(02-02-2016 03:52 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(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.

Cosign. I went to "The" George Washington University. Maybe half of my friends around the country are people I met at GW. I met my wife through the girlfriend of a GW friend.

But even though GW basketball has been about as successful as St Johns' basketball, I don't care. I didn't care when I went there--we all went to the student center to see the Sweet 16 game on the big screens, but a week later no one cared.

I grew up watching and following ST Johns basketball with my mother, who went there.

Unless athletics is a big part of the social scene at your school, your alumni are not going to want to pay a bunch of money to see the games after they graduate.

Social life revolving around the big game(s) is the case for a lot of the P5 schools, the Big East schools and a handful of the G5 and "midmajor power"* schools. I'm not sure how easy it is to develop that if you don't have it already.

*(No disrespect to the power programs not in BCS conferences. You know who you are, and I'm saying your conference is midmajor, not your program.)

JB's life example notwithstanding, some people do in fact become fans of the large university they attend, even if not for a full four years of undergrad. It happens. People even become fans for really no reason at all. It does happen.

I merely said that it "doesn't mean you can't". I didn't say it "most certainly will".


Some people, a small number of principled (overly, in my opinion) people, have cut off cable subscriptions because they think they have the right to pay per channel. Other people (like myself) have cut it off because we simply don't have time for significant TV viewing.

The rest of people, the large majority, are just fine paying for a standard tier bundle. Some even pay extra for an upgraded bundle. Far more TV than you could ever watch, even if it was your full time job.

And they pay it, in part, for access to telecasts of major football games. I don't see that ending any time in our lifetimes.

The ACC will want in Texas, especially if there is some form of an ACC Network. Notre Dame will want occasional conference games in Texas as well. The SEC really doesn't need another team in the state thanks to Arkansas and Texas A&M.

Pac - Texas, Texas Tech, Iowa State, Oklahoma State
B1G - Kansas, Oklahoma
SEC - Kansas State, West Virginia
ACC - TCU, Baylor

I could see Oklahoma State swapping with Kansas State in this alignment, especially since this somewhat tightens things up for the other 3 Pac 16 quads, and the SEC as well. The Pac 16 would then have rights to Iowa State and Kansas State home games against Iowa and Kansas.

(02-02-2016 05:15 AM)TforTempleU Wrote:  Funny thread coming from the B1G whipping boy. What a joke Rutgers athletics is.

Never thought I'd live to see the day a temple football fan would be talking trash about anything. I guess I've seen it all now. I can die in peace......

BTW: Get tossed from a football league lately?

and just some history for you: overall winning % for football:

Rutgers: .512
Temple: .434
Uconn: .463
UC: .491

And just for comparison's sake:

South Carolina - .511
Oklahoma State - .513
Iowa - .534

And yes, Realignment is all about football and folks who watch it, not basketball or anything else.

And for those who think we finish last all the time - First year in BIG we were 8-5 finished 4th in BIG East (when everyone said we would be toast), ahead of Penn ST, Michigan and Indiana....Plus trashed NC in a bowl. Not bad for last place, huh.

Again fella's it's about football and eyeballs.

But please, let's not let facts stand in the way of your well thought out arguments.

(02-02-2016 07:43 PM)penguino Wrote:  

(02-02-2016 05:15 AM)TforTempleU Wrote:  Funny thread coming from the B1G whipping boy. What a joke Rutgers athletics is.

Never thought I'd live to see the day a temple football fan would be talking trash about anything. I guess I've seen it all now. I can die in peace......

BTW: Get tossed from a football league lately?

and just some history for you: overall winning % for football:

Rutgers: .512
Temple: .434
Uconn: .463
UC: .491

And just for comparison's sake:

South Carolina - .511
Oklahoma State - .513
Iowa - .534

And yes, Realignment is all about football and folks who watch it, not basketball or anything else.

And for those who think we finish last all the time - First year in BIG we were 8-5 finished 4th in BIG East (when everyone said we would be toast), ahead of Penn ST, Michigan and Indiana....Plus trashed NC in a bowl. Not bad for last place, huh.

Again fella's it's about football and eyeballs.

But please, let's not let facts stand in the way of your well thought out arguments.

Let's compare football and basketball winning percentages over the last ten or fifteen years. Those are a better indicator of a program's ability and desire to compete in today's world. Really, does anybody give a damn what any institution's football team did in 1897? Should a team's 1948 win-loss record determine where it stands in the current realignment pecking order?

I'd only go back to 78, when the divisions were created.

(02-02-2016 08:29 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(02-02-2016 07:43 PM)penguino Wrote:  

(02-02-2016 05:15 AM)TforTempleU Wrote:  Funny thread coming from the B1G whipping boy. What a joke Rutgers athletics is.

Never thought I'd live to see the day a temple football fan would be talking trash about anything. I guess I've seen it all now. I can die in peace......

BTW: Get tossed from a football league lately?

and just some history for you: overall winning % for football:

Rutgers: .512
Temple: .434
Uconn: .463
UC: .491

And just for comparison's sake:

South Carolina - .511
Oklahoma State - .513
Iowa - .534

And yes, Realignment is all about football and folks who watch it, not basketball or anything else.

And for those who think we finish last all the time - First year in BIG we were 8-5 finished 4th in BIG East (when everyone said we would be toast), ahead of Penn ST, Michigan and Indiana....Plus trashed N
C in a bowl. Not bad for last place, huh.

Again fella's it's about football and eyeballs.

But please, let's not let facts stand in the way of your well thought out arguments.

Let's compare football and basketball winning percentages over the last ten or fifteen years. Those are a better indicator of a program's ability and desire to compete in today's world. Really, does anybody give a damn what any institution's football team did in 1897? Should a team's 1948 win-loss record determine where it stands in the current realignment pecking order?

You see, that's the problem with some here, you keep mentioning basketball. Forget it. It's not relevant to the discussion, and football history is important. When the facts stare you in the face, you want to cut and paste to make your story look good.

Here's a fact for you, for a poorly run athletic department, we sure did position ourselves to win the realignment lottery. Because even with the cable boxes, if our FOOTBALL performance was a putrid as some of you would like folks to Beleive, we would not have been asked to the dance. We concentrated on what would get us in and did what we had to do.

How'd your athletic department do?

UC would do anything to be in our shoes and you know it. But hey you keep winning those basketball games, okay.

The point about these things about expansions is that schools and conferences have their minds stuck in 1897 with schools from that time period. This is 2016, and the changing of the guards is here which means that several P5 schools are have beens in P5 status while G5 schools are the ones that fans are hungry for. People rather want to watch an Oregon Vs a Boise State game than an Oregon Vs Colorado. Colorado is a have been school of the past that don't deserve a P5 status anymore. Same with Washington State, Oregon State, Auburn, Ole Miss., Mississippi State, Kentucky, Duke, Wake Forest, Northwestern and so forth. If you are located in very small towns? You are a laughing stock of the whole P5. If you are a very small private with less than 10,000 students? You are too small to be D1.

(02-02-2016 07:43 PM)penguino Wrote:  

(02-02-2016 05:15 AM)TforTempleU Wrote:  Funny thread coming from the B1G whipping boy. What a joke Rutgers athletics is.

Never thought I'd live to see the day a temple football fan would be talking trash about anything. I guess I've seen it all now. I can die in peace......

BTW: Get tossed from a football league lately?

and just some history for you: overall winning % for football:

Rutgers: .512
Temple: .434
Uconn: .463
UC: .491

And just for comparison's sake:

South Carolina - .511
Oklahoma State - .513
Iowa - .534

And yes, Realignment is all about football and folks who watch it, not basketball or anything else.

And for those who think we finish last all the time - First year in BIG we were 8-5 finished 4th in BIG East (when everyone said we would be toast), ahead of Penn ST, Michigan and Indiana....Plus trashed NC in a bowl. Not bad for last place, huh.

Again fella's it's about football and eyeballs.

But please, let's not let facts stand in the way of your well thought out arguments.

Where did you come up with the UC all time record? Not seeing below 500.

(02-02-2016 08:43 PM)penguino Wrote:  You see, that's the problem with some here, you keep rightfully mentioning basketball. Forget just basketball. It's not the only factor relevant to the discussion, and football history, fan support, local talent, and other factors are also important. Much like many fans of many schools, including Rutgers, when the facts stare you in the face, you want to cut and paste to make your story look good.

Here's a fact for you, for a poorly run athletic department, we sure did position ourselves to win the realignment lottery. Because with our unused cable boxes, if our FOOTBALL performance was a putrid as it was, we would not have been asked to the dance but for PSU's desire to play in front of wealthy donors and the ACC's recent increase in attractiveness to the Nittany Lions. We concentrated on what would get us in and that was being close to Wall Street.

How'd your athletic department do?

UC would do anything to be in our shoes and you know it. But hey you keep winning those basketball games, okay.

FIFY

(02-02-2016 08:43 PM)penguino Wrote:  You see, that's the problem with some here, you keep mentioning basketball. Forget it. It's not relevant to the discussion, and football history is important.

Oh lord. Rutgers football history. You won the first college football game ever. Congratulations. Too bad you've never won played an important game since then. How many Little Three championships do you claim from beating schools that ended up in the PAtriot LEague?

And of course Rutgers fan thinks basketball isn't important. Just because it's the only college sport that's important east of PEnnsyltucky, doesn't mean you should stop being terrible at it. It wouldn't be fair to the Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State etc programs if your basketball program wasn't as big a train wreck as your football program.

Quote:Here's a fact for you, for a poorly run athletic department, we sure did position ourselves to win the realignment lottery.

Congratulations on being within 50 miles of New York City. And thank God every day that people outside the New York area don't understand how little New York City cares about Jersey.

I pretty much hate UC being in "The American," but at least we don't have to deal on a day-to-day basis with the Rutgers fans anymore. Seriously, they are the most deluded bunch you will ever meet.

Even the Memphis and Houston fans are better to deal with than the Rutgers mess.

So the money sucks, the conference is terrible, but there is one perk.

(02-02-2016 09:40 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(02-02-2016 08:43 PM)penguino Wrote:  You see, that's the problem with some here, you keep rightfully mentioning basketball. Forget just basketball. It's not the only factor relevant to the discussion, and football history, fan support, local talent, and other factors are also important. Much like many fans of many schools, including Rutgers, when the facts stare you in the face, you want to cut and paste to make your story look good.

Here's a fact for you, for a poorly run athletic department, we sure did position ourselves to win the realignment lottery. Because with our unused cable boxes, if our FOOTBALL performance was a putrid as it was, we would not have been asked to the dance but for PSU's desire to play in front of wealthy donors and the ACC's recent increase in attractiveness to the Nittany Lions. We concentrated on what would get us in and that was being close to Wall Street.

How'd your athletic department do?

UC would do anything to be in our shoes and you know it. But hey you keep winning those basketball games, okay.

FIFY

Good stuff.

JB, I do recall a year (2006?) when Rutgers football team was having a really great year and they lit the Empire State Building up red, for the team during the game.

So your comment that NYC doesn't care, is obviously false.

(02-03-2016 10:34 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  JB, I do recall a year (2006?) when Rutgers football team was having a really great year and they lit the Empire State Building up red, for the team during the game.

So your comment that NYC doesn't care, is obviously false.

The Empire State Building has been lit for probably two dozen different teams and 100 different reasons at this point. I'm not sure that helps your point.

If NYC didn't care, it wouldn't have been lit up.

(02-03-2016 10:58 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  If NYC didn't care, it wouldn't have been lit up.

I'll agree that an 8-0 or so Rutgers team is as big a deal in NYC as the Westminster dog show. And or the CEPC and its Board of Boards, whatever that is.

https://www.esbnyc.com/explore/tower-lights/calendar

So you do retract your statement.

(02-02-2016 03:59 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  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 ?

I do not see that happening in the near future, but if they do decide to do that, it would be in the form of research money. That alone would cut the legs off at some schools to the point of major contraction at said University's...

(02-03-2016 12:21 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  So you do retract your statement.

Not really. If you look at the link, a LOT of them are things that, basically, no one cares about.

Dec 12, 2015 blue and white with a candle flickering in the antenna in honor of Chanukah.
Dec 11, 2015 Burgundy and white in celebration of Qatar Airways Opening Offices in ESB.
Dec 10, 2015 blue in honor of Human Rights Watch and Human Rights Day.
Dec 09, 2015 yellow and green in honor of Elf the Musical’s Opening Night.
Dec 08, 2015 pink & white stripes for the 20th Annual Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show.
Dec 07, 2015 Blue in honor of the V Foundation and the Jimmy V Classic.
Dec 06, 2015 in blue & white with a candle flickering as the antenna in honor of Chanukah.
Dec 05, 2015 Split lights in celebration of the New York Jets and the New York Giants.
Dec 01, 2015 light blue, dark blue and red in honor of Smile Train and Giving Tuesday.
Dec 01, 2015 Red and blue in honor of Smile Train and #GivingTuesday.
November 2015

Nov 30, 2015 Red in honor of NYC Council and World AIDS Day.