Theres plenty of crazy Tulane fans on this board. I won't mention them by name by name but I personally find a few so insfferable that I just have them on ignore. They say some stupid things about Tulane, other schools, realignment, etc. This isn't a post by one of those people.

I think it should be clear to everyone that college football is a business. At the core of the business is a competitive game. And they are, at their core, no different than any other business or game. The game has rules. There are established best practices/strategies for maximum return. There's no secret, occult, or obtuse way to be successful at the game and the business. It takes the right people, with the right resources. And like any other business sector, there are those who are willing to do what is necessary, and those who are not.

As a result, being successful is something that can be done by anyone. You can transition from being bad to good. TCU, Baylor, Standford, Houston, Georgia Tech, Duke, Boise, Navy, Miami, Temple, et al have all shown it can be done. And you can go from good to bad.

What you can't change is who you are as an organization. Its very hard to change as a college, fundamentally. A school like Tulane will always have the ability to be what it is at its core-- a private, elite, and well respected academically university. It will never, baring a once in a century event, become something different, like a land grant public flagship or a directional state school (I don't say impossible because Tulane was founded as a flagship State University, later became a private university. Only school to ever do that. There aren't many others who have done anything similar either. Its rare.) And there are some things that just can't change-- Tulane is in New Orleans, for example.

Those fundamentals you (practically) can't change form a University's ceiling and its floor, as far as success is concerned.

Lucky for Tulane, its fundamentals are such that its ceiling is, for a practical considerations, limitless. There is no fatal error in its fundamental makeup that would make achieving goals like being the dominant AAC team or becoming a "have" impossible.

This is a function of the supposed P5/G5 split. The "p5" isn't getting more separated from the rest of the "G5" because they are (for some reason only now) trying harder to out-compete than they have before. The gulf between the P5 and the rest is expanding because there aren't many schools left in the G5 that have the same kind of fundamentals the rest do.

These are the schools that were in a conference (so excluding independents) in the "University" tier of the NCAA, in 1965, before the University/College distinction gave way to D1/D2/D3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1965_colle..._standings

70 schools. 54 of which became 54/65 teams currently in a P5 conference. (The remaining 11 were University but Independent for football, most became the Big East when it sponsored football). Of the 16 schools that were in a "university" level conference and now not in a P5 conference, 8 are not in D1/FBS anymore. Of the remaining 8, 1 is BYU, 4 are in the AAC (Tulane, Tulsa, ECU and Cincy), 2 are in CUSA (Rice, UNT), and 1 is in the MWC (New Mexico). (No SBC).

The have nots haven't changed, and only 8 of the haves are still in FBS but shut out of the P5. In 50 years.

Which is all to say, Tulane used to be one of the haves. What allowed it to be a have hasn't magically dissipated with time. It can be a have again, if it hires the right people and dedicates them the proper resources. Anyone who suggests otherwise is being glib.

No date tonight, eh?


.

Focus first on winning more than 3 games in a given year, then we can talk.

I have been saying Tulane is as big time as it gets. What makes us better then schools like Boise is our market and academics. We just have more room for growth then most of the other schools out there. We are more in line with ACC schools then AAC schools but I do enjoy this conference. That does not take away from the fact that we are the golden gem of the AAC, we are the Texas of this league. Our academics alone make that fact a reality. I firmly believe we can be an athletic giant again and it would not be a difficult task at all. Tulane is about to elevate itself to major athletic program status and it will be here a lot sooner than people think.

(05-15-2016 12:33 AM)GreenWave16 Wrote:  I have been saying Tulane is as big time as it gets. What makes us better then schools like Boise is our market and academics. We just have more room for growth then most of the other schools out there. We are more in line with ACC schools then AAC schools but I do enjoy this conference. That does not take away from the fact that we are the golden gem of the AAC, we are the Texas of this league. Our academics alone make that fact a reality. I firmly believe we can be an athletic giant again and it would not be a difficult task at all. Tulane is about to elevate itself to major athletic program status and it will be here a lot sooner than people think.

I'll believe it when I see it.

(05-15-2016 12:39 AM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 12:33 AM)GreenWave16 Wrote:  I have been saying Tulane is as big time as it gets. What makes us better then schools like Boise is our market and academics. We just have more room for growth then most of the other schools out there. We are more in line with ACC schools then AAC schools but I do enjoy this conference. That does not take away from the fact that we are the golden gem of the AAC, we are the Texas of this league. Our academics alone make that fact a reality. I firmly believe we can be an athletic giant again and it would not be a difficult task at all. Tulane is about to elevate itself to major athletic program status and it will be here a lot sooner than people think.

I'll believe it when I see it.

Yet they are advertising discounted tickets

(05-15-2016 12:33 AM)GreenWave16 Wrote:  I have been saying Tulane is as big time as it gets. What makes us better then schools like Boise is our market and academics. We just have more room for growth then most of the other schools out there. We are more in line with ACC schools then AAC schools but I do enjoy this conference. That does not take away from the fact that we are the golden gem of the AAC, we are the Texas of this league. Our academics alone make that fact a reality. I firmly believe we can be an athletic giant again and it would not be a difficult task at all. Tulane is about to elevate itself to major athletic program status and it will be here a lot sooner than people think.

Still don't want to name names?

Tulane has always been average when it comes to football. Even in their tenure in the SEC. Even when they went independent, they could not keep consistency. A couple of good seasons don't mean anything.

If you asked me where I rather go between Rice and Tulane for academics, I say give me Rice.

(05-14-2016 11:30 PM)Enviro5609 Wrote:  Theres plenty of crazy Tulane fans on this board. I won't mention them by name by name but I personally find a few so insfferable that I just have them on ignore. They say some stupid things about Tulane, other schools, realignment, etc. This isn't a post by one of those people.

I think it should be clear to everyone that college football is a business. At the core of the business is a competitive game. And they are, at their core, no different than any other business or game. The game has rules. There are established best practices/strategies for maximum return. There's no secret, occult, or obtuse way to be successful at the game and the business. It takes the right people, with the right resources. And like any other business sector, there are those who are willing to do what is necessary, and those who are not.

As a result, being successful is something that can be done by anyone. You can transition from being bad to good. TCU, Baylor, Standford, Houston, Georgia Tech, Duke, Boise, Navy, Miami, Temple, et al have all shown it can be done. And you can go from good to bad.

What you can't change is who you are as an organization. Its very hard to change as a college, fundamentally. A school like Tulane will always have the ability to be what it is at its core-- a private, elite, and well respected academically university. It will never, baring a once in a century event, become something different, like a land grant public flagship or a directional state school (I don't say impossible because Tulane was founded as a flagship State University, later became a private university. Only school to ever do that. There aren't many others who have done anything similar either. Its rare.) And there are some things that just can't change-- Tulane is in New Orleans, for example.

Those fundamentals you (practically) can't change form a University's ceiling and its floor, as far as success is concerned.

Lucky for Tulane, its fundamentals are such that its ceiling is, for a practical considerations, limitless. There is no fatal error in its fundamental makeup that would make achieving goals like being the dominant AAC team or becoming a "have" impossible.

This is a function of the supposed P5/G5 split. The "p5" isn't getting more separated from the rest of the "G5" because they are (for some reason only now) trying harder to out-compete than they have before. The gulf between the P5 and the rest is expanding because there aren't many schools left in the G5 that have the same kind of fundamentals the rest do.

These are the schools that were in a conference (so excluding independents) in the "University" tier of the NCAA, in 1965, before the University/College distinction gave way to D1/D2/D3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1965_colle..._standings

70 schools. 54 of which became 54/65 teams currently in a P5 conference. (The remaining 11 were University but Independent for football, most became the Big East when it sponsored football). Of the 16 schools that were in a "university" level conference and now not in a P5 conference, 8 are not in D1/FBS anymore. Of the remaining 8, 1 is BYU, 4 are in the AAC (Tulane, Tulsa, ECU and Cincy), 2 are in CUSA (Rice, UNT), and 1 is in the MWC (New Mexico). (No SBC).

The have nots haven't changed, and only 8 of the haves are still in FBS but shut out of the P5. In 50 years.

Which is all to say, Tulane used to be one of the haves. What allowed it to be a have hasn't magically dissipated with time. It can be a have again, if it hires the right people and dedicates them the proper resources. Anyone who suggests otherwise is being glib.

Ya once Tulane starts actually winning then we will believe it. Other wise its just polishing a piece of poo and saying its better.

(05-15-2016 12:41 AM)Thegoldstandard Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 12:39 AM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 12:33 AM)GreenWave16 Wrote:  I have been saying Tulane is as big time as it gets. What makes us better then schools like Boise is our market and academics. We just have more room for growth then most of the other schools out there. We are more in line with ACC schools then AAC schools but I do enjoy this conference. That does not take away from the fact that we are the golden gem of the AAC, we are the Texas of this league. Our academics alone make that fact a reality. I firmly believe we can be an athletic giant again and it would not be a difficult task at all. Tulane is about to elevate itself to major athletic program status and it will be here a lot sooner than people think.

I'll believe it when I see it.

Yet they are advertising discounted tickets

And they are here and you are not. Hmmmm. Wonder what that means.

Tulane....lulz

(05-15-2016 02:01 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(05-14-2016 11:30 PM)Enviro5609 Wrote:  Theres plenty of crazy Tulane fans on this board. I won't mention them by name by name but I personally find a few so insfferable that I just have them on ignore. They say some stupid things about Tulane, other schools, realignment, etc. This isn't a post by one of those people.

I think it should be clear to everyone that college football is a business. At the core of the business is a competitive game. And they are, at their core, no different than any other business or game. The game has rules. There are established best practices/strategies for maximum return. There's no secret, occult, or obtuse way to be successful at the game and the business. It takes the right people, with the right resources. And like any other business sector, there are those who are willing to do what is necessary, and those who are not.

As a result, being successful is something that can be done by anyone. You can transition from being bad to good. TCU, Baylor, Standford, Houston, Georgia Tech, Duke, Boise, Navy, Miami, Temple, et al have all shown it can be done. And you can go from good to bad.

What you can't change is who you are as an organization. Its very hard to change as a college, fundamentally. A school like Tulane will always have the ability to be what it is at its core-- a private, elite, and well respected academically university. It will never, baring a once in a century event, become something different, like a land grant public flagship or a directional state school (I don't say impossible because Tulane was founded as a flagship State University, later became a private university. Only school to ever do that. There aren't many others who have done anything similar either. Its rare.) And there are some things that just can't change-- Tulane is in New Orleans, for example.

Those fundamentals you (practically) can't change form a University's ceiling and its floor, as far as success is concerned.

Lucky for Tulane, its fundamentals are such that its ceiling is, for a practical considerations, limitless. There is no fatal error in its fundamental makeup that would make achieving goals like being the dominant AAC team or becoming a "have" impossible.

This is a function of the supposed P5/G5 split. The "p5" isn't getting more separated from the rest of the "G5" because they are (for some reason only now) trying harder to out-compete than they have before. The gulf between the P5 and the rest is expanding because there aren't many schools left in the G5 that have the same kind of fundamentals the rest do.

These are the schools that were in a conference (so excluding independents) in the "University" tier of the NCAA, in 1965, before the University/College distinction gave way to D1/D2/D3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1965_colle..._standings

70 schools. 54 of which became 54/65 teams currently in a P5 conference. (The remaining 11 were University but Independent for football, most became the Big East when it sponsored football). Of the 16 schools that were in a "university" level conference and now not in a P5 conference, 8 are not in D1/FBS anymore. Of the remaining 8, 1 is BYU, 4 are in the AAC (Tulane, Tulsa, ECU and Cincy), 2 are in CUSA (Rice, UNT), and 1 is in the MWC (New Mexico). (No SBC).

The have nots haven't changed, and only 8 of the haves are still in FBS but shut out of the P5. In 50 years.

Which is all to say, Tulane used to be one of the haves. What allowed it to be a have hasn't magically dissipated with time. It can be a have again, if it hires the right people and dedicates them the proper resources. Anyone who suggests otherwise is being glib.

Ya once Tulane starts actually winning then we will believe it. Other wise its just polishing a piece of poo and saying its better.

Says you. But that makes a lot of sense. Again.

tulane has ZERO..i repeat ZERO chance at big 12

some aspects of your post i agree but most of the things you are sayiny to yourself to make tulane think it has chance, that are false information

HUGE flaws in you argument:
1) tulane was grandfathered in. being one of the few programs who fielded a football program in the 1800s that got you an invite doesnt make you a "have"
----if wake forest droped out of the acc by choice ..not one would ever take them back

2) have and have nots did not exist in the FBS in 1965..
a) your twisted fact: "The remaining 11 were University but Independent for football, most became the Big East when it sponsored football"..you are making it seem like they joined a conference when they decide to make a football team which is a lie or manipulation.. "when" is a joke ..most of them sponsored football for 60-70 years before ever joining a league

b) the "have and the have nots" started in 1990s with the AQ system and the begining of tv media deals.. being an independent was a legitimate choice prior..in 1964 the year of your "have and have nots", notre dame an indy won the national title, syracuse (an indy) won one 4 years prior to that..something like 8 of 10 titles won in the 80's were indy (miami, penn state and ND)

stop trying to make 2013 dynamics apply to 1965....as a matter of fact tulane left the SEC in part becuase indy was a sustainable option at the time

3) i wouldnt call tulanes potential limitless but you guys do have stanford potential..but that will be in the long run..
a) for the big 12 oklahoma's regents named all the names they were considering, it was a lot, none of them were tulane...he said he didnt want any of them.. said our 40-50k capacities and our abilities to fill them were small...tulanes stadium says 30k capacity but only actually seats 24k and you have a 4k basketball arena (twice as small as any in the p5, almost 4k smaller than anyone at that level)..in the big 12 media day they said they wanted a regular top 25 team..tulane has won at nothing the last few year/decade

if the big 12 said they were expanding in 20 years, id agree i think tulane has a great shot..time to build the brand, impact recrutiing in the area for theelite guys, expand the stadiums and arena and draw decent enough to be interesting if you constantly won games
you have zero chance as you wont be remotely attractive at the time of expansion in the next 5 years

(05-15-2016 09:43 AM)pesik Wrote:  tulane has ZERO..i repeat ZERO chance at big 12

some aspects of your post i agree but most of the things you are sayiny to yourself to make tulane think it has chance, that are false information

HUGE flaws in you argument:
1) tulane was grandfathered in. being one of the few programs who fielded a football program in the 1800s that got you an invite doesnt make you a "have"
----if wake forest droped out of the acc by choice ..not one would ever take them back

2) have and have nots did not exist in the FBS in 1965..
a) your twisted fact: "The remaining 11 were University but Independent for football, most became the Big East when it sponsored football"..you are making it seem like they joined a conference when they decide to make a football team which is a lie or manipulation.. "when" is a joke ..most of them sponsored football for 60-70 years before ever joining a league

b) the "have and the have nots" started in 1990s with the AQ system and the begining of tv media deals.. being an independent was a legitimate choice prior..in 1964 the year of your "have and have nots", notre dame an indy won the national title, syracuse (an indy) won one 4 years prior to that..something like 8 of 10 titles won in the 80's were indy (miami, penn state and ND)

stop trying to make 2013 dynamics apply to 1965....as a matter of fact tulane left the SEC in part becuase indy was a sustainable option at the time

3) i wouldnt call tulanes potential limitless but you guys do have stanford potential..but that will be in the long run..
a) for the big 12 oklahoma's regents named all the names they were considering, it was a lot, none of them were tulane...he said he didnt want any of them.. said our 40-50k capacities and our abilities to fill them were small...tulanes stadium says 30k capacity but only actually seats 24k and you have a 4k basketball arena (twice as small as any in the p5, almost 4k smaller than anyone at that level)..in the big 12 media day they said they wanted a regular top 25 team..tulane has won at nothing the last few year/decade

if the big 12 said they were expanding in 20 years, id agree i think tulane has a great shot..time to build the brand, impact recrutiing in the area for theelite guys, expand the stadiums and arena and draw decent enough to be interesting if you constantly won games
you have zero chance as you wont be remotely attractive at the time of expansion in the next 5 years

This ^^^^ is the best post on here in a long, long, long time. Everything that Mr Pesik pointed out, he nailed it!!! I couldn't have said it better myself!

(05-14-2016 11:30 PM)Enviro5609 Wrote:  Theres plenty of crazy Tulane fans on this board. I won't mention them by name by name but I personally find a few so insfferable that I just have them on ignore. They say some stupid things about Tulane, other schools, realignment, etc. This isn't a post by one of those people.

Not, it's worse, because those posters are obvious trolls.
What is the point of this? All it does is invite ant-Tulane pounding. Great work!
.
This is an AAC board.

(05-15-2016 12:33 AM)GreenWave16 Wrote:  I have been saying Tulane is as big time as it gets. What makes us better then schools like Boise is our market and academics. We just have more room for growth then most of the other schools out there. We are more in line with ACC schools then AAC schools but I do enjoy this conference. That does not take away from the fact that we are the golden gem of the AAC, we are the Texas of this league. Our academics alone make that fact a reality. I firmly believe we can be an athletic giant again and it would not be a difficult task at all. Tulane is about to elevate itself to major athletic program status and it will be here a lot sooner than people think.

Tulane, which is a racist, bigoted, homophobic, transphobic, misogynist, university, was founded by a Slave owning family. You school continues not to provide safe spaces to the most marginalized students who are discriminated against on a daily basis. Tulane is over represented by whites and white privilege. In no manner whatsoever should Tulane be included among the fine universities that are The American Athletic Conference, nor The Big 12. I have petitioned the AG of the state, and all and any accrediting organizations to shut down the university. HOW DARE YOU MAKE THE ABOVE POST.

(05-15-2016 12:01 AM)fishpro1098 Wrote:  No date tonight, eh?


.

Nope. Had just finished a solo drive from Nashville back to Nola (sister just graduated). Got in late. Decided to have a few beers. Then a few more. Then I posted this.

Surprisingly coherent actually. I'm impressed. I stand by most of what I said.

(05-15-2016 08:30 AM)pablowow Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 02:01 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(05-14-2016 11:30 PM)Enviro5609 Wrote:  Theres plenty of crazy Tulane fans on this board. I won't mention them by name by name but I personally find a few so insfferable that I just have them on ignore. They say some stupid things about Tulane, other schools, realignment, etc. This isn't a post by one of those people.

I think it should be clear to everyone that college football is a business. At the core of the business is a competitive game. And they are, at their core, no different than any other business or game. The game has rules. There are established best practices/strategies for maximum return. There's no secret, occult, or obtuse way to be successful at the game and the business. It takes the right people, with the right resources. And like any other business sector, there are those who are willing to do what is necessary, and those who are not.

As a result, being successful is something that can be done by anyone. You can transition from being bad to good. TCU, Baylor, Standford, Houston, Georgia Tech, Duke, Boise, Navy, Miami, Temple, et al have all shown it can be done. And you can go from good to bad.

What you can't change is who you are as an organization. Its very hard to change as a college, fundamentally. A school like Tulane will always have the ability to be what it is at its core-- a private, elite, and well respected academically university. It will never, baring a once in a century event, become something different, like a land grant public flagship or a directional state school (I don't say impossible because Tulane was founded as a flagship State University, later became a private university. Only school to ever do that. There aren't many others who have done anything similar either. Its rare.) And there are some things that just can't change-- Tulane is in New Orleans, for example.

Those fundamentals you (practically) can't change form a University's ceiling and its floor, as far as success is concerned.

Lucky for Tulane, its fundamentals are such that its ceiling is, for a practical considerations, limitless. There is no fatal error in its fundamental makeup that would make achieving goals like being the dominant AAC team or becoming a "have" impossible.

This is a function of the supposed P5/G5 split. The "p5" isn't getting more separated from the rest of the "G5" because they are (for some reason only now) trying harder to out-compete than they have before. The gulf between the P5 and the rest is expanding because there aren't many schools left in the G5 that have the same kind of fundamentals the rest do.

These are the schools that were in a conference (so excluding independents) in the "University" tier of the NCAA, in 1965, before the University/College distinction gave way to D1/D2/D3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1965_colle..._standings

70 schools. 54 of which became 54/65 teams currently in a P5 conference. (The remaining 11 were University but Independent for football, most became the Big East when it sponsored football). Of the 16 schools that were in a "university" level conference and now not in a P5 conference, 8 are not in D1/FBS anymore. Of the remaining 8, 1 is BYU, 4 are in the AAC (Tulane, Tulsa, ECU and Cincy), 2 are in CUSA (Rice, UNT), and 1 is in the MWC (New Mexico). (No SBC).

The have nots haven't changed, and only 8 of the haves are still in FBS but shut out of the P5. In 50 years.

Which is all to say, Tulane used to be one of the haves. What allowed it to be a have hasn't magically dissipated with time. It can be a have again, if it hires the right people and dedicates them the proper resources. Anyone who suggests otherwise is being glib.

Ya once Tulane starts actually winning then we will believe it. Other wise its just polishing a piece of poo and saying its better.

Says you. But that makes a lot of sense. Again.

I can't believe you guys compared yourself to Boise. Boise won 100 games in the 2000's. You guys have won about 30 to 40 at best, don't you dare disrespect a great football program simply because your amazing academics haven't kept you from being one of the worst teams in the nation.

(05-15-2016 01:34 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 08:30 AM)pablowow Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 02:01 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(05-14-2016 11:30 PM)Enviro5609 Wrote:  Theres plenty of crazy Tulane fans on this board. I won't mention them by name by name but I personally find a few so insfferable that I just have them on ignore. They say some stupid things about Tulane, other schools, realignment, etc. This isn't a post by one of those people.

I think it should be clear to everyone that college football is a business. At the core of the business is a competitive game. And they are, at their core, no different than any other business or game. The game has rules. There are established best practices/strategies for maximum return. There's no secret, occult, or obtuse way to be successful at the game and the business. It takes the right people, with the right resources. And like any other business sector, there are those who are willing to do what is necessary, and those who are not.

As a result, being successful is something that can be done by anyone. You can transition from being bad to good. TCU, Baylor, Standford, Houston, Georgia Tech, Duke, Boise, Navy, Miami, Temple, et al have all shown it can be done. And you can go from good to bad.

What you can't change is who you are as an organization. Its very hard to change as a college, fundamentally. A school like Tulane will always have the ability to be what it is at its core-- a private, elite, and well respected academically university. It will never, baring a once in a century event, become something different, like a land grant public flagship or a directional state school (I don't say impossible because Tulane was founded as a flagship State University, later became a private university. Only school to ever do that. There aren't many others who have done anything similar either. Its rare.) And there are some things that just can't change-- Tulane is in New Orleans, for example.

Those fundamentals you (practically) can't change form a University's ceiling and its floor, as far as success is concerned.

Lucky for Tulane, its fundamentals are such that its ceiling is, for a practical considerations, limitless. There is no fatal error in its fundamental makeup that would make achieving goals like being the dominant AAC team or becoming a "have" impossible.

This is a function of the supposed P5/G5 split. The "p5" isn't getting more separated from the rest of the "G5" because they are (for some reason only now) trying harder to out-compete than they have before. The gulf between the P5 and the rest is expanding because there aren't many schools left in the G5 that have the same kind of fundamentals the rest do.

These are the schools that were in a conference (so excluding independents) in the "University" tier of the NCAA, in 1965, before the University/College distinction gave way to D1/D2/D3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1965_colle..._standings

70 schools. 54 of which became 54/65 teams currently in a P5 conference. (The remaining 11 were University but Independent for football, most became the Big East when it sponsored football). Of the 16 schools that were in a "university" level conference and now not in a P5 conference, 8 are not in D1/FBS anymore. Of the remaining 8, 1 is BYU, 4 are in the AAC (Tulane, Tulsa, ECU and Cincy), 2 are in CUSA (Rice, UNT), and 1 is in the MWC (New Mexico). (No SBC).

The have nots haven't changed, and only 8 of the haves are still in FBS but shut out of the P5. In 50 years.

Which is all to say, Tulane used to be one of the haves. What allowed it to be a have hasn't magically dissipated with time. It can be a have again, if it hires the right people and dedicates them the proper resources. Anyone who suggests otherwise is being glib.

Ya once Tulane starts actually winning then we will believe it. Other wise its just polishing a piece of poo and saying its better.

Says you. But that makes a lot of sense. Again.

I can't believe you guys compared yourself to Boise. Boise won 100 games in the 2000's. You guys have won about 30 to 40 at best, don't you dare disrespect a great football program simply because your amazing academics haven't kept you from being one of the worst teams in the nation.

Don't forget about our market too. That combined with our academics gives us a major advantage over every school in this conference.