(01-17-2018 12:08 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  And USF didn't even have a football team then, so they are indeed better off today.

Since we didn't have a team 27 years ago, we were neither better or worse off then *as a result of realignment* than we are today.

For schools like USF, the 27 year marker is meaningless. We came into existence 20 years ago as I-AA, became I-A in 2000 as an Indy, joining C-USA in 2003, then got a big upgrade in 2005 with the Big East, then a big downgrade when we left behind in the demoted AAC.

That's our history. We are better off now than 20 years ago, but that isn't because of realignment.

The real comparison is the AAC to C-USA, because that's where we were before and after the Big East. And there are obvious similarities. Five of the schools that we were conference mates with 15 years ago are with us now in the AAC - Houston, Cincy, Tulane, ECU, and Memphis - so it's basically a wash.

Verdict: USF now is basically where we were 15 years ago, in a version of C-USA. But we obviously took a big hit when we were demoted from the Power group.

(01-17-2018 04:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 12:08 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  And USF didn't even have a football team then, so they are indeed better off today.

Since we didn't have a team 27 years ago, we were neither better or worse off then *as a result of realignment* than we are today.

For schools like USF, the 27 year marker is meaningless. We came into existence 20 years ago as I-AA, became I-A in 2000 as an Indy, joining C-USA in 2003, then got a big upgrade in 2005 with the Big East, then a big downgrade when we left behind in the demoted AAC.

That's our history. We are better off now than 20 years ago, but that isn't because of realignment.

The real comparison is the AAC to C-USA, because that's where we were before and after the Big East. And there are obvious similarities. Five of the schools that we were conference mates with 15 years ago are with us now in the AAC - Houston, Cincy, Tulane, ECU, and Memphis - so it's basically a wash.

Verdict: USF now is basically where we were 15 years ago, in a version of C-USA. But we obviously took a big hit when we were demoted from the Power group.

Good points. :)

(01-17-2018 12:16 PM)McKinney Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 11:58 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 09:31 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I'm trying to think of the clear winners and losers of the last 27 years of realignment:

Winners:
- old SEC, ACC, Pac 12, and Big Ten schools - more money, CCGs, prestige
- SC, Arkansas, TAMU, Missouri
- Florida St, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse
- Utah, Colorado
- Rutgers, Penn St
- UCF/USF
- Boise St
- TCU, Baylor

Losers:
- Miami - hasn't been a huge success in ACC
- Boston College - better fit in Big East
- possibly Maryland and Nebraksa
- West Virginia- debatable
- Kansas, KSU, Iowa St
- NMSU and Idaho
- BYU
- SMU, Rice, Houston

I don't know if I'd call USF a winner per se, since they were in a "power" conference and are no longer. Cincinnati, UConn, and Temple (partly) are also in the same boat.

Of the ones you call "losers," I'd say that only NMSU, Idaho, SMU, Rice, and Houston are actual losers. Miami, BC, UMD, Nebraska, and WV are certainly winners for moving into better conferences. Kansas, KSU, and ISU have sort of broke even. Though the Big 12 took a big hit during realignment, they're at least still in a power conference. And any troubles BYU may be facing are of their own making.

Connecticut has to be one of the luckiest schools to make the FBS transition, well at least from a Massachusetts fan's perspective. We both played in the Yankee Conference, but when it became a football-only (I-AA) conference UConn jumped to the Big East and UMass jumped to the Eastern Eight (A10). Big East decided to sponsor I-A football and UMass fans had to sit and watch as our conference was raided of some of its biggest brands. Despite being a basketball power at the time we never got the invite. Then the year after UMass won the I-AA National Championship, UConn moved up to I-A with BCS (AQ) conference membership. Had a transition from I-AA to BCS membership EVER happened before, or happened since? Not that I can recall certainly. Still no invitation for their rival they've been playing since 1897 (same year as Michigan-Ohio St. rivalry for some context).

Maybe UCONN deserves to be a P5 member, they've certainly shown their willingness to invest in athletics. But at the same time, I don't feel bad that they got "left behind" if only out of envy for their situation and hope that one day we can play in the same conference like old times.

Uconn is the luckiest ever? no, I’d say USF. Uconn was playing football (at a lower level) before USF was a college. There are many posters on this board older than USF. Not USF football, USF. Still don’t even have a football stadium and can’t get 10k actual fans to watch them play when they are ranked.
Uconn is the 2nd luckiest.
Louisville is the 3rd luckiest going from the King commuter college to the ACC.
Miami—see Louisville except they don’t have a football stadium and didn’t start basketball until the 90’s. Paid a lot of $ to players to have some exciting made for espn games. Gimmicky, tackey semi pro squad who should of gotten the death penalty years ago. Forever.

New Mexico St is the unluckiest ever. No question.
2. SMU—long time SWC school...to the death penalty...to CUSA and AAC.
3. Rice—see SMU but without death penalty & now in the worst conference in FBS.
4. WAC schools like Wyoming, New Mexico and Hawaii who despite being state flagships, can’t get into the cartel. Unusual cases as almost every single FBS state Flagship is in the country club except these 3, Uconn and Nevada.

(01-17-2018 12:33 PM)leofrog Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 12:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 11:58 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 09:31 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I'm trying to think of the clear winners and losers of the last 27 years of realignment:

Winners:
- old SEC, ACC, Pac 12, and Big Ten schools - more money, CCGs, prestige
- SC, Arkansas, TAMU, Missouri
- Florida St, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse
- Utah, Colorado
- Rutgers, Penn St
- UCF/USF
- Boise St
- TCU, Baylor

Losers:
- Miami - hasn't been a huge success in ACC
- Boston College - better fit in Big East
- possibly Maryland and Nebraksa
- West Virginia- debatable
- Kansas, KSU, Iowa St
- NMSU and Idaho
- BYU
- SMU, Rice, Houston

I don't know if I'd call USF a winner per se, since they were in a "power" conference and are no longer. Cincinnati, UConn, and Temple (partly) are also in the same boat.

Of the ones you call "losers," I'd say that only NMSU, Idaho, SMU, Rice, and Houston are actual losers. Miami, BC, UMD, Nebraska, and WV are certainly winners for moving into better conferences. Kansas, KSU, and ISU have sort of broke even. Though the Big 12 took a big hit during realignment, they're at least still in a power conference. And any troubles BYU may be facing are of their own making.

SMU, Rice, Houston, and New Mexico St are probably the only obvious true losers in that 27 year time frame (ie-clearly better off 27 years ago than today). Everyone else is the same or better. Some rose and fell DURING that 27 year time frame--but only those 4 were clearly better off 27 years ago than today.

Putting New Mexico St aside, I agree the other 3 are in the "loser" category, but its of their own doing. TCU was in the same position as the other 3, but was the only one that took the demotion as a slap in the face, and did something about it. They made good hires in all facets of the university (Chancellor, AD, HC), and had a vision for the future that the community and alumni not only bought into, but contributed. (It also didn't hurt being in a part of the country that benefitted from the natural gas boom!)

SMU was plagued by the DP, so I think they had a long way to go. Rice is a top ranked academic institution, and I feel they cherish that more than being known for athletics. Houston is the one that really dropped the ball. If they did anything close to what TCU did in terms of facilities and putting a focus on all things athletic, they would most likely have been chosen instead of TCU to the Big 12. That's a case of too little, too late. They have made the commitment now, but they better hope its not too late.

Yup. Houston had poor leadership at a crucial cross roads in college sports. If the current administration had been in place in the late 1980's or even early 1990's---I think things would have worked out better for UH.

Btw--I only considered New Mexico St a loser because they did have membership in a FBS conference that was a decent FBS conference fit 27 years ago--where as today they are forced to go it alone as an indy.

(01-17-2018 08:54 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  4. WAC schools like Wyoming, New Mexico and Hawaii who despite being state flagships, can’t get into the cartel. Unusual cases as almost every single FBS state Flagship is in the country club except these 3, Uconn and Nevada.

There's 33 state flagships in P5
7 flagships in G5: Buffalo (but not legally designated by New York to my knowledge), Massachusetts, Connecticut, Nevada, New Mexico, Hawaii, and Wyoming
8 flagships in FCS: Idaho, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, North Dakota
2 flagships that don't sponsor football: Alaska and Vermont

(01-17-2018 04:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 12:08 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  And USF didn't even have a football team then, so they are indeed better off today.

Since we didn't have a team 27 years ago, we were neither better or worse off then *as a result of realignment* than we are today.

For schools like USF, the 27 year marker is meaningless. We came into existence 20 years ago as I-AA, became I-A in 2000 as an Indy, joining C-USA in 2003, then got a big upgrade in 2005 with the Big East, then a big downgrade when we left behind in the demoted AAC.

That's our history. We are better off now than 20 years ago, but that isn't because of realignment.

The real comparison is the AAC to C-USA, because that's where we were before and after the Big East. And there are obvious similarities. Five of the schools that we were conference mates with 15 years ago are with us now in the AAC - Houston, Cincy, Tulane, ECU, and Memphis - so it's basically a wash.

Verdict: USF now is basically where we were 15 years ago, in a version of C-USA. But we obviously took a big hit when we were demoted from the Power group.

The future is very bright for USF and UCF. In 20 years the Baby Boomers hit a big die off. So in 30 years there is an excellent chance that UCF may have more living alumni than Florida or Florida State. USF has developed better along the lines of research and UCF along the lines of attendance. All either school need do is to make sure they offer the requisite sports of the SEC and ACC and wait about 10 years to start some serious talks.

Why will this happen? Because the state of Florida isn't intentionally hamstringing the growth of those two schools like the politicians are in some other states.

Another thing that is good news for the Florida Twins is that they are both essentially Middle Florida schools. Most folks in the country don't think about there being 3 distinct regions within Florida. South of St. Augustine and Port St. Joe you are really entering Middle Florida. USF is the best positioned for the SEC some day. With Florida in the Northeast part of the State the SEC could use a presence on the Gulf side in the Middle part of the state. I would think that UCF is better positioned for the ACC. Miami is a great second product for the ACC with their history and brand. But South Florida's demographic changes will eventually take a toll on football participation in terms of numbers from which to recruit. Orlando is in position to draw recruits from the Everglades to the Keys, but so is USF. Yet both have a rich talent pool in their own section of the state.

As the research levels grow, if USF and UCF continue to invest in facilities and the right mix of athletics, eventually the population and locations of the schools will be valuable enough to be attractive to the P conferences. The trick is being ready when the time comes and that time will be upon us in 20 years which means the next decade could be the most important long term for UCF and USF.

This isn't true where the largest state schools are dropping admissions standards and beefing up student housing in preparation for maintaining their dominance past the Baby Boom. In some states like Louisiana they are cutting the state's support of the budgets of the smaller programs.

USF and UCF won't be able to pump lawyers into the State capitol but they will be able to exert political pressure from the ballot box. I think the biggest shift in culture of the United States will be occurring over the next 30 years. It could mark a seed change in some of the top college programs. I probably won't make the whole 30 years, but it should be interesting times, which yes is part of an old Chinese curse.

May you live in interesting times. May those in authority take notice of you. And may every desire of your heart come true.

Interesting times are never safe ones. Authority doesn't like competition or different ideas. And what most of us desire isn't really good for us.

(01-17-2018 02:17 PM)megadrone Wrote:  Temple would be another to add to the loser category -- dropped from AQ/Bowl Coalition in 1995 to the AAC (although it was uncertain if they would drop football entirely for a while after the Big East expulsion).

You could make the claim that their problems were of their own making -- but external forces worked against them as well. Had they been full Big East members the football expulsion never would have happened. Would it have made an overall difference? It's hard to tell.

They lost at least twice. Getting kicked out of Big East football, and then finally getting into the conference as a full member, but seeing the coveted basketball schools it wanted on its schedule off the books. Their sizable athletic department was also cut down. The money never came. The spot at the majors table was stripped.

Yeah, there have been some self-inflicted wounds. To me, though, and this is aimed at Philly politics, how Temple can't seem to get the OCS off the ground despite it owning so much land around the actual campus footprint, in a town where UPenn can pretty much do whatever it wants...it's frustrating. I feel for them, even if I'm not sure the logistics for their last attempt at the OCS were all that well settled. I don't think the city helps them the same way it does for Penn. Or Thomas Jefferson.

(01-18-2018 01:09 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 04:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 12:08 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  And USF didn't even have a football team then, so they are indeed better off today.

Since we didn't have a team 27 years ago, we were neither better or worse off then *as a result of realignment* than we are today.

For schools like USF, the 27 year marker is meaningless. We came into existence 20 years ago as I-AA, became I-A in 2000 as an Indy, joining C-USA in 2003, then got a big upgrade in 2005 with the Big East, then a big downgrade when we left behind in the demoted AAC.

That's our history. We are better off now than 20 years ago, but that isn't because of realignment.

The real comparison is the AAC to C-USA, because that's where we were before and after the Big East. And there are obvious similarities. Five of the schools that we were conference mates with 15 years ago are with us now in the AAC - Houston, Cincy, Tulane, ECU, and Memphis - so it's basically a wash.

Verdict: USF now is basically where we were 15 years ago, in a version of C-USA. But we obviously took a big hit when we were demoted from the Power group.

The future is very bright for USF and UCF. In 20 years the Baby Boomers hit a big die off. So in 30 years there is an excellent chance that UCF may have more living alumni than Florida or Florida State. USF has developed better along the lines of research and UCF along the lines of attendance. All either school need do is to make sure they offer the requisite sports of the SEC and ACC and wait about 10 years to start some serious talks.

Why will this happen? Because the state of Florida isn't intentionally hamstringing the growth of those two schools like the politicians are in some other states.

Another thing that is good news for the Florida Twins is that they are both essentially Middle Florida schools. Most folks in the country don't think about there being 3 distinct regions within Florida. South of St. Augustine and Port St. Joe you are really entering Middle Florida. USF is the best positioned for the SEC some day. With Florida in the Northeast part of the State the SEC could use a presence on the Gulf side in the Middle part of the state. I would think that UCF is better positioned for the ACC. Miami is a great second product for the ACC with their history and brand. But South Florida's demographic changes will eventually take a toll on football participation in terms of numbers from which to recruit. Orlando is in position to draw recruits from the Everglades to the Keys, but so is USF. Yet both have a rich talent pool in their own section of the state.

As the research levels grow, if USF and UCF continue to invest in facilities and the right mix of athletics, eventually the population and locations of the schools will be valuable enough to be attractive to the P conferences. The trick is being ready when the time comes and that time will be upon us in 20 years which means the next decade could be the most important long term for UCF and USF.

This isn't true where the largest state schools are dropping admissions standards and beefing up student housing in preparation for maintaining their dominance past the Baby Boom. In some states like Louisiana they are cutting the state's support of the budgets of the smaller programs.

USF and UCF won't be able to pump lawyers into the State capitol but they will be able to exert political pressure from the ballot box. I think the biggest shift in culture of the United States will be occurring over the next 30 years. It could mark a seed change in some of the top college programs. I probably won't make the whole 30 years, but it should be interesting times, which yes is part of an old Chinese curse.

May you live in interesting times. May those in authority take notice of you. And may every desire of your heart come true.

Interesting times are never safe ones. Authority doesn't like competition or different ideas. And what most of us desire isn't really good for us.

Good points, although I think in all honesty UCF is much better positioned, at least right now, than USF.

UCF has a much bigger student population and alumni base at the moment and has made some big commitments to facilities. When I was down there in 2013 the stadium area was impressive and no doubt theyve added more since then. While USF has better research output, I just don't think they have the football culture that UCF does right now.

And of course UCF now has the national championship to sell as well....

(01-18-2018 10:18 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Good points, although I think in all honesty UCF is much better positioned, at least right now, than USF.

UCF has a much bigger student population and alumni base at the moment and has made some big commitments to facilities. When I was down there in 2013 the stadium area was impressive and no doubt theyve added more since then. While USF has better research output, I just don't think they have the football culture that UCF does right now.

And of course UCF now has the national championship to sell as well....

No, USF is better-positioned than UCF. USF has better overall facilities than UCF across the board and has a stronger research/academic profile. Plus, we're geographically more distant from FSU and UF, who are already in the P5.

Yes, UCF has a bigger student population, but that doesn't mean anything, as USF's is plenty big enough. Heck, five years from now, FIU might have a bigger population than UCF, for what that's worth, basically nothing.

(01-18-2018 10:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 10:18 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Good points, although I think in all honesty UCF is much better positioned, at least right now, than USF.

UCF has a much bigger student population and alumni base at the moment and has made some big commitments to facilities. When I was down there in 2013 the stadium area was impressive and no doubt theyve added more since then. While USF has better research output, I just don't think they have the football culture that UCF does right now.

And of course UCF now has the national championship to sell as well....

No, USF is better-positioned than UCF. USF has better overall facilities than UCF across the board and has a stronger research/academic profile. Plus, we're geographically more distant from FSU and UF, who are already in the P5.

Yes, UCF has a bigger student population, but that doesn't mean anything, as USF's is plenty big enough. Heck, five years from now, FIU might have a bigger population than UCF, for what that's worth, basically nothing.

None of that will matter as much as which school is first to consistently put 40K, 50K, or 60K actual butts in seats Saturday after Saturday. Whoever starts consitently averaging those kind of home crowds will be the more likely target for a P5.

(01-18-2018 12:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 10:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 10:18 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Good points, although I think in all honesty UCF is much better positioned, at least right now, than USF.

UCF has a much bigger student population and alumni base at the moment and has made some big commitments to facilities. When I was down there in 2013 the stadium area was impressive and no doubt theyve added more since then. While USF has better research output, I just don't think they have the football culture that UCF does right now.

And of course UCF now has the national championship to sell as well....

No, USF is better-positioned than UCF. USF has better overall facilities than UCF across the board and has a stronger research/academic profile. Plus, we're geographically more distant from FSU and UF, who are already in the P5.

Yes, UCF has a bigger student population, but that doesn't mean anything, as USF's is plenty big enough. Heck, five years from now, FIU might have a bigger population than UCF, for what that's worth, basically nothing.

None of that will matter as much as which school is first to consistently put 40K, 50K, or 60K actual butts in seats Saturday after Saturday. Whoever starts consitently averaging those kind of home crowds will be the more likely target for a P5.

USF is closer to being a member of the academic club. If you look at attendance Memphis should have been on the Big 12 list ahead of Cincinnati and Houston. But Cincinnati and Houston are higher rated academically. Memphis didn't even make the list. Now UCF is closer to USF than Memphis is to Cincinnati academically, but USF still has an edge. UCF would have to move up academically or get way ahead on athletic measures.

(01-18-2018 12:13 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 12:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 10:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 10:18 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Good points, although I think in all honesty UCF is much better positioned, at least right now, than USF.

UCF has a much bigger student population and alumni base at the moment and has made some big commitments to facilities. When I was down there in 2013 the stadium area was impressive and no doubt theyve added more since then. While USF has better research output, I just don't think they have the football culture that UCF does right now.

And of course UCF now has the national championship to sell as well....

No, USF is better-positioned than UCF. USF has better overall facilities than UCF across the board and has a stronger research/academic profile. Plus, we're geographically more distant from FSU and UF, who are already in the P5.

Yes, UCF has a bigger student population, but that doesn't mean anything, as USF's is plenty big enough. Heck, five years from now, FIU might have a bigger population than UCF, for what that's worth, basically nothing.

None of that will matter as much as which school is first to consistently put 40K, 50K, or 60K actual butts in seats Saturday after Saturday. Whoever starts consitently averaging those kind of home crowds will be the more likely target for a P5.

USF is closer to being a member of the academic club. If you look at attendance Memphis should have been on the Big 12 list ahead of Cincinnati and Houston. But Cincinnati and Houston are higher rated academically. Memphis didn't even make the list. Now UCF is closer to USF than Memphis is to Cincinnati academically, but USF still has an edge. UCF would have to move up academically or get way ahead on athletic measures.

And what Bullet means here is in multiple sports, and with P class facilities.

(01-18-2018 12:43 AM)McKinney Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 08:54 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  4. WAC schools like Wyoming, New Mexico and Hawaii who despite being state flagships, can’t get into the cartel. Unusual cases as almost every single FBS state Flagship is in the country club except these 3, Uconn and Nevada.

There's 33 state flagships in P5
7 flagships in G5: Buffalo (but not legally designated by New York to my knowledge), Massachusetts, Connecticut, Nevada, New Mexico, Hawaii, and Wyoming
8 flagships in FCS: Idaho, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, North Dakota
2 flagships that don't sponsor football: Alaska and Vermont

If you extend that to the secondary flagship (definition is kind of grey-you could argue about the ones I've put a * by), 19 P5 (WA, OR, CA, AZ*, MI, IN, PA, VA, NC, SC, FL*, GA, AL, MS, KY*, TX, IA, OK, KS), 7 G5 (NM, CO, UT, NV, WV*, AR*, TN*), 4 FCS (MT, ND, SD, NY), 2 no football (AK, IL), 18 no secondary flagship (only OH and LA have FBS and only ID, MO, CT, MD and DE have FCS schools other than the flagship).

(01-18-2018 12:13 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 12:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 10:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 10:18 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Good points, although I think in all honesty UCF is much better positioned, at least right now, than USF.

UCF has a much bigger student population and alumni base at the moment and has made some big commitments to facilities. When I was down there in 2013 the stadium area was impressive and no doubt theyve added more since then. While USF has better research output, I just don't think they have the football culture that UCF does right now.

And of course UCF now has the national championship to sell as well....

No, USF is better-positioned than UCF. USF has better overall facilities than UCF across the board and has a stronger research/academic profile. Plus, we're geographically more distant from FSU and UF, who are already in the P5.

Yes, UCF has a bigger student population, but that doesn't mean anything, as USF's is plenty big enough. Heck, five years from now, FIU might have a bigger population than UCF, for what that's worth, basically nothing.

None of that will matter as much as which school is first to consistently put 40K, 50K, or 60K actual butts in seats Saturday after Saturday. Whoever starts consitently averaging those kind of home crowds will be the more likely target for a P5.

USF is closer to being a member of the academic club. If you look at attendance Memphis should have been on the Big 12 list ahead of Cincinnati and Houston. But Cincinnati and Houston are higher rated academically. Memphis didn't even make the list. Now UCF is closer to USF than Memphis is to Cincinnati academically, but USF still has an edge. UCF would have to move up academically or get way ahead on athletic measures.

Yes, attendance is important, but as an indicator of brand value, it's not a cause of it. Academics is more of a cause.

Good point about Memphis. Also, ECU consistently has attendance in the 40k - 50k range but has never sniffed a power league. It's a factor, but other things matter more.

(01-18-2018 12:13 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 12:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 10:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 10:18 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Good points, although I think in all honesty UCF is much better positioned, at least right now, than USF.

UCF has a much bigger student population and alumni base at the moment and has made some big commitments to facilities. When I was down there in 2013 the stadium area was impressive and no doubt theyve added more since then. While USF has better research output, I just don't think they have the football culture that UCF does right now.

And of course UCF now has the national championship to sell as well....

No, USF is better-positioned than UCF. USF has better overall facilities than UCF across the board and has a stronger research/academic profile. Plus, we're geographically more distant from FSU and UF, who are already in the P5.

Yes, UCF has a bigger student population, but that doesn't mean anything, as USF's is plenty big enough. Heck, five years from now, FIU might have a bigger population than UCF, for what that's worth, basically nothing.

None of that will matter as much as which school is first to consistently put 40K, 50K, or 60K actual butts in seats Saturday after Saturday. Whoever starts consitently averaging those kind of home crowds will be the more likely target for a P5.

USF is closer to being a member of the academic club. If you look at attendance Memphis should have been on the Big 12 list ahead of Cincinnati and Houston. But Cincinnati and Houston are higher rated academically. Memphis didn't even make the list. Now UCF is closer to USF than Memphis is to Cincinnati academically, but USF still has an edge. UCF would have to move up academically or get way ahead on athletic measures.

I dont necessarily disagree. The key here is 40K/50K/60K CONSISTENTLY. Not just a season. UConn was way ahead of Louisville on academics--but Louisville got the nod due to being wayyy ahead in football. Yes USF is better academically---but, Frankly, there is not some huge massive gap in academics between UCF and USF. I think the key here is academics have to be within a certain respectable threshold. Once that key threshold is reached, academics ceases to be THE key determinant. That said, I absolutely agree that academics is a factor.

(01-18-2018 01:29 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I dont necessarily disagree. The key here is 40K/50K/60K CONSISTENTLY. Not just a season. UConn was way ahead of Louisville on academics--but was also wayyy ahead athletically. Yes USF is better academically---but, Frankly, there is not some huge massive gap in academics between UCF and USF.

That's true. I am proud of the big strides USF has made in research, but that has mainly ongoing academic benefits. With regards to athletics, it's not that big a deal. We aren't Rice or even UConn.

When I say USF is better than UCF, I'm saying that because somebody forced the discussion. Truth is, USF and UCF have very similar profiles from an athletic conference POV, we're basically the same institution in two different places.

(01-18-2018 01:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 01:29 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I dont necessarily disagree. The key here is 40K/50K/60K CONSISTENTLY. Not just a season. UConn was way ahead of Louisville on academics--but was also wayyy ahead athletically. Yes USF is better academically---but, Frankly, there is not some huge massive gap in academics between UCF and USF.

That's true. I am proud of the big strides USF has made in research, but that has mainly ongoing academic benefits. With regards to athletics, it's not that big a deal. We aren't Rice or even UConn.

When I say USF is better than UCF, I'm saying that because somebody forced the discussion. Truth is, USF and UCF have very similar profiles from an athletic conference POV, we're basically the same institution in two different places.

Thats a really good way of putting it.

Those that talk about how college football is dead due to realignment probably don’t remember how fragmented things were even as recently as the early 2000s. In SC, the only conferences you reliably got to see every week were the SEC and the ACC. You’d get the SEC game on CBS at 3:30 (which was regionalized with another game until 2001). Usually it was the Big East’s top game of the week or a Notre Dame road game.

My local CBS affiliate bumped the Miami/Florida State game in 2000 to a cable channel for the JP SEC game. Even the JP games were sometimes regionalized. They’d often do an east-west split of games, sometimes even three at a time.

NBC here picked up the ACC JP games. With 9 teams, they’d show Duke and Wake Forest 2-3 times a year. That meant a good chunk of the Notre Dame games would be preempted. ABC’s 3:30 game in the southeast was usually a mediocre ACC game. You’d have to get GamePlan to watch the other games. We saw Big Ten games on ESPN, but it’d have to be a big game to bump southeastern games on ABC.

FSN had Pac 10 and Big 12, but that didn’t really start here until around ‘96 or ‘97.

The mid 90s were even worse when ABC basically had the entire rights to all college games except Notre Dame with the CFA. You’d have a couple ESPN games, usually Big Ten games, and Ron Franklin calling the nighttime game.

(01-18-2018 10:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-18-2018 10:18 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Good points, although I think in all honesty UCF is much better positioned, at least right now, than USF.

UCF has a much bigger student population and alumni base at the moment and has made some big commitments to facilities. When I was down there in 2013 the stadium area was impressive and no doubt theyve added more since then. While USF has better research output, I just don't think they have the football culture that UCF does right now.

And of course UCF now has the national championship to sell as well....

No, USF is better-positioned than UCF. USF has better overall facilities than UCF across the board and has a stronger research/academic profile. Plus, we're geographically more distant from FSU and UF, who are already in the P5.

Yes, UCF has a bigger student population, but that doesn't mean anything, as USF's is plenty big enough. Heck, five years from now, FIU might have a bigger population than UCF, for what that's worth, basically nothing.

I understand the research side of it and Tampa as a distinct market.

But having your own stadium and butts in seats is important too. 0-12 season notwithstanding, UCF has more recent success which also plays a role.

The next 5 years will be critical for both programs if they have hopes of going to the Big 12. Personally I think it'll be either both or none so you should be rooting for both to have success.