(10-10-2017 12:07 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-10-2017 11:48 AM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  With the shape of their football program is UConn really a viable B12 school? Replace them with Houston.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

UConn is viable in the sense that it has all of the off-the-field metrics (academics, flagship school, large and new TV market on paper) that are honestly much harder to change and generally more important to university presidents than on-the-field performance. The true value of a school is really measured by what it's still bringing to the table when the football team record is 0-12 instead of 12-0.

That being said, I have said many times before that one of the most underrated aspects about why UConn has been locked out of the P5 is simply time: they have a FBS program that isn't even 20 years old at this point. When you have administrators with power that have been working in college football for 40 or 50 years, they just can't wrap their heads around bringing in a school that, for all intents and purposes, is still a start-up football program from their vantage point. This is an issue for UCF and USF, too (where their FBS programs started in the 1990s/2000s as opposed to the 1890s/1900s). Academia is quite possibly the most blue blooded atmosphere anywhere, so youth is definitely a huge disadvantage. There's nothing that can really change that aspect other than time itself.

So in other words Rice is seen as a blue blood because of their history and past affiliations. Other G5s might be seen that way such as SMU, Tulane, Tulsa, BYU, the Academies, etc.

(10-10-2017 10:45 AM)panite Wrote:  

(10-10-2017 10:26 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-09-2017 10:07 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  I may be wrong in some aspects, but I have the impression the P5 is not keen on taking new member schools into the club. They were not complaining when less than a year ago the B12 decided not to expand after considering/interviewing a large number of G5 schools. Their broadcast networks were opposing B12 expansion, and the reasons reached beyond the immediate payouts that would be involved.

That said, USF and UCF could certainly succeed in P5 if future expansion scenarios swing their way.

Very few scenarios. The only ways I see are 1) UT and OU leave Big 12 and they expand east and hold onto P5 status; or 2) FSU leaves the ACC and they decide they need another Florida school to backup Miami; or 3) Strategic division of ACC by SEC and B1G and they need filler to get to the right number of schools (B1G and SEC each could have 2-12 team conferences so they would need 5 extra schools-14 B1G, 14 SEC, 15 ACC + WVU + 4 others).

UConn, Cincinnati and Houston have more scenarios that work in their favor. The location and membership of the other conferences don't help the Florida twins.

First Texas and Oklahoma must decide if they are staying in the B-12 and lead it. If they stay one scenario with expansion east might include the Florida schools if the B-12 goes to 14 teams.

B-12 NE - Iowa St., WV, Cinn, UConn, UCF, USF, Kansas
B-12 SW - Texas, TT, TCU, Oklahoma, OK St., Baylor, K-ST.

More likely B-12 expands with 2 without Florida schools:

B-12 North - Iowa St., WV, Kansas, K-State, Cinn, UCONN / BYU.
B-12 South - Texas, Oklahoma, OK ST., Baylor, TCU. TT.

The odds of the Big 12 going to 14 with 4 G5 schools is about the same as the odds of Ohio St. leaving the Big 10 for the SEC. Its possible, but so remote as to not be worth discussion. And as of this point in time, it was pretty clear the Big 12 thought the top 3 were BYU, Cincinnati and Houston. For geographic or other reasons, UCF and USF were not in the top 3. So the odds of them getting into a 2 team Big 12 expansion are small unless things change in the future.

(10-10-2017 11:51 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(10-08-2017 04:47 PM)otown Wrote:  

(10-08-2017 04:37 PM)rednblackattack Wrote:  The day they are added to the Big 12 is the day Texas and OU will bolt

Strong words coming from a school that probably couldn't even get admitted to the Sun Belt if they had no current conference shelter.

One that still beat your Gators in the Sugar Bowl.

Yep, that team......and would it surprise anybody if the disgusting filth that the Louisville athletic depart swam in flowed through their football program as well? Teddy Bridgewater grew up in Miami and was committed to Miami. He ultimately decommitted from them and went to Louisville. Sorry, that school is toxic. Clint Hurtt flipped him and got quite a few from South Florida to go to Louisville. They even kept Hurtt on staff after the show cause penalty.

(10-10-2017 01:09 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(10-10-2017 12:07 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-10-2017 11:48 AM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  With the shape of their football program is UConn really a viable B12 school? Replace them with Houston.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

UConn is viable in the sense that it has all of the off-the-field metrics (academics, flagship school, large and new TV market on paper) that are honestly much harder to change and generally more important to university presidents than on-the-field performance. The true value of a school is really measured by what it's still bringing to the table when the football team record is 0-12 instead of 12-0.

That being said, I have said many times before that one of the most underrated aspects about why UConn has been locked out of the P5 is simply time: they have a FBS program that isn't even 20 years old at this point. When you have administrators with power that have been working in college football for 40 or 50 years, they just can't wrap their heads around bringing in a school that, for all intents and purposes, is still a start-up football program from their vantage point. This is an issue for UCF and USF, too (where their FBS programs started in the 1990s/2000s as opposed to the 1890s/1900s). Academia is quite possibly the most blue blooded atmosphere anywhere, so youth is definitely a huge disadvantage. There's nothing that can really change that aspect other than time itself.

So in other words Rice is seen as a blue blood because of their history and past affiliations. Other G5s might be seen that way such as SMU, Tulane, Tulsa, BYU, the Academies, etc.

With the Big 12 expansion, you heard more positive talk coming from the CEOs about Tulane than you did about UCF or USF. And that is almost 100% because of pedigree.

I don't know about networks wanting to keep P-5 from expanding
ESPN has over 200 P-5 games & can see thier reluctance.
Fox has 90 & would love to get in eastern time zone.
NBC has 7, there are B-12 games that would complement ND
CBS has 15 & has sports network they would like to see on par with ESPN

18 school B-12 would have 120 P-5 games to sell
pull 20 games from Fox [which would be conf network games]
set aside another 20 games for conf network
B-12 now has 40 P-5 games up for bid

that gives B-12 275 BB games to sell
law of avg's is 3 access bowls a yr
12-14 BB bids
12 bowl games
conf network signs NMST & Mass & play schools in network footprint
they would help with sch, inventory & dropping 1AA schools

now that's how you expand

(10-08-2017 04:19 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If USF and UCF continue to sustain success does it make them any more attractive for P5 membership? If the Big 12 somehow continues beyond the expiration of their GOR do they get in as a pair? They bring a pair of nice Florida markets and rich recruiting and could either be put with the 4 Texas schools for a division, creating the opportunity for a a Texas-Oklahoma rematch for a title. Or they could be matched with WVU and the 3 prairie schools.

In a word, NO

Remember the big run of Boise State. Nothing came of it, except a "super G5" plan by the Big East in a desperate effort to keep their BCS status -- which they would not have kept with or without Boise State. There are criteria beyond a few years of grid iron success to be added to the club. To be honest they want to see if you bring as much benefit to the table on 1-11 years as when winning. They call it a 100 year decision because they can't get rid of you. It's not European Soccer with relegation. So the Presidents of the already club member schools have to want your school as a peer institution or not.

They can get added to the Big 12 after OU and Texas leave, and likely take 2 or 3 other schools with them. At which point the B12 is no longer a P5 conference. But that falls under desperation back fill.

Basically all it does is allow the top 4 AAC and maybe a couple MWC schools to move to a new top G5 (G6?) conference, replacing Navy, Tulsa and Tulane and ECU with Baylor, Texas Tech and Kansas State.

(10-10-2017 01:36 PM)otown Wrote:  

(10-10-2017 11:51 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(10-08-2017 04:47 PM)otown Wrote:  

(10-08-2017 04:37 PM)rednblackattack Wrote:  The day they are added to the Big 12 is the day Texas and OU will bolt

Strong words coming from a school that probably couldn't even get admitted to the Sun Belt if they had no current conference shelter.

One that still beat your Gators in the Sugar Bowl.

Yep, that team......and would it surprise anybody if the disgusting filth that the Louisville athletic depart swam in flowed through their football program as well? Teddy Bridgewater grew up in Miami and was committed to Miami. He ultimately decommitted from them and went to Louisville. Sorry, that school is toxic. Clint Hurtt flipped him and got quite a few from South Florida to go to Louisville. They even kept Hurtt on staff after the show cause penalty.

And that was not nearly as close as the final score indicated. Louisville broke Florida in that game

(10-10-2017 03:46 PM)rednblackattack Wrote:  

(10-10-2017 01:36 PM)otown Wrote:  

(10-10-2017 11:51 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(10-08-2017 04:47 PM)otown Wrote:  

(10-08-2017 04:37 PM)rednblackattack Wrote:  The day they are added to the Big 12 is the day Texas and OU will bolt

Strong words coming from a school that probably couldn't even get admitted to the Sun Belt if they had no current conference shelter.

One that still beat your Gators in the Sugar Bowl.

Yep, that team......and would it surprise anybody if the disgusting filth that the Louisville athletic depart swam in flowed through their football program as well? Teddy Bridgewater grew up in Miami and was committed to Miami. He ultimately decommitted from them and went to Louisville. Sorry, that school is toxic. Clint Hurtt flipped him and got quite a few from South Florida to go to Louisville. They even kept Hurtt on staff after the show cause penalty.

And that was not nearly as close as the final score indicated. Louisville broke Florida in that game

Yep, you were on a role and manhandled us that game. Doesn't change the fact that your program is/was dirty and it is quite possible that the win will be handed back to the NCAA just like the rest of the recent Louisville accomplishments.

(10-10-2017 03:51 PM)otown Wrote:  

(10-10-2017 03:46 PM)rednblackattack Wrote:  

(10-10-2017 01:36 PM)otown Wrote:  

(10-10-2017 11:51 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(10-08-2017 04:47 PM)otown Wrote:  Strong words coming from a school that probably couldn't even get admitted to the Sun Belt if they had no current conference shelter.

One that still beat your Gators in the Sugar Bowl.

Yep, that team......and would it surprise anybody if the disgusting filth that the Louisville athletic depart swam in flowed through their football program as well? Teddy Bridgewater grew up in Miami and was committed to Miami. He ultimately decommitted from them and went to Louisville. Sorry, that school is toxic. Clint Hurtt flipped him and got quite a few from South Florida to go to Louisville. They even kept Hurtt on staff after the show cause penalty.

And that was not nearly as close as the final score indicated. Louisville broke Florida in that game

Yep, you were on a role and manhandled us that game. Doesn't change the fact that your program is/was dirty and it is quite possible that the win will be handed back to the NCAA just like the rest of the recent Louisville accomplishments.

Football is clean bro

You all just lost to LSU, who lost to Troy. So Troy>Florida?

(10-10-2017 03:46 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(10-08-2017 04:19 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If USF and UCF continue to sustain success does it make them any more attractive for P5 membership? If the Big 12 somehow continues beyond the expiration of their GOR do they get in as a pair? They bring a pair of nice Florida markets and rich recruiting and could either be put with the 4 Texas schools for a division, creating the opportunity for a a Texas-Oklahoma rematch for a title. Or they could be matched with WVU and the 3 prairie schools.

In a word, NO

Remember the big run of Boise State. Nothing came of it, except a "super G5" plan by the Big East in a desperate effort to keep their BCS status -- which they would not have kept with or without Boise State. There are criteria beyond a few years of grid iron success to be added to the club. To be honest they want to see if you bring as much benefit to the table on 1-11 years as when winning. They call it a 100 year decision because they can't get rid of you. It's not European Soccer with relegation. So the Presidents of the already club member schools have to want your school as a peer institution or not.

They can get added to the Big 12 after OU and Texas leave, and likely take 2 or 3 other schools with them. At which point the B12 is no longer a P5 conference. But that falls under desperation back fill.


Basically all it does is allow the top 4 AAC and maybe a couple MWC schools to move to a new top G5 (G6?) conference, replacing Navy, Tulsa and Tulane and ECU with Baylor, Texas Tech and Kansas State.

It’s clear you don’t know anything about UCF/usf and Florida as whole of you believe that all they bring is a few years success.

(10-09-2017 03:20 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(10-09-2017 10:59 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  This is strictly for the attractiveness of UCF and USF for the Big 12 (as it's pointless to even consider them for the SEC or ACC, much less the Big Ten or Pac-12):

Advantages for UCF and USF: great locations both in terms of TV markets and recruiting; large enrollment schools that are growing fast; fairly good on-the-field track records compared to other G5 schools

Disadvantages for UCF and USF: arguably the most competitive college football market in the country with Florida and FSU being elite marquee programs and Miami being a top tier national TV brand (making attendance irrelevant with respect to Miami); very young FBS programs in a P5 world that craves/demands old school blue blood history even from weak programs (see Rutgers); real and perceived bias against "directional" schools in terms of branding; academic perception

Non-factor: It's irrelevant to argue that a G5 school would have better attendance or TV ratings by playing a P5 schedule because that would be true of *every* G5 school. Instead, a G5 school has to show that it would bring attendance, TV viewers and revenue to those *P5* schools as opposed to the other way around.

Now, I'll know we'll hear the arguments that it's hypocritical to use, say, academics as a factor against UCF and USF when you see a school like UNC systemically violating the NCAA's academic procedures... and those arguments are entirely correct. However, if you're a school on the outside looking in, it simply doesn't matter. Every argument that is used to keep you out will be emphasized much more heavily than any argument to bring you in. Simply being better than #65 out of the 65 P5 schools is NOT the standard being used.

Of course, all those points are moot if the Big 12 or any other P5 conference doesn't yield more per school revenue by choosing to expand. UCF and/or USF could go undefeated for the next 10 years straight and it wouldn't matter if that revenue equation doesn't change.

So in other words, bias and failure of imagination.

I'm sure the B12 wouldn't be interested in USC either because they are directional

revunue equation does change
B-12 goes from base of 40 m to 100 m
conf network makes more money, ratings go up
merchizings improves, atten goes up
applicants sky rocket, more money in donations down the road, if not now

(10-10-2017 04:50 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  

(10-09-2017 03:20 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(10-09-2017 10:59 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  This is strictly for the attractiveness of UCF and USF for the Big 12 (as it's pointless to even consider them for the SEC or ACC, much less the Big Ten or Pac-12):

Advantages for UCF and USF: great locations both in terms of TV markets and recruiting; large enrollment schools that are growing fast; fairly good on-the-field track records compared to other G5 schools

Disadvantages for UCF and USF: arguably the most competitive college football market in the country with Florida and FSU being elite marquee programs and Miami being a top tier national TV brand (making attendance irrelevant with respect to Miami); very young FBS programs in a P5 world that craves/demands old school blue blood history even from weak programs (see Rutgers); real and perceived bias against "directional" schools in terms of branding; academic perception

Non-factor: It's irrelevant to argue that a G5 school would have better attendance or TV ratings by playing a P5 schedule because that would be true of *every* G5 school. Instead, a G5 school has to show that it would bring attendance, TV viewers and revenue to those *P5* schools as opposed to the other way around.

Now, I'll know we'll hear the arguments that it's hypocritical to use, say, academics as a factor against UCF and USF when you see a school like UNC systemically violating the NCAA's academic procedures... and those arguments are entirely correct. However, if you're a school on the outside looking in, it simply doesn't matter. Every argument that is used to keep you out will be emphasized much more heavily than any argument to bring you in. Simply being better than #65 out of the 65 P5 schools is NOT the standard being used.

Of course, all those points are moot if the Big 12 or any other P5 conference doesn't yield more per school revenue by choosing to expand. UCF and/or USF could go undefeated for the next 10 years straight and it wouldn't matter if that revenue equation doesn't change.

So in other words, bias and failure of imagination.

I'm sure the B12 wouldn't be interested in USC either because they are directional

The perception of so-called directional schools is that these schools are not the state flagship, nor are they considered the number two state institution. Schools like East Carolina, South Florida, Central Florida, Western Michigan, Northern Illinois, Southern Mississippi, Central Michigan, Western Kentucky, etc. - are all viewed as number three (or lower) in their own respective state, athletically.

Perception-wise, ECU is behind UNC, Duke, NCST, WF; UCF and USF are behind UF, FSU and Miami; WMU are CMU behind UM and MSU; NIU is behind UI and NU; WKU is behind UK and UL.

Like Frank said, school presidents are old-school and like old-money. Universities like Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas would be unlikely to swallow their pride and associate themselves within a conference with such schools. The Big 12 would be torn apart, with the remnants calling teams up, long before they would choose the alternative.

(10-10-2017 07:44 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(10-10-2017 04:50 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  

(10-09-2017 03:20 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(10-09-2017 10:59 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  This is strictly for the attractiveness of UCF and USF for the Big 12 (as it's pointless to even consider them for the SEC or ACC, much less the Big Ten or Pac-12):

Advantages for UCF and USF: great locations both in terms of TV markets and recruiting; large enrollment schools that are growing fast; fairly good on-the-field track records compared to other G5 schools

Disadvantages for UCF and USF: arguably the most competitive college football market in the country with Florida and FSU being elite marquee programs and Miami being a top tier national TV brand (making attendance irrelevant with respect to Miami); very young FBS programs in a P5 world that craves/demands old school blue blood history even from weak programs (see Rutgers); real and perceived bias against "directional" schools in terms of branding; academic perception

Non-factor: It's irrelevant to argue that a G5 school would have better attendance or TV ratings by playing a P5 schedule because that would be true of *every* G5 school. Instead, a G5 school has to show that it would bring attendance, TV viewers and revenue to those *P5* schools as opposed to the other way around.

Now, I'll know we'll hear the arguments that it's hypocritical to use, say, academics as a factor against UCF and USF when you see a school like UNC systemically violating the NCAA's academic procedures... and those arguments are entirely correct. However, if you're a school on the outside looking in, it simply doesn't matter. Every argument that is used to keep you out will be emphasized much more heavily than any argument to bring you in. Simply being better than #65 out of the 65 P5 schools is NOT the standard being used.

Of course, all those points are moot if the Big 12 or any other P5 conference doesn't yield more per school revenue by choosing to expand. UCF and/or USF could go undefeated for the next 10 years straight and it wouldn't matter if that revenue equation doesn't change.

So in other words, bias and failure of imagination.

I'm sure the B12 wouldn't be interested in USC either because they are directional

The perception of so-called directional schools is that these schools are not the state flagship, nor are they considered the number two state institution. Schools like East Carolina, South Florida, Central Florida, Western Michigan, Northern Illinois, Southern Mississippi, Central Michigan, Western Kentucky, etc. - are all viewed as number three (or lower) in their own respective state, athletically.

Perception-wise, ECU is behind UNC, Duke, NCST, WF; UCF and USF are behind UF, FSU and Miami; WMU are CMU behind UM and MSU; NIU is behind UI and NU; WKU is behind UK and UL.

Like Frank said, school presidents are old-school and like old-money. Universities like Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas would be unlikely to swallow their pride and associate themselves within a conference with such schools. The Big 12 would be torn apart, with the remnants calling teams up, long before they would choose the alternative.

A couple of things; UCF is the 3rd most popular in Florida look it up, and being 3rd or even 4th most popular in a talent rich and 3rd most populous state isn’t bad. Would the B12 turn down Stanford or Cal bc they’re the 3rd or 4th popular in California (academics notwithstanding)? The B12 already has the 3rd most popular in Texas. The reality is some of you just can’t get over the damned name and that’s it.

(10-10-2017 10:02 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(10-10-2017 07:44 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(10-10-2017 04:50 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  

(10-09-2017 03:20 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(10-09-2017 10:59 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  This is strictly for the attractiveness of UCF and USF for the Big 12 (as it's pointless to even consider them for the SEC or ACC, much less the Big Ten or Pac-12):

Advantages for UCF and USF: great locations both in terms of TV markets and recruiting; large enrollment schools that are growing fast; fairly good on-the-field track records compared to other G5 schools

Disadvantages for UCF and USF: arguably the most competitive college football market in the country with Florida and FSU being elite marquee programs and Miami being a top tier national TV brand (making attendance irrelevant with respect to Miami); very young FBS programs in a P5 world that craves/demands old school blue blood history even from weak programs (see Rutgers); real and perceived bias against "directional" schools in terms of branding; academic perception

Non-factor: It's irrelevant to argue that a G5 school would have better attendance or TV ratings by playing a P5 schedule because that would be true of *every* G5 school. Instead, a G5 school has to show that it would bring attendance, TV viewers and revenue to those *P5* schools as opposed to the other way around.

Now, I'll know we'll hear the arguments that it's hypocritical to use, say, academics as a factor against UCF and USF when you see a school like UNC systemically violating the NCAA's academic procedures... and those arguments are entirely correct. However, if you're a school on the outside looking in, it simply doesn't matter. Every argument that is used to keep you out will be emphasized much more heavily than any argument to bring you in. Simply being better than #65 out of the 65 P5 schools is NOT the standard being used.

Of course, all those points are moot if the Big 12 or any other P5 conference doesn't yield more per school revenue by choosing to expand. UCF and/or USF could go undefeated for the next 10 years straight and it wouldn't matter if that revenue equation doesn't change.

So in other words, bias and failure of imagination.

I'm sure the B12 wouldn't be interested in USC either because they are directional

The perception of so-called directional schools is that these schools are not the state flagship, nor are they considered the number two state institution. Schools like East Carolina, South Florida, Central Florida, Western Michigan, Northern Illinois, Southern Mississippi, Central Michigan, Western Kentucky, etc. - are all viewed as number three (or lower) in their own respective state, athletically.

Perception-wise, ECU is behind UNC, Duke, NCST, WF; UCF and USF are behind UF, FSU and Miami; WMU are CMU behind UM and MSU; NIU is behind UI and NU; WKU is behind UK and UL.

Like Frank said, school presidents are old-school and like old-money. Universities like Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas would be unlikely to swallow their pride and associate themselves within a conference with such schools. The Big 12 would be torn apart, with the remnants calling teams up, long before they would choose the alternative.

A couple of things; UCF is the 3rd most popular in Florida look it up, and being 3rd or even 4th most popular in a talent rich and 3rd most populous state isn’t bad. Would the B12 turn down Stanford or Cal bc they’re the 3rd or 4th popular in California (academics notwithstanding)? The B12 already has the 3rd most popular in Texas. The reality is some of you just can’t get over the damned name and that’s it.

You made some valid points but us average Joes on message boards don't make those kind of decisions. Presidents do and whether we like it or not, there's a bias against schools that have directional names (and no, Southern Cal and Northwestern do not count since they're prestigious private institutions). Is it fair? No. Do you really think the University of Texas at Austin wants to be associated with a school(s) that has a South or Central name attached to it and that just moved up to FBS about 20 years ago? The day the Big XII schools start pushing for that, it's the day Texas will call the Pac-12 and Big Ten. Without Texas, the Big XII is toast. The other schools not named Oklahoma and Kansas know their options are limited so they won't bite the hand that feeds them just to get a Florida G5 school.

Tex bussiness model does not work, they know this from SWC
Tex has 4 options
1) give up LHN & invite 6 ACC schools
2) give up LHN & become role player in another estabished conf
3) keep status que & simply fade away into sunset like Pac 12
4} turn LHN into conf network, keep thier B-12 division,
extend thier footprint into NYC, Midwest, Fla, pac & mountain time zone
by expanding by 8

(10-10-2017 10:02 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(10-10-2017 07:44 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(10-10-2017 04:50 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  

(10-09-2017 03:20 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(10-09-2017 10:59 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  This is strictly for the attractiveness of UCF and USF for the Big 12 (as it's pointless to even consider them for the SEC or ACC, much less the Big Ten or Pac-12):

Advantages for UCF and USF: great locations both in terms of TV markets and recruiting; large enrollment schools that are growing fast; fairly good on-the-field track records compared to other G5 schools

Disadvantages for UCF and USF: arguably the most competitive college football market in the country with Florida and FSU being elite marquee programs and Miami being a top tier national TV brand (making attendance irrelevant with respect to Miami); very young FBS programs in a P5 world that craves/demands old school blue blood history even from weak programs (see Rutgers); real and perceived bias against "directional" schools in terms of branding; academic perception

Non-factor: It's irrelevant to argue that a G5 school would have better attendance or TV ratings by playing a P5 schedule because that would be true of *every* G5 school. Instead, a G5 school has to show that it would bring attendance, TV viewers and revenue to those *P5* schools as opposed to the other way around.

Now, I'll know we'll hear the arguments that it's hypocritical to use, say, academics as a factor against UCF and USF when you see a school like UNC systemically violating the NCAA's academic procedures... and those arguments are entirely correct. However, if you're a school on the outside looking in, it simply doesn't matter. Every argument that is used to keep you out will be emphasized much more heavily than any argument to bring you in. Simply being better than #65 out of the 65 P5 schools is NOT the standard being used.

Of course, all those points are moot if the Big 12 or any other P5 conference doesn't yield more per school revenue by choosing to expand. UCF and/or USF could go undefeated for the next 10 years straight and it wouldn't matter if that revenue equation doesn't change.

So in other words, bias and failure of imagination.

I'm sure the B12 wouldn't be interested in USC either because they are directional

The perception of so-called directional schools is that these schools are not the state flagship, nor are they considered the number two state institution. Schools like East Carolina, South Florida, Central Florida, Western Michigan, Northern Illinois, Southern Mississippi, Central Michigan, Western Kentucky, etc. - are all viewed as number three (or lower) in their own respective state, athletically.

Perception-wise, ECU is behind UNC, Duke, NCST, WF; UCF and USF are behind UF, FSU and Miami; WMU are CMU behind UM and MSU; NIU is behind UI and NU; WKU is behind UK and UL.

Like Frank said, school presidents are old-school and like old-money. Universities like Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas would be unlikely to swallow their pride and associate themselves within a conference with such schools. The Big 12 would be torn apart, with the remnants calling teams up, long before they would choose the alternative.

A couple of things; UCF is the 3rd most popular in Florida look it up, and being 3rd or even 4th most popular in a talent rich and 3rd most populous state isn’t bad. Would the B12 turn down Stanford or Cal bc they’re the 3rd or 4th popular in California (academics notwithstanding)? The B12 already has the 3rd most popular in Texas. The reality is some of you just can’t get over the damned name and that’s it.

Which of the three (UF/FSU/Miami) is UCF more popular than? Each of those three programs have a much strong athletic pedigree than UCF/USF, not to mention the history and national prestige.

And the logic of the Big 12 turning down Stanford/Cal/USC is groundless. Those three programs have decades of success, exposure and history that many schools cannot compete with.

For the record, I am not bad-mouthing directional schools. I was simply stating what the perception of them was from university Presidents, who are old-school and come from old money (much like Frank said).

(10-11-2017 09:41 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(10-10-2017 10:02 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(10-10-2017 07:44 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(10-10-2017 04:50 PM)Sellular1 Wrote:  

(10-09-2017 03:20 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  So in other words, bias and failure of imagination.

I'm sure the B12 wouldn't be interested in USC either because they are directional

The perception of so-called directional schools is that these schools are not the state flagship, nor are they considered the number two state institution. Schools like East Carolina, South Florida, Central Florida, Western Michigan, Northern Illinois, Southern Mississippi, Central Michigan, Western Kentucky, etc. - are all viewed as number three (or lower) in their own respective state, athletically.

Perception-wise, ECU is behind UNC, Duke, NCST, WF; UCF and USF are behind UF, FSU and Miami; WMU are CMU behind UM and MSU; NIU is behind UI and NU; WKU is behind UK and UL.

Like Frank said, school presidents are old-school and like old-money. Universities like Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas would be unlikely to swallow their pride and associate themselves within a conference with such schools. The Big 12 would be torn apart, with the remnants calling teams up, long before they would choose the alternative.

A couple of things; UCF is the 3rd most popular in Florida look it up, and being 3rd or even 4th most popular in a talent rich and 3rd most populous state isn’t bad. Would the B12 turn down Stanford or Cal bc they’re the 3rd or 4th popular in California (academics notwithstanding)? The B12 already has the 3rd most popular in Texas. The reality is some of you just can’t get over the damned name and that’s it.

Which of the three (UF/FSU/Miami) is UCF more popular than? Each of those three programs have a much strong athletic pedigree than UCF/USF, not to mention the history and national prestige.

And the logic of the Big 12 turning down Stanford/Cal/USC is groundless. Those three programs have decades of success, exposure and history that many schools cannot compete with.

For the record, I am not bad-mouthing directional schools. I was simply stating what the perception of them was from university Presidents, who are old-school and come from old money (much like Frank said).

Miami..... but I think he was basing it off of some statewide poll done by an company running political polls during last years election.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/sports/foot...PwI4tVLJP/

Nobody can question the U's pedigree and history, but one can question their fan support and popularity in the state.

Firstly, you elitist blue blood CFP fans crack me up... Times change, get with it, grow up, deal with it. You now have BIG universities playing football that have the capacity to routinely beat 'Power' schools. Deal with it. The arbitrary and artificial line that separates the 'P5' is just that... We all know the obvious hangers on in the P conferences... and we all know the obvious 'power programs' in the 'G5', as defined by enrollment, facilities, on the field success.

Houston beat 7 of its last 8 'P5' opponents... they were perfect until they lost by a field goal to Texas Tech. Grow up and deal with the new reality, it's 2017 for crissakes. Understand that 95% of real fans in the seats and on TV DO NOT FOLLOW TV CONTRACTS. That's just you message board wonks... Most fans understand that if UH and UCF win New Years bowls against TOP 'P5' teams... then your arbitrary conference lines are (speaking of the AAC primarily, and perhaps some MWC schools) a fantasy created to protect MONEY. Too bad it's not working out so well...

Regarding USF and UCF, I would much rather see the AAC with a playoff path, than I would see one or two AAC schools get some sort of 'golden ticket'. That's a real solution to the obvious problem. Figure out a way to include SDSU, Boise, Houston, Cinci, USF, UCF, etc etc... and you will have had a fair realignment. Keeping it turf and politics, and greed, creates the current obvious nonsense...

(10-10-2017 01:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-10-2017 01:09 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(10-10-2017 12:07 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-10-2017 11:48 AM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  With the shape of their football program is UConn really a viable B12 school? Replace them with Houston.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

UConn is viable in the sense that it has all of the off-the-field metrics (academics, flagship school, large and new TV market on paper) that are honestly much harder to change and generally more important to university presidents than on-the-field performance. The true value of a school is really measured by what it's still bringing to the table when the football team record is 0-12 instead of 12-0.

That being said, I have said many times before that one of the most underrated aspects about why UConn has been locked out of the P5 is simply time: they have a FBS program that isn't even 20 years old at this point. When you have administrators with power that have been working in college football for 40 or 50 years, they just can't wrap their heads around bringing in a school that, for all intents and purposes, is still a start-up football program from their vantage point. This is an issue for UCF and USF, too (where their FBS programs started in the 1990s/2000s as opposed to the 1890s/1900s). Academia is quite possibly the most blue blooded atmosphere anywhere, so youth is definitely a huge disadvantage. There's nothing that can really change that aspect other than time itself.

So in other words Rice is seen as a blue blood because of their history and past affiliations. Other G5s might be seen that way such as SMU, Tulane, Tulsa, BYU, the Academies, etc.

With the Big 12 expansion, you heard more positive talk coming from the CEOs about Tulane than you did about UCF or USF. And that is almost 100% because of pedigree.

Exactly. Anyone paying attention to more than the on-the-field aspects of realignment over the past several years shouldn't have been surprised when Tulane came up as a candidate for the Big 12. The academic prestige (or at least the appearance of it) matters to the university presidents that make these decisions. Granted, it's all rooted in the overall objective of making more money.