what they were able to come up with in place of that. The building hospital project became too expensive right at the same time as the financial meltdown and they completed the shell of the building and left it vacant. At that time the endowment for BCoM had been hit hard both from the financial markets and from the expense of the hospital project. Rice wanted them to sell off the building for whatever they could get and move on and even there were concerns about finances for Rice because Rice did not want to have to use any of their endowment for BCoM if they merged. The merger was called off because BCoM was not interested in selling the building and ending the project completely and Rice was not convinced about their overall finances. Since that time BCoM has stabilized their finances and received some nice support and they are using some of the building at this time. The merger with Rice is probably done for though with no real hard feelings and BCoM is probably not looking to merge with anyone else.

As for research the numbers from the NSF are actually "research and development" vs pure research. The comparison using the numbers given by the NSF are of course equal, but most other times when a university says "research" they do not include "development" unless specified.

in 2013 UH did $107,201,997 in strictly research and in 2014 they did $108,765,832 so unless there was a major increase in "development" dollars the UH 2014 NSF numbers will be about the same or perhaps $2-$5 million higher if they had a similar increase in "development" as in "research"

the difference being "research" is just that the discovery of something new or the investigation of something

"development" is taking something that has already been "researched" and applying it

there are a few universities that will report "research" and use their "research and development" dollars, but again most when they say "research" mean just that and if they include development they specify of they will say "all grants and contracts" or sometimes even "all grants and contracts for research and development"

the UH "research" numbers from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board are offered up only to show there is probably not going to be a massive change between 2013 and 2014 in the NSF number again unless there was a major change in strictly "development" dollars

(10-12-2015 01:41 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 01:28 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Of course Houston knows about it. And even if minor, is Delaware not in Philly's TV market? If not, I apologize.

It's either Philadelphia or Baltimore. Looks like the boundary is the state line.

The statement was "Temple doesn't even monopolize it's own college sports market, sharing it with Delaware, Rutgers and the other Big 5, let alone Penn State."

Yes, a good chunk of the state of Delaware falls into the Philadelphia media market and they follow Philadelphia teams. The university of Delaware (who I assumed you were comparing since you listed only other schools in the rest of your comment) is an FCS football school that has a pretty good history (although not as much recently) and registers barely a blip on the radar here.

Rutgers has very little presence and gets almost no coverage by the local media in the Philadelphia market. They put up an occasional billboard in the area and have a small satellite campus in Camden, NJ which is right across the river from Philadelphia. Their main campus in New Brunswick is up the Jersey turnpike closer to Trenton. South Jersey is considered part of the Philadelphia media market and those fans follow all of the Philadelphia pro teams and get the Philadelphia local news.

The other Big 5 as you mention exists for basketball only. St. Joe's and Lasalle do not have football programs. Penn is Ivy League with a football team but again barely registers a blip on the radar. However, they did beat Villanova a few weeks back for the first time in 100+ years. Villanova football is an FCS team that draws around 5,000-6,000 fans a game. They get a little coverage as they have been a very good FCS team for a while (and won a National Championship recently). But it is dwarfed by what Temple receives as the only FBS team in the Philadelphia market.

For basketball, Temple has some great history and is considered a pretty good program by just about everybody. They have built really great facilities that are used by the away NBA teams when they come to town. However, (as much as I hate to admit it) they currently fall behind Villanova in coverage but are ahead of St. Joe's, Lasalle, Penn and Drexel. It wasn't always that way (Temple was top dog when Chaney was here in the 90s) but Jay Wright has done a great job at Nova. I think you can attribute some of this to the old Big East playing Syracuse, Georgetown, Louisville, Pitt, etc. while we were in the A-10. So we will see going forward how that is now that they are in a watered down Big East.

As for Penn State, they used to dominate coverage in the Philadelphia market and still get a good amount. But since Al Golden arrived, Temple has seen a lot more coverage, etc. by the local media. And with the AAC, we have all our games televised for the first time and get good ratings in this market. And I can't tell you how beating them this year has completely shifted the perception, etc. Temple has gotten. The real issue for Temple has been attendance. I have noted a bunch they got 35K+ this weekend vs. Tulane. That is very significant and they need to continue on that path.

(10-12-2015 01:57 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  Rice and The Baylor College of Medicine had merger discussions several years back that got pretty in depth

at that time the BCoM had a new building they had built to be their teaching hospital as they had recently left their affiliation with Methodist Hospitals for residencies and were not liking what they were able to come up with in place of that. The building hospital project became too expensive right at the same time as the financial meltdown and they completed the shell of the building and left it vacant. At that time the endowment for BCoM had been hit hard both from the financial markets and from the expense of the hospital project. Rice wanted them to sell off the building for whatever they could get and move on and even there were concerns about finances for Rice because Rice did not want to have to use any of their endowment for BCoM if they merged. The merger was called off because BCoM was not interested in selling the building and ending the project completely and Rice was not convinced about their overall finances. Since that time BCoM has stabilized their finances and received some nice support and they are using some of the building at this time. The merger with Rice is probably done for though with no real hard feelings and BCoM is probably not looking to merge with anyone else.

As for research the numbers from the NSF are actually "research and development" vs pure research. The comparison using the numbers given by the NSF are of course equal, but most other times when a university says "research" they do not include "development" unless specified.

in 2013 UH did $107,201,997 in strictly research and in 2014 they did $108,765,832 so unless there was a major increase in "development" dollars the UH 2014 NSF numbers will be about the same or perhaps $2-$5 million higher if they had a similar increase in "development" as in "research"

the difference being "research" is just that the discovery of something new or the investigation of something

"development" is taking something that has already been "researched" and applying it

there are a few universities that will report "research" and use their "research and development" dollars, but again most when they say "research" mean just that and if they include development they specify of they will say "all grants and contracts" or sometimes even "all grants and contracts for research and development"

the UH "research" numbers from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board are offered up only to show there is probably not going to be a massive change between 2013 and 2014 in the NSF number again unless there was a major change in strictly "development" dollars

In 2010 there were also talks about a merger with Baylor University that fizzled out due to concerns about restrictions based on religion, even though Baylor never restricted research when they were apart of Baylor originally. Even now, a number of BCoM Board of Trustees are Baylor alums and Baylor President Ken Starr is also a member of the BCoM Board of Trustees.

(10-12-2015 02:02 PM)malenko2 Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 01:41 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-12-2015 01:28 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Of course Houston knows about it. And even if minor, is Delaware not in Philly's TV market? If not, I apologize.

It's either Philadelphia or Baltimore. Looks like the boundary is the state line.

The statement was "Temple doesn't even monopolize it's own college sports market, sharing it with Delaware, Rutgers and the other Big 5, let alone Penn State."

Yes, a good chunk of the state of Delaware falls into the Philadelphia media market and they follow Philadelphia teams. The university of Delaware (who I assumed you were comparing since you listed only other schools in the rest of your comment) is an FCS football school that has a pretty good history (although not as much recently) and registers barely a blip on the radar here.

Rutgers has very little presence and gets almost no coverage by the local media in the Philadelphia market. They put up an occasional billboard in the area and have a small satellite campus in Camden, NJ which is right across the river from Philadelphia. Their main campus in New Brunswick is up the Jersey turnpike closer to Trenton. South Jersey is considered part of the Philadelphia media market and those fans follow all of the Philadelphia pro teams and get the Philadelphia local news.

The other Big 5 as you mention exists for basketball only. St. Joe's and Lasalle do not have football programs. Penn is Ivy League with a football team but again barely registers a blip on the radar. However, they did beat Villanova a few weeks back for the first time in 100+ years. Villanova football is an FCS team that draws around 5,000-6,000 fans a game. They get a little coverage as they have been a very good FCS team for a while (and won a National Championship recently). But it is dwarfed by what Temple receives as the only FBS team in the Philadelphia market.

For basketball, Temple has some great history and is considered a pretty good program by just about everybody. They have built really great facilities that are used by the away NBA teams when they come to town. However, (as much as I hate to admit it) they currently fall behind Villanova in coverage but are ahead of St. Joe's, Lasalle, Penn and Drexel. It wasn't always that way (Temple was top dog when Chaney was here in the 90s) but Jay Wright has done a great job at Nova. I think you can attribute some of this to the old Big East playing Syracuse, Georgetown, Louisville, Pitt, etc. while we were in the A-10. So we will see going forward how that is now that they are in a watered down Big East.

As for Penn State, they used to dominate coverage in the Philadelphia market and still get a good amount. But since Al Golden arrived, Temple has seen a lot more coverage, etc. by the local media. And with the AAC, we have all our games televised for the first time and get good ratings in this market. And I can't tell you how beating them this year has completely shifted the perception, etc. Temple has gotten. The real issue for Temple has been attendance. I have noted a bunch they got 35K+ this weekend vs. Tulane. That is very significant and they need to continue on that path.

Not sure if you meant to reply to me. I was just supplying a small factoid to C2.

But everything you say sounds right.

The only thing I question is if Nova bball will fall because of playing in the (new) Big East instead of the (old) Big East, with games against the big football schools like Cuse, UConn, Pitt, WV, Notre Dame, etc.

I would still put the (new) Big East above the A-10 in college basketball, but both are high majors (I think).

(10-12-2015 02:02 PM)malenko2 Wrote:  The statement was "Temple doesn't even monopolize it's own college sports market, sharing it with Delaware, Rutgers and the other Big 5, let alone Penn State."

Yes, a good chunk of the state of Delaware falls into the Philadelphia media market and they follow Philadelphia teams. The university of Delaware (who I assumed you were comparing since you listed only other schools in the rest of your comment) is an FCS football school that has a pretty good history (although not as much recently) and registers barely a blip on the radar here.

If Delaware falls into the Philly TV market at all, that means they do register in the Philadelphia area, even if not much so in Philadelphia itself. That was my point, otherwise I wouldn't have brought up Rutgers.

The Big 5 as well. While Temple may get lots of coverage, they have competition, that was my point.

(10-11-2015 10:24 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Who would want to leave UH when they have standing invites to every major P5 conference and are just trying to figure out which one is the best choice!

Well, Sumlin I guess.

(10-11-2015 08:18 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(10-11-2015 09:59 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(10-11-2015 09:39 AM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  Ferttita is not letting Herman go anywhere, like he said, "everything can be solved by money" with a wink, at a private party, with the concern from some in the fan base about him leaving. Herman is actually Ferttitta hire.

South Carolina's AD dept has been well managed for some time, in fact I believe we've only fired one coach this century in any major sport (Darrin Horn in 2012). There is a lot of money to spend, we are willing to go up to 5-6 million for the right guy. Now we wouldn't do that for Herman but that gives you an idea

A promising young football coach isn't going to destory his career at that wasteland of program called South Carolina.

Tom Herman will get a big job at places like Texas, Nebraska, Ohio State in a few years and the like.

Hard to turn down 20 million guaranteed (4/year over five years) when he knows his hype is at an all time high and that there's no guarantee he even gets one of those jobs