(02-14-2016 03:09 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 03:01 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 02:54 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 02:48 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 02:05 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  I beg to differ. We learned from the emails that the networks will not pay for two more teams.

"Later in the email, Wefald said: “The only way I see to get Cincinnati into the Big 12 is this: that UC and the 2nd school would have to volunteer to take the financial haircut yourselves. Why? Because the three major networks will never add enough monies to allow the next two schools to have the same revenues as the 10 to (sic) now.”

This goes against everything we have heard from the wonder twins of WVU that troll G5 fans with their Big 12 expansion BS. The above nugget from the former KSU president helps explain why the Big 12 hasn't expanded yet.....greed.

I for one am hopeful the Big 12 expands in May.
CJ

you are missing out on the part where the Big 12 gives out something like $4 million or so n NCAA money and they get $5 million per team for being a P5 conference because of the playoffs and in the years the Sugar Bowl is not an access bowl the Big 12 gets $4 million per team (like this year)

so that is $9 million to $13 million per year in revenue that is outside of TV income that would be split more ways if two teams were added and any new teams will be bringing ZERO NCAA credits with them as well so it would take a long time for them to catch up

the TV deals average $20 million per year per team over the life of the deal, but they scale over time so they are probably paying $17 or $18 million per year per team right now so it would be $34 to $36 million more in revenue for adding two teams

but then there is the NCAA, Playoff and Sugar Bowl money that needs to be accounted for and the Big 12 can have a CCG now without adding two teams so making the argument that "the CCG money helps make up the deficit" is not a valid argument because the Big 12 does not need to add two teams to avail themselves of that potential money

also the Big 12 made TCU and WVU scale up the money they made for coming to the Big 12 and the Big 12 NEEDED two teams at that time....the Big 12 does not NEED two teams and it would not be right to add two teams now and slap the face of quality Big 12 additions like TCU and WVU by giving new teams an equal portion of money immediately

False. The Big 12 TV contract is for 12 teams and that includes bowl games. Adding more schools in the conference could bring in more bowl spots which could bring the money up some more.

no the Big 12 TV contract is for 10 teams

the Fox tier 2 deal was signed when the Big 12 was 10 teams with A&M and MU and when A&M and MU left the Fox deal required 10 teams to remain in place so TCU and WVU were added

after TCU and WVU were added the tier 1 deal with ESPN was renegotiated several years early and extended to end at the same time as the Fox deal and at that time Fox also came back to the table and paid a bit more money to get some better choices of available games

so the Big 12 contracts were signed when the Big 12 was 10 teams and technically both TV deals were finalized when the Big 12 was 10 teams with the current membership in place

and lower level bowls are not money makers the vast majority of teams eat up 100% of the revenues and or do not sell their required ticket allotments and thus make no money on those games and some actually lose money so they are not a source of income for a conference or even an individual team and thus contribute nothing to conference distributions

Boren and Bowlsby admitted that their tv contract is for 12 teams. It was left open in case the Big 12 could expand to 12. Adding 2 more teams would not hurt the total payout for each school.

If that's the case then hook some brothers up.

(02-15-2016 02:23 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(02-15-2016 12:28 AM)KUGR Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 03:09 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Boren and Bowlsby admitted that their tv contract is for 12 teams. It was left open in case the Big 12 could expand to 12. Adding 2 more teams would not hurt the total payout for each school.

They never said the deal was for 12 teams or any other number. They said the TV deal included provision for expansion so that the TV deal would be prorated to continue paying out the same amount to each school. It has nothing to do with 12....any more than it does with 10 or 14.

The cause for confusion is that the quote that people are going from specifically said that if the league expands to 11 or 12 members, the TV money per school would remain the same. 14 members was not addressed, so either way we would only be speculating.

It is perfectly plausible that the quote said 11 or 12 because 12 is the limit, and also perfectly plausible that the quote said 11 or 12 because the person talking has a two team expansion in mind and was not particularly interested in expanding to 14.

I recall one article where a conference official (Boren or Bowlsby) said the pro rata clause was for 12 and was NOT for 14.

(02-14-2016 11:48 AM)lance99 Wrote:  I said it before and I will say it again: The Big 12 will NOT fix the WVU Island Problem with Cinci by creating another Island farther away with UConn

Well, I agree with that. I think the island thing went down the tubes the second they passed on Louisville and the ACC wisely scooped them up. That was definitely a shot to the solar plexus by the ACC.

However, that is not why I favor Connecticut over all of the other contenders. I favor the Huskies because I think they have the best athletic program of the group. I also think a lot of people are grossly underestimating UConn's appeal and its potential.

I know the Huskies have strong support. I think Big 12 fans would be shocked at the level of support Connecticut gets locally. I also know that UConn has a legitimate presence in New York City – which is something the Big 12 should definitely be interested in.

I have told this story before and I will tell it again because I really think it sums up the situation very well.

I attended six different Big East Tournaments at Madison Square Garden and loved everyone of them. Those games just had an incredible atmosphere that nowhere else I've ever been seems to be able to match.

That said, at every single tournament I attended, the UConn fans were always in the middle of some nonsense. They were so brash and arrogant and obnoxious and combative that every fan of every other school absolutely hated them. I had no problem with Connecticut or its fans whatsoever prior to attending Big East tournament games. However after going a few times, they were my second least favorite fan base in the Big East (West Virginia's fans were worse).

Honestly, we would be in the bars that are nearby MSG and you would hear the Villanova fans, and the Providence fans, and Georgetown fans, and the Pitt fans, and whoever was there all making fun of the Connecticut fans because A.) there were so many of them there and B.) they were such arseholes to everyone else.

Syracuse brought a similar number of fans to the games and that program was similarly successful, but their fans weren't nearly as idiotic towards everyone else. After witnessing it from so many different groups for so many years, I do believe it is a cultural thing at Connecticut. There's just strong, historically toxic levels of arsehole in the water there. They just don't get it – or at least they didn't get it at that time.

They just weren't very nice people and they seemed to fail to grasp the fairly straightforward notion that your opponent is not necessarily your enemy.

That's me really going out of my way to explain to you how I feel about UConn's fans on a personal level. As a rule, I don't like or respect them and I doubt many other Big East fans would disagree. However, I have to be honest and the truth is they also had a very loyal, passionate fan base that encompass the entire state and spilled into metro NYC.

I attended a football game up at Rentschler Field as well and it too was strange and confrontational but was also passionate.

Let me put it this way: I am against the ACC expanding any further. Fourteen teams is already a big, unwieldy number. Going to 16 teams doesn't help anything.

However, if the ACC were to lose a team or two to another league, my first two phone calls would be to Connecticut and Cincinnati. My next choices would be the Florida schools.

(02-14-2016 11:48 AM)lance99 Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 08:29 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  That league should take UConn and Cincy and be done with it. I'm going to give the exact opposite advice as Horace Greeley once famously gave. Go East young man. That's where all the money and population is located and that's were the best TV time slots will be found.

I said it before and I will say it again: The Big 12 will NOT fix the WVU Island Problem with Cinci by creating another Island farther away with UConn

Look as a group and think again.

(02-15-2016 10:26 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Let me put it this way: I am against the ACC expanding any further. Fourteen teams is already a big, unwieldy number. Going to 16 teams doesn't help anything.

Excepting your personal observations of UConn fans, I think you're basically right except for one point...

The ACC already has 15 All-sports/14-football members. So, the issue of going to 16 is really only relevant if ND were to bring their FB into the ACC (thereby making 15 FB members...). 15 Basketball programs is manageable (no divisions) but 15 FB programs...barring "pods" or some such arrangements...doesn't work as well. So, adding a 16th member would only make sense. (And going from 15 to 16 is no big deal.)

So, "Going to 16" (as things currently stand) really only makes sense if ND were to give up FB independence and go "all in" on the ACC. And I have to believe that ND would get a large measure of say in who would be "#16".

(02-14-2016 02:32 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 11:03 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  Matt Schonvisky
‏@MattSchonvisky
SOURCE: #UConn among schools recommended for #Big12 expansion following pulling of metrics by Chicago based firm, Navigate Research


Article from Navigate Reseach:

Why Do Conferences Expand?
Navigate Research - Wednesday, January 21, 2015
http://www.navigateresearch.com/navigate...ces-expand
Written by Dan Kozlak


"However, the vast majority of the change has been and will continue to be driven by financial gains. With a new wave of realignment poised to take place, what are some of the key areas that conferences look for in a school to consider that institution as a candidate for expansion? Let’s take a look at a basic process for building the case for a university as a candidate for expansion into a major conference:

1. University Size - More students equal more dollars, more alumni, and an overall larger fan base. Schools with large student populations are naturally attractive because they produce more alumni, which then become fans and ultimately consumers.

2. APR and Academic Success Measures - Conferences are still set in place to help manage institutions of higher learning, and keeping successful academics is certainly a part of that mission. Schools that can enhance the overall academic profile of a conference have an advantage.

3. Television DMA Size - This is a major factor. Many contend it was the driving force behind Rutgers or Maryland to the Big 10. Just because a school may not have a strong following in a particular city does not mean that its location cannot be lucrative to a conference. It is more about the market’s reach and the potential subscription fees that can be charged.

4. Alumni Presence - Conferences want to see an active alumni base, both in athletics and the university. Alumni are key for season tickets, donations, and more.

5. Recruiting - Many conferences sees schools as a favorable place to expand because of recruiting access. Think about USF going to the BIG EAST over a decade ago. That now seems to purely have been a recruiting play with the BIG EAST attempting to gain a footprint in Florida, a high school football recruiting stronghold.

While these metrics are surely not the only metrics that conferences look at when considering expansion, they are certainly a few of the most important."

But, almost everybody in the AAC, C-USA, MAC, MWC, Sun Belt and FCS cover almost all 5.

This isn't even close to true.

Cincinnati has more living alumni than almost every non-Big 10 school in the nation. With 285,000 living alums, we dwarf USF & UCF (both of which were tiny schools 30 years ago) and every other G5 school except SDSU and UConn. USF & UCF might be bigger in the future, but with 43,700 students and a higher graduation rate than them we're currently graduating more students every year.

When it comes to academic success measures, UC is ahead of every G5 school except Rice, although UConn, Temple and CSU are about at our level. Everyone else except Tulane, USF, SMU, and SDSU isn't even close.

Our recruiting and market size aren't too shabby either, so no one except Houston & SMU has a big advantage over us in that regard.

Now these might not be the metrics that the conferences are looking at. For example, Louisville only has about 110,000 living alums and they got picked. But if these are the right metrics, Cincinnati is the clear #1 choice.

(02-15-2016 11:37 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 11:48 AM)lance99 Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 08:29 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  That league should take UConn and Cincy and be done with it. I'm going to give the exact opposite advice as Horace Greeley once famously gave. Go East young man. That's where all the money and population is located and that's were the best TV time slots will be found.

I said it before and I will say it again: The Big 12 will NOT fix the WVU Island Problem with Cinci by creating another Island farther away with UConn

Look as a group and think again.

For MW fans, those distances don't look bad at all.

UConn is far but it isn't too far, I only wish there was a better option closer.

(02-15-2016 12:37 PM)CyclonePower Wrote:  UConn is far but it isn't too far, I only wish there was a better option closer.

There was Nebraska and Colorado and Missouri and Texas A&M...

(02-14-2016 09:42 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 09:29 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  If you think UC is going to enhance B12 basketball when its floundering in the AAC you are clearly not understanding the difference from participating in the 8th rated basketball conference and the #1 rated basketball conference in the B12.

UC basketball is a drop in the ocean compared to the programs of the B12.

UC football is a joke compared to B12 football programs.

If the B12 is gutted and needs 5-6 AAC programs to retain itself then yes UC becomes fairly appealing as an option.

Insert Ohio U where you have UC then you have a winner. BTW UC is
.5 games out of 1st place and can win the conference outright or win the tourney also. Any extra tickets for the Monday/Tuesday MACNation games?

It is a good comparison. Insert Ohio U and #10 rated basketball conference instead of Cincinnati and #8 rated basketball conference.

There is a segment of Ohio fans that want to move up to the AAC. The basketball budget exceeds some AAC schools and basketball attendance would be in the upper half of the AAC. Number #1 in both categories in the MAC.

The difference is our fans understand that if we move to the AAC no longer will Ohio be leading the conference in attendance and have the competitive advantages of the MAC. UC fans however think they can roll in the #1 basketball and #2 football conference in the country.

UC to the ACC I think is a different arguement since you'll be in their with Louisville and Pittsburgh strategic rivals and its not that much stronger of a football conference than the AAC. Its conceivable UC can finish in the upper half of the AAC football conference. UC probably brings more value to the ACC than any other AAC candidate. UConn's regional market value is negated in the ACC with Syracuse and Boston College already in there.

UConn to the B12 the market value arguement is at its maximum. Basketball arguement is at its maximum with an amazing reputation in the sport. Its very conceivable they could be up at the top of the B12 with Kansas in basketball.

You can't just look at which conference is going to give your school the most money but how the school will do if they move to that conference.

If UConn (school/fans/alumni) doesn't care about the long distances to Big 12 schools, and the Big 12 doesn't care about creating a new "island", is the whole location/geography topic really an issue at all? Obviously, both parties would love something more convenient and within closer proximity for conferences, but the Big 12 and UConn really need each other. UConn needs an entry into the P5 and out of the AAC, and the Big 12 needs to keep the status quo as a power conference and maintain its strong perception.

(02-15-2016 01:18 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 09:42 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 09:29 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  If you think UC is going to enhance B12 basketball when its floundering in the AAC you are clearly not understanding the difference from participating in the 8th rated basketball conference and the #1 rated basketball conference in the B12.

UC basketball is a drop in the ocean compared to the programs of the B12.

UC football is a joke compared to B12 football programs.

If the B12 is gutted and needs 5-6 AAC programs to retain itself then yes UC becomes fairly appealing as an option.

Insert Ohio U where you have UC then you have a winner. BTW UC is
.5 games out of 1st place and can win the conference outright or win the tourney also. Any extra tickets for the Monday/Tuesday MACNation games?

It is a good comparison. Insert Ohio U and #10 rated basketball conference instead of Cincinnati and #8 rated basketball conference.

There is a segment of Ohio fans that want to move up to the AAC. The basketball budget exceeds some AAC schools and basketball attendance would be in the upper half of the AAC. Number #1 in both categories in the MAC.

The difference is our fans understand that if we move to the AAC no longer will Ohio be leading the conference in attendance and have the competitive advantages of the MAC. UC fans however think they can roll in the #1 basketball and #2 football conference in the country.

UC to the ACC I think is a different arguement since you'll be in their with Louisville and Pittsburgh strategic rivals and its not that much stronger of a football conference than the AAC. Its conceivable UC can finish in the upper half of the AAC football conference. UC probably brings more value to the ACC than any other AAC candidate. UConn's regional market value is negated in the ACC with Syracuse and Boston College already in there.

UConn to the B12 the market value arguement is at its maximum. Basketball arguement is at its maximum with an amazing reputation in the sport. Its very conceivable they could be up at the top of the B12 with Kansas in basketball.

You can't just look at which conference is going to give your school the most money but how the school will do if they move to that conference.

Its really too bad Ohio U doesn't get the facilities and fan support because they would be a good candidate for the Big 12. I guess being in the lull of the MAC can do that to a team as its hard to defend spending $$ to upgrade the facilities in that conference.

If Cincy and UConn get into the P5 then the Big East less USF have all been absorbed. I believe was the youngest BE school?

(02-15-2016 01:30 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  If Cincy and UConn get into the P5 then the Big East less USF have all been absorbed. I believe was the youngest BE school?

Cincinnati, Louisville, USF, DePaul and Marquette all became members in the Big East in 2005. If UConn and Cincinnati were both to leave the American, that would leave USF as the sole remaining member of the OBE that is not currently in a power conference.

(02-15-2016 01:37 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(02-15-2016 01:30 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  If Cincy and UConn get into the P5 then the Big East less USF have all been absorbed. I believe was the youngest BE school?

Cincinnati, Louisville, USF, DePaul and Marquette all became members in the Big East in 2005. If UConn and Cincinnati were both to leave the American, that would leave USF as the sole remaining member of the OBE that is not currently in a power conference.

Right. But they were the youngest team that played football, as USF only started football in 1997. They haven't played 20 years of football yet.

UConn entered the Big East in everything but football in 1979. They became a football member in 2004 after BC, Miami and VT fled. UC, UofL, USF, DePaul and Marquette's entrance in the Big East was delayed a year by a lawsuit that was filed by members of the first edition of C-USA.

(02-15-2016 12:19 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 02:32 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 11:03 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  Matt Schonvisky
‏@MattSchonvisky
SOURCE: #UConn among schools recommended for #Big12 expansion following pulling of metrics by Chicago based firm, Navigate Research


Article from Navigate Reseach:

Why Do Conferences Expand?
Navigate Research - Wednesday, January 21, 2015
http://www.navigateresearch.com/navigate...ces-expand
Written by Dan Kozlak


"However, the vast majority of the change has been and will continue to be driven by financial gains. With a new wave of realignment poised to take place, what are some of the key areas that conferences look for in a school to consider that institution as a candidate for expansion? Let’s take a look at a basic process for building the case for a university as a candidate for expansion into a major conference:

1. University Size - More students equal more dollars, more alumni, and an overall larger fan base. Schools with large student populations are naturally attractive because they produce more alumni, which then become fans and ultimately consumers.

2. APR and Academic Success Measures - Conferences are still set in place to help manage institutions of higher learning, and keeping successful academics is certainly a part of that mission. Schools that can enhance the overall academic profile of a conference have an advantage.

3. Television DMA Size - This is a major factor. Many contend it was the driving force behind Rutgers or Maryland to the Big 10. Just because a school may not have a strong following in a particular city does not mean that its location cannot be lucrative to a conference. It is more about the market’s reach and the potential subscription fees that can be charged.

4. Alumni Presence - Conferences want to see an active alumni base, both in athletics and the university. Alumni are key for season tickets, donations, and more.

5. Recruiting - Many conferences sees schools as a favorable place to expand because of recruiting access. Think about USF going to the BIG EAST over a decade ago. That now seems to purely have been a recruiting play with the BIG EAST attempting to gain a footprint in Florida, a high school football recruiting stronghold.

While these metrics are surely not the only metrics that conferences look at when considering expansion, they are certainly a few of the most important."

But, almost everybody in the AAC, C-USA, MAC, MWC, Sun Belt and FCS cover almost all 5.

This isn't even close to true.

Cincinnati has more living alumni than almost every non-Big 10 school in the nation. With 285,000 living alums, we dwarf USF & UCF (both of which were tiny schools 30 years ago) and every other G5 school except SDSU and UConn. USF & UCF might be bigger in the future, but with 43,700 students and a higher graduation rate than them we're currently graduating more students every year.

Time for a fact check on alumni #'s.

South Florida 290,000
Cincinnati 285,000
San Diego State 280,000
Central Florida 250,000
Buffalo 230,000
Connecticut 230,000
Houston 224,000
Kent State 214,000
Colorado State 200,000
San Jose State 200,000
Miami U. 200,000
Western Michigan 185,000

While UC is near the top of alumni numbers among G5 schools it hardly dwarfs anyone in the G5 beyond the private schools.

The claim that UC dwarfs alumni of non-B1G schools is also false. I don't have all the numbers but one site that has the Top 50 networks (a list that UC is squarely not a part of).

NYU 470,000
UCLA 400,000
Florida 367,000
Texas A&M 370,000
Southern Cal 366,000
Columbia 300,000
North Carolina 300,000
Georgia 300,000
Auburn 200,000
John's Hopkins 190,000
Emory 133,000
Princeton 90,000

http://www.bestcollegevalues.org/top-alumni-networks/

(02-15-2016 02:08 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(02-15-2016 12:19 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  This isn't even close to true.

Cincinnati has more living alumni than almost every non-Big 10 school in the nation. With 285,000 living alums, we dwarf USF & UCF (both of which were tiny schools 30 years ago) and every other G5 school except SDSU and UConn. USF & UCF might be bigger in the future, but with 43,700 students and a higher graduation rate than them we're currently graduating more students every year.

Time for a fact check on alumni #'s.

South Florida 290,000
Cincinnati 285,000
San Diego State 280,000
Central Florida 250,000
Buffalo 230,000
Connecticut 230,000
Houston 224,000
Kent State 214,000
Colorado State 200,000
San Jose State 200,000
Miami U. 200,000
Western Michigan 185,000

While UC is near the top of alumni numbers among G5 schools it hardly dwarfs anyone in the G5 beyond the private schools.

The claim that UC dwarfs alumni of non-B1G schools is also false. I don't have all the numbers but one site that has the Top 50 networks (a list that UC is squarely not a part of).

NYU 470,000
UCLA 400,000
Florida 367,000
Texas A&M 370,000
Southern Cal 366,000
Columbia 300,000
North Carolina 300,000
Georgia 300,000
Auburn 200,000
John's Hopkins 190,000
Emory 133,000
Princeton 90,000

http://www.bestcollegevalues.org/top-alumni-networks/

I'm very skeptical Captain's claims are true, but you should work on your 'fact checking'.

1) If you are going to do so, it's very basic that you should probably cite your source. I don't doubt your numbers, but without citing, you are just doing the same thing captain was.

2) When you cite your source, do some even basic vetting of the data you quote. For example, the list you linked to is a ranking of most powerful alumni groups, which wasn't captian's claim. Also, while the numbers quoted in the second list appear in the article, the data appears to be inconsistently accurate based on a cursory lookup of a couple schools.

That article used LinkedIn members affiliations to quote management level connections, which is incomplete data at best. And, apparently, they didn't use VSE survey data to quote alumni giving %'s, which is the standard as it's participated in by most schools. You have to pay for that data, so I can't post it here, and it's kind of irrelevant to the original point, but is a pretty big oversight by the list you linked to.

Again, I highly doubt what captain says is true, but if you are going to be condescending, you should at least work a little harder than that.

(02-15-2016 01:25 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(02-15-2016 01:18 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 09:42 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 09:29 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  If you think UC is going to enhance B12 basketball when its floundering in the AAC you are clearly not understanding the difference from participating in the 8th rated basketball conference and the #1 rated basketball conference in the B12.

UC basketball is a drop in the ocean compared to the programs of the B12.

UC football is a joke compared to B12 football programs.

If the B12 is gutted and needs 5-6 AAC programs to retain itself then yes UC becomes fairly appealing as an option.

Insert Ohio U where you have UC then you have a winner. BTW UC is
.5 games out of 1st place and can win the conference outright or win the tourney also. Any extra tickets for the Monday/Tuesday MACNation games?

It is a good comparison. Insert Ohio U and #10 rated basketball conference instead of Cincinnati and #8 rated basketball conference.

There is a segment of Ohio fans that want to move up to the AAC. The basketball budget exceeds some AAC schools and basketball attendance would be in the upper half of the AAC. Number #1 in both categories in the MAC.

The difference is our fans understand that if we move to the AAC no longer will Ohio be leading the conference in attendance and have the competitive advantages of the MAC. UC fans however think they can roll in the #1 basketball and #2 football conference in the country.

UC to the ACC I think is a different arguement since you'll be in their with Louisville and Pittsburgh strategic rivals and its not that much stronger of a football conference than the AAC. Its conceivable UC can finish in the upper half of the AAC football conference. UC probably brings more value to the ACC than any other AAC candidate. UConn's regional market value is negated in the ACC with Syracuse and Boston College already in there.

UConn to the B12 the market value arguement is at its maximum. Basketball arguement is at its maximum with an amazing reputation in the sport. Its very conceivable they could be up at the top of the B12 with Kansas in basketball.

You can't just look at which conference is going to give your school the most money but how the school will do if they move to that conference.

Its really too bad Ohio U doesn't get the facilities and fan support because they would be a good candidate for the Big 12. I guess being in the lull of the MAC can do that to a team as its hard to defend spending $$ to upgrade the facilities in that conference.

Ohio gets 24-25k for a Saturday FB game and 9-10k in basketball so I don't see how that is weak fan support. That's pretty good for a G5 school.

The problem is Athens is the smallest town in FBS. Without the students the town proper only has a few thousand residents. It makes Manhattan Kansas look like a big market.

Morgantown is 2 hours away and at 31,000 (103,000 county) it made enough difference to justify at larger football stadium. Mountaineer Field was built to 38,000 seats in 1927. Peden Stadium where Ohio plays was built in 1929 but for only 12,000 seats.

(02-15-2016 12:19 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 02:32 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(02-14-2016 11:03 AM)HuskyU Wrote:  Matt Schonvisky
‏@MattSchonvisky
SOURCE: #UConn among schools recommended for #Big12 expansion following pulling of metrics by Chicago based firm, Navigate Research


Article from Navigate Reseach:

Why Do Conferences Expand?
Navigate Research - Wednesday, January 21, 2015
http://www.navigateresearch.com/navigate...ces-expand
Written by Dan Kozlak


"However, the vast majority of the change has been and will continue to be driven by financial gains. With a new wave of realignment poised to take place, what are some of the key areas that conferences look for in a school to consider that institution as a candidate for expansion? Let’s take a look at a basic process for building the case for a university as a candidate for expansion into a major conference:

1. University Size - More students equal more dollars, more alumni, and an overall larger fan base. Schools with large student populations are naturally attractive because they produce more alumni, which then become fans and ultimately consumers.

2. APR and Academic Success Measures - Conferences are still set in place to help manage institutions of higher learning, and keeping successful academics is certainly a part of that mission. Schools that can enhance the overall academic profile of a conference have an advantage.

3. Television DMA Size - This is a major factor. Many contend it was the driving force behind Rutgers or Maryland to the Big 10. Just because a school may not have a strong following in a particular city does not mean that its location cannot be lucrative to a conference. It is more about the market’s reach and the potential subscription fees that can be charged.

4. Alumni Presence - Conferences want to see an active alumni base, both in athletics and the university. Alumni are key for season tickets, donations, and more.

5. Recruiting - Many conferences sees schools as a favorable place to expand because of recruiting access. Think about USF going to the BIG EAST over a decade ago. That now seems to purely have been a recruiting play with the BIG EAST attempting to gain a footprint in Florida, a high school football recruiting stronghold.

While these metrics are surely not the only metrics that conferences look at when considering expansion, they are certainly a few of the most important."

But, almost everybody in the AAC, C-USA, MAC, MWC, Sun Belt and FCS cover almost all 5.

This isn't even close to true.

Cincinnati has more living alumni than almost every non-Big 10 school in the nation. With 285,000 living alums, we dwarf USF & UCF (both of which were tiny schools 30 years ago) and every other G5 school except SDSU and UConn. USF & UCF might be bigger in the future, but with 43,700 students and a higher graduation rate than them we're currently graduating more students every year.

When it comes to academic success measures, UC is ahead of every G5 school except Rice, although UConn, Temple and CSU are about at our level. Everyone else except Tulane, USF, SMU, and SDSU isn't even close.

Our recruiting and market size aren't too shabby either, so no one except Houston & SMU has a big advantage over us in that regard.

Now these might not be the metrics that the conferences are looking at. For example, Louisville only has about 110,000 living alums and they got picked. But if these are the right metrics, Cincinnati is the clear #1 choice.

You are in fact not graduating more students than UCF, idk about USF but I'd assume that is also untrue. Your market is currently ranked #36, so there are several schools that are ahead you in that regard including USF, Houston, UCF, UCONN, SMU, and Temple. http://www.tvb.org/media/file/2015-2016-dma-ranks.pdf

We also know your line about living alumni is false, so all in all you've firmly discredited yourself.