Funny thread coming from the B1G whipping boy. What a joke Rutgers athletics is.

(02-01-2016 02:38 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(02-01-2016 02:10 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(02-01-2016 11:44 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(02-01-2016 11:37 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(02-01-2016 11:32 AM)colohank Wrote:  If I were a Rutgers fan, I'd also be against elevating any G5 teams to a mythical P4 alignment. I mean, why add to the already long list of schools that could kick Rutgers' ass in football and basketball?

Remember when UC beat Rutgers 52-14 in 2013 or the time UC put up 69 points in them in football in 2010 (UC's worst season of the decade fwiw). If we didn't sit our starters in those games we could have put up over 70 and 80 points on them. In retrospect I wish we had left the starters in.

Remember when Cincy was left holding the bag in conference realignment? I do!

Absolutely. Cincy fans are well aware of that slight and also of Rutgers' utter lack of athletic prowess, which is why your hubris as regards the P5/G5 divide is so pathetic. Tell us, what's it like to be a perennial laughing-stock?

We're laughing all the way to the bank. Now tell us what it's like to be a laughing stock that gets no money.

C'mon man why you starting "ish"? Your school barely caught the last boat out. I don't know how you got in the B1G, but it was not something you earned. Now you think some how these schools are undeserving ? Mabey you guys payed your way in ?

(02-01-2016 11:15 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  You really think the ACC will just give up UVA and NCST for Baylor, ISU, KSU ? And put Louisville in that pod.............

Yes Sir, totally self serving by our OP. UVA would beat them in FB and slaughter them in Hoops.

(02-01-2016 11:33 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-01-2016 11:09 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  If we're callously consigning other people's conferences to oblivion, I see no reason not to do the same with schools.

It's a lot more realistic if you accept that 16 school conferences aren't happening. So we're looking at 4 x 14, 56 schools. So we're relegating 9 schools.

Wake Forest is the first to go. Washington STate, Iowa State, Kansas STate, Oregon STate all duplicate states that probably can't support 2 super-FBS teams. Vanderbilt and Northwestern probably don't make the cut. Miami's history and south Florida location means they're safe. Oh, missed Baylor. THat's 8, so we're looking at one more cut.

So the final cut comes down to Texas Tech, BC, Rutgers and Syracuse. BC and Syracuse have history, Texas TEch has a lot of people in the stadium. Rutgers DID have the first ever college football game.

Well if you look at actual fan support for football, Here's your bottom 10:
1. Duke
2. Wake Forest
3. Washington St.
4. Boston College
5. Vanderbilt
6. Kansas
7. Northwestern
8. Syracuse
9. Colorado
10. Oregon St.

Honorable mention-Purdue, Maryland, Illinois, Indiana and Virginia. KSU and Iowa St. are middle of the pack for P5 schools, both over 50k.

Yeah cuz the P5 would love to kick out the #1 Hoops attendance leader (14-15 seaon)

(02-01-2016 02:44 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(02-01-2016 12:40 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(02-01-2016 11:44 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(02-01-2016 11:37 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(02-01-2016 11:32 AM)colohank Wrote:  If I were a Rutgers fan, I'd also be against elevating any G5 teams to a mythical P4 alignment. I mean, why add to the already long list of schools that could kick Rutgers' ass in football and basketball?

Remember when UC beat Rutgers 52-14 in 2013 or the time UC put up 69 points in them in football in 2010 (UC's worst season of the decade fwiw). If we didn't sit our starters in those games we could have put up over 70 and 80 points on them. In retrospect I wish we had left the starters in.

Remember when Cincy was left holding the bag in conference realignment? I do!

From a strictly fan standpoint, I'd much rather be in UC's position right now than Rutgers. It's a lot more fun to see your team win then constantly get their teeth kicked in.

Monetarily, it's a different story, but nothing in RU's history suggests that will ever amount to much.

From a fans stand point i'd rather my team play against top notch competition and lose than playing and beating lesser competition.

That gets old as you will find out and kill your fan base. Perfect example when Cuse fans would take over your hoops gym in the Big East.

(02-02-2016 08:13 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(02-01-2016 11:33 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-01-2016 11:09 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  If we're callously consigning other people's conferences to oblivion, I see no reason not to do the same with schools.

It's a lot more realistic if you accept that 16 school conferences aren't happening. So we're looking at 4 x 14, 56 schools. So we're relegating 9 schools.

Wake Forest is the first to go. Washington STate, Iowa State, Kansas STate, Oregon STate all duplicate states that probably can't support 2 super-FBS teams. Vanderbilt and Northwestern probably don't make the cut. Miami's history and south Florida location means they're safe. Oh, missed Baylor. THat's 8, so we're looking at one more cut.

So the final cut comes down to Texas Tech, BC, Rutgers and Syracuse. BC and Syracuse have history, Texas TEch has a lot of people in the stadium. Rutgers DID have the first ever college football game.

Well if you look at actual fan support for football, Here's your bottom 10:
1. Duke
2. Wake Forest
3. Washington St.
4. Boston College
5. Vanderbilt
6. Kansas
7. Northwestern
8. Syracuse
9. Colorado
10. Oregon St.

Honorable mention-Purdue, Maryland, Illinois, Indiana and Virginia. KSU and Iowa St. are middle of the pack for P5 schools, both over 50k.

Yeah cuz the P5 would love to kick out the #1 Hoops attendance leader (14-15 seaon)

In addition to what non-Hokie Mark said, there's more to the story.

Take this for whatever you want, but private schools don't have in-state tuition. So, a significantly higher percent of their fan bases are out of state. All other factors being equal (i.e. the size of the fan base), private school football attendance will be lower.

That's why I think merchandise sales are a better metric.

(02-01-2016 10:24 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  Posted this on another thread and thought it needed it's own thread. This is how you carve up the Big XII and turn the Power 5 into the Power 4 without adding G5 teams.

B1G adds UVA and KU

SEC adds NC St and TCU

Pac-12 ballons to Pac-16 with UT, OU, OSU & Tech

ACC adds WVU, ISU, KSU & Baylor

B1G pods:

East- UVA, Maryland, PSU, Rutgers

South- Indiana, OSU, Purdue, Illinois

North-UM, MSU, NW, Wisconsin

West-Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Minny

SEC pods:

West- A&M, TCU, Arkansas, LSU

North- Mizzou, Tennessee, UK, Vandy

South- Bama, Auburn, Ole Miss, Miss St

East- UF, UGA, USC, NC st

Pac-16 pods:

North West- Oregon, OSU, Washington, WSU

Plains- Texas, OU, OSU, Texas Tech

Mountain- Utah, Colorado, ASU, Arizona

West- USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal

ACC pods:

North- BC, Cuse, Pitt, WVU

West- Baylor, ISU, KSU, Louisville

East- UNC, Duke, Wake, VT

South- FSU, Miami, GT, Clemson

It's a nice never going to happen effort. The ACC is the the most awkward fit, especially the West. Maybe put the SEC east in the ACC and the ACC West in the SEC and swap Mizzou and Louisville and Baylor and Arky for the most geographically sensible conferences.

(02-01-2016 03:18 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(02-01-2016 02:59 PM)goofus Wrote:  Every conference needs to get something they want in order to take some body they don't want

PAC --》Tex, TT, KSU, OkSt
BIG 10 --》Kan, ISU
ACC --》WV, Bay
SEC --》 Ok, TCU

Except the B1G doesn't want nor will it take ISU. They are the ones with power and they will take whomever they want.

The ACC fans will say "so and so will NEVER leave" which is funny coming from them. In realignment the stronger conferences have the pull. The money gap will get the better of the ACC.

They would take ISU if it came all the way down to it in the end just to help out Iowa and Nebraska....

PAC-16
Washington
Washington State
Oregon
Oregon State

CAL
Stanford
USC
UCLA

Utah
Colorado
Arizona
Arizona State

Oklahoma State
Oklahoma
Texas
Texas AM


Big Ten
Nebraska
Missouri
Kansas State
Kansas

Minnesota
Wisconsin
Iowa
Iowa State

Purdue
Indiana
Northwestern
Illinois

Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Penn State

ACC
Boston College
Syracuse
Pittsburgh
Rutgers

Virginia
Virginia Tech
Maryland
West Virginia

NC State
North Carolina
Wake Forest
Duke

Georgia Tech
Clemson
Florida State
Miami


SEC
Arkansas
Texas Tech
TCU
Baylor

LSU
Alabama
Mississippi State
Mississippi

Kentucky
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
Louisville

Florida
Auburn
South Carolina
Georgia


Nearly all rivalries restored. I know it's a pipe dream. Never going to be happpen. But it's my dream. 9 game conference schedule Playing your pod every year. From the other 3 pods each year two.

I think we've reached a tipping point in realignment discussion, where now every idea is either a done-to-death rehash of a long-established idea (hey, let's realign CUSA and the Sun Belt into geographically coherent conferences!) or a through-the-looking glass suggestion that slips the surly bonds of credulity to touch the face of Godawful (you know who you are).

Clearly the way to go is 12-team conferences, grouped by alphabet.

(02-02-2016 02:05 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  I think we've reached a tipping point in realignment discussion, where now every idea is either a done-to-death rehash of a long-established idea (hey, let's realign CUSA and the Sun Belt into geographically coherent conferences!) or a through-the-looking glass suggestion that slips the surly bonds of credulity to touch the face of Godawful (you know who you are).

Clearly the way to go is 12-team conferences, grouped by alphabet.

Bingo. Like I said in another thread, the sweeps are over. Get used to watching reruns. Pretty much all that's left now regarding realignment. We're on the cusp of a "University Bubble". It's beyond a simple bubble for network college sports contracts anymore. These ever increasing TV contracts are actually dwarfed by the huge costs of University budgets that continue to explode at rates greatly exceeding inflation. A new educational paradigm is approaching and is actually upon us now. All of that school pride affiliation? It's evaporating rapidly. It's becoming purely transactional.

(02-02-2016 02:05 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  I think we've reached a tipping point in realignment discussion, where now every idea is either a done-to-death rehash of a long-established idea (hey, let's realign CUSA and the Sun Belt into geographically coherent conferences!) or a through-the-looking glass suggestion that slips the surly bonds of credulity to touch the face of Godawful (you know who you are).

Clearly the way to go is 12-team conferences, grouped by alphabet.

I don't think any of the suggestions think they are thick with reality, and that is OK. It's just fun to go through theoretical "if I was God" scenarios to pass time at work. It's harmless in the end.

(02-02-2016 01:50 PM)giesing Wrote:  PAC-16
Washington
Washington State
Oregon
Oregon State

CAL
Stanford
USC
UCLA

Utah
Colorado
Arizona
Arizona State

Oklahoma State
Oklahoma
Texas
Texas AM


Big Ten
Nebraska
Missouri
Kansas State
Kansas

Minnesota
Wisconsin
Iowa
Iowa State

Purdue
Indiana
Northwestern
Illinois

Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Penn State

ACC
Boston College
Syracuse
Pittsburgh
Rutgers

Virginia
Virginia Tech
Maryland
West Virginia

NC State
North Carolina
Wake Forest
Duke

Georgia Tech
Clemson
Florida State
Miami


SEC
Arkansas
Texas Tech
TCU
Baylor

LSU
Alabama
Mississippi State
Mississippi

Kentucky
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
Louisville

Florida
Auburn
South Carolina
Georgia


Nearly all rivalries restored. I know it's a pipe dream. Never going to be happpen. But it's my dream. 9 game conference schedule Playing your pod every year. From the other 3 pods each year two.

This is a very good effort.

(02-02-2016 02:21 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(02-02-2016 02:05 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  I think we've reached a tipping point in realignment discussion, where now every idea is either a done-to-death rehash of a long-established idea (hey, let's realign CUSA and the Sun Belt into geographically coherent conferences!) or a through-the-looking glass suggestion that slips the surly bonds of credulity to touch the face of Godawful (you know who you are).

Clearly the way to go is 12-team conferences, grouped by alphabet.

Bingo. Like I said in another thread, the sweeps are over. Get used to watching reruns. Pretty much all that's left now regarding realignment. We're on the cusp of a "University Bubble". It's beyond a simple bubble for network college sports contracts anymore. These ever increasing TV contracts are actually dwarfed by the huge costs of University budgets that continue to explode at rates greatly exceeding inflation. A new educational paradigm is approaching and is actually upon us now. All of that school pride affiliation? It's evaporating rapidly. It's becoming purely transactional.

I think we will see the bubble burst sooner rather than later. We already have declining attendance and student debt overtaking all other debt as the most debt accrued. Universities are constantly building a "resort" atmospheric amnetities. The tell, I think, was the reduction of the cusa contract and the financial woes of ESPN as of late. When will it fully burst?

Not so long as people continue to want to watch telecasts of games.

(02-02-2016 02:57 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Not so long as people continue to want to watch telecasts of games.

Which there are workarounds to consuming the content without paying ESPN to do so. No doubt the demand to watch is significant. However, if people don't want to pay the costs for cable or a dish and find more ways to backdoor content via the internet then it will all fall apart.

Everyone wants a college education, but more and more people are either being priced out of it or are not going the traditional route of starting at the large university right off the bat.

Obviously I meant so long as people want to pay to watch telecasts of games. Pirates are of little concern.

Even if you transfer from a JC, or even another four-year institution, doesn't mean you can't develop an affinity for the team at the "large university".

The price/cost will get better, for lower and middle class children. The federal govt will see to that.

(02-02-2016 03:38 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Obviously I meant so long as people want to pay to watch telecasts of games. Pirates are of little concern.

Thank you transfer from a JC, or even another four-year institution, doesn't mean you can't develop an affinity for the team at the "large university".

The price/cost will get better, for lower and middle class children. The federal govt will see to that.

I don't think people do want to pay these costs. It's why people are showing more interest in alternatives to the cable and dish models.

But why would anyone develop an affinity for the large university sports teams? Unless you grew up as a fan of said school, it's not a foregone conclusion. With the higher education relationship becoming more transactional due to the rising costs, there is nothing incentivizing a student to become a fan of a school athletic program simply by going to the school alone. People going the 2 year JC route will most likely commute to the big school in years 3 and 4 (and 5). Without immersion into the college campus culture, the affinity is not the same.

Don't hold your breath if you think the gov't is going to make costs more affordable for the full service universities.

With large television contracts and payouts I could see the DOE going the other way and pulling funding from some of those large paycheck schools. How does having a lazy river students contribute to their education ?

Ugh why this obsession by some for four conferences of 16 teams each in these ridiculous pods? The entire charm of the college game is the separate identities and culture of the five power conferences. In my ideal world, a few G5 teams elevate themselves and round out the remaining conferences who are short teams. I have absolutely no desire for 64 teams divided evenly. You want that kind of symmetry, watch the better football offered by the NFL.