(02-12-2018 08:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 07:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 05:32 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 05:34 AM)XLance Wrote:  No school should or would change conferences to try to boost attendance.
At Carolina, we are reducing the seating capacity in order to give the guests a more comfortable game day experience with wider chair back seats and improved Wi-Fi.
We know that our competition is the guy sitting on his couch, close to the Fridge, and a quick trip to the bathroom.
A school like Vanderbilt can't compete in their own league. Alabama averages over 100,000 and Vandy, what 35,000. Even with same TV money there is no way to make up the sale of 65,000 tickets X 7 times per year.
In a study at Carolina, the Tar Heels would have have to eliminate 7-8 of our 28 sports and channel all of that money into our football program in order to be competitive in the SEC, and that is before we decided to reduce capacity from 63,000.
Why would any school move to a conference, when they know they can never be competitive?

Perhaps UNC should concentrate on being competitive in the ACC first.

Carolina has more top ten finishes in the Director's Cup than the rest of the ACC combined (including Notre Dame). That's competitive Catboy!

Director's cup? Is that what schools that don't play manly sports compete for? It sound like something you would get at Summer camp.

It's what fans of the schools that refuse to compete in FOOTBALL bring up in a FOOTBALL discussion whenever it's pointed out they suck in FOOTBALL.

(02-12-2018 08:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 07:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 05:32 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 05:34 AM)XLance Wrote:  No school should or would change conferences to try to boost attendance.
At Carolina, we are reducing the seating capacity in order to give the guests a more comfortable game day experience with wider chair back seats and improved Wi-Fi.
We know that our competition is the guy sitting on his couch, close to the Fridge, and a quick trip to the bathroom.
A school like Vanderbilt can't compete in their own league. Alabama averages over 100,000 and Vandy, what 35,000. Even with same TV money there is no way to make up the sale of 65,000 tickets X 7 times per year.
In a study at Carolina, the Tar Heels would have have to eliminate 7-8 of our 28 sports and channel all of that money into our football program in order to be competitive in the SEC, and that is before we decided to reduce capacity from 63,000.
Why would any school move to a conference, when they know they can never be competitive?

Perhaps UNC should concentrate on being competitive in the ACC first.

Carolina has more top ten finishes in the Director's Cup than the rest of the ACC combined (including Notre Dame). That's competitive Catboy!

Director's cup? Is that what schools that don't play manly sports compete for? It sound like something you would get at Summer camp.

Just the answer I would expect from the fan of a one trick pony.

(02-12-2018 09:01 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 08:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 07:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 05:32 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 05:34 AM)XLance Wrote:  No school should or would change conferences to try to boost attendance.
At Carolina, we are reducing the seating capacity in order to give the guests a more comfortable game day experience with wider chair back seats and improved Wi-Fi.
We know that our competition is the guy sitting on his couch, close to the Fridge, and a quick trip to the bathroom.
A school like Vanderbilt can't compete in their own league. Alabama averages over 100,000 and Vandy, what 35,000. Even with same TV money there is no way to make up the sale of 65,000 tickets X 7 times per year.
In a study at Carolina, the Tar Heels would have have to eliminate 7-8 of our 28 sports and channel all of that money into our football program in order to be competitive in the SEC, and that is before we decided to reduce capacity from 63,000.
Why would any school move to a conference, when they know they can never be competitive?

Perhaps UNC should concentrate on being competitive in the ACC first.

Carolina has more top ten finishes in the Director's Cup than the rest of the ACC combined (including Notre Dame). That's competitive Catboy!

Director's cup? Is that what schools that don't play manly sports compete for? It sound like something you would get at Summer camp.

It's what fans of the schools that refuse to compete in FOOTBALL bring up in a FOOTBALL discussion whenever it's pointed out they suck in FOOTBALL.

Just what kind of year did Newberry have this year, Catboy?

(02-12-2018 07:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 05:32 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 05:34 AM)XLance Wrote:  No school should or would change conferences to try to boost attendance.
At Carolina, we are reducing the seating capacity in order to give the guests a more comfortable game day experience with wider chair back seats and improved Wi-Fi.
We know that our competition is the guy sitting on his couch, close to the Fridge, and a quick trip to the bathroom.
A school like Vanderbilt can't compete in their own league. Alabama averages over 100,000 and Vandy, what 35,000. Even with same TV money there is no way to make up the sale of 65,000 tickets X 7 times per year.
In a study at Carolina, the Tar Heels would have have to eliminate 7-8 of our 28 sports and channel all of that money into our football program in order to be competitive in the SEC, and that is before we decided to reduce capacity from 63,000.
Why would any school move to a conference, when they know they can never be competitive?

Perhaps UNC should concentrate on being competitive in the ACC first.

Carolina has more top ten finishes in the Director's Cup than the rest of the ACC combined (including Notre Dame). That's competitive Catboy!

And they haven't won an ACC title (in the other sport-football) since 1980. Only NCSU (1979) of the pre-2005 ACC has taken longer.

(02-12-2018 09:50 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 07:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 05:32 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 05:34 AM)XLance Wrote:  No school should or would change conferences to try to boost attendance.
At Carolina, we are reducing the seating capacity in order to give the guests a more comfortable game day experience with wider chair back seats and improved Wi-Fi.
We know that our competition is the guy sitting on his couch, close to the Fridge, and a quick trip to the bathroom.
A school like Vanderbilt can't compete in their own league. Alabama averages over 100,000 and Vandy, what 35,000. Even with same TV money there is no way to make up the sale of 65,000 tickets X 7 times per year.
In a study at Carolina, the Tar Heels would have have to eliminate 7-8 of our 28 sports and channel all of that money into our football program in order to be competitive in the SEC, and that is before we decided to reduce capacity from 63,000.
Why would any school move to a conference, when they know they can never be competitive?

Perhaps UNC should concentrate on being competitive in the ACC first.

Carolina has more top ten finishes in the Director's Cup than the rest of the ACC combined (including Notre Dame). That's competitive Catboy!

And they haven't won an ACC title (in the other sport-football) since 1980. Only NCSU (1979) of the pre-2005 ACC has taken longer.

They're looking pretty beatable in basketball these days too. Hey, even Wofford thinks so!

(02-12-2018 09:42 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 09:01 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 08:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 07:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 05:32 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Perhaps UNC should concentrate on being competitive in the ACC first.

Carolina has more top ten finishes in the Director's Cup than the rest of the ACC combined (including Notre Dame). That's competitive Catboy!

Director's cup? Is that what schools that don't play manly sports compete for? It sound like something you would get at Summer camp.

It's what fans of the schools that refuse to compete in FOOTBALL bring up in a FOOTBALL discussion whenever it's pointed out they suck in FOOTBALL.

Just what kind of year did Newberry have this year, Catboy?

Won more games than UNC, and beat more NC teams than UNC did.

(02-12-2018 01:01 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 05:34 AM)XLance Wrote:  No school should or would change conferences to try to boost attendance.

Well, many would, but that doesn't mean it's going to provide a big boost.

Case in point: Maryland had both Michigan and Penn State on its home schedule this year. That's a best-case scenario. Lots of fans who dream of their team joining the Big Ten or SEC is thinking, We would fill an NFL-sized stadium every week with a conference schedule that includes two "king" programs. Did Maryland have so much demand that they're going to add 25,000 seats to their stadium? Did they start to think, Wow, we have so many more people demanding tickets that we better move our home games to an NFL stadium? No, they didn't.

So you're saying if Houston joined either regional traditional major conference they wouldn't see a big windfall? I don't buy it. Numerous schools would help fill the stands.

At a place that isn't as energized by football and doesn't fill the stands appropriately, it's not surprising that even Michigan and Penn State don't rile up the masses. That and there's only so many eyeballs and attention for so much...and people can watch at home. Add it all up and it's not hard to figure out.

(02-12-2018 09:37 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 08:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 07:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 05:32 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 05:34 AM)XLance Wrote:  No school should or would change conferences to try to boost attendance.
At Carolina, we are reducing the seating capacity in order to give the guests a more comfortable game day experience with wider chair back seats and improved Wi-Fi.
We know that our competition is the guy sitting on his couch, close to the Fridge, and a quick trip to the bathroom.
A school like Vanderbilt can't compete in their own league. Alabama averages over 100,000 and Vandy, what 35,000. Even with same TV money there is no way to make up the sale of 65,000 tickets X 7 times per year.
In a study at Carolina, the Tar Heels would have have to eliminate 7-8 of our 28 sports and channel all of that money into our football program in order to be competitive in the SEC, and that is before we decided to reduce capacity from 63,000.
Why would any school move to a conference, when they know they can never be competitive?

Perhaps UNC should concentrate on being competitive in the ACC first.

Carolina has more top ten finishes in the Director's Cup than the rest of the ACC combined (including Notre Dame). That's competitive Catboy!

Director's cup? Is that what schools that don't play manly sports compete for? It sound like something you would get at Summer camp.

Just the answer I would expect from the fan of a one trick pony.

The conversation was about football though.

(02-13-2018 01:11 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 01:01 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 05:34 AM)XLance Wrote:  No school should or would change conferences to try to boost attendance.

Well, many would, but that doesn't mean it's going to provide a big boost.

Case in point: Maryland had both Michigan and Penn State on its home schedule this year. That's a best-case scenario. Lots of fans who dream of their team joining the Big Ten or SEC is thinking, We would fill an NFL-sized stadium every week with a conference schedule that includes two "king" programs. Did Maryland have so much demand that they're going to add 25,000 seats to their stadium? Did they start to think, Wow, we have so many more people demanding tickets that we better move our home games to an NFL stadium? No, they didn't.

So you're saying if Houston joined either regional traditional major conference they wouldn't see a big windfall? I don't buy it. Numerous schools would help fill the stands.

At a place that isn't as energized by football and doesn't fill the stands appropriately, it's not surprising that even Michigan and Penn State don't rile up the masses. That and there's only so many eyeballs and attention for so much...and people can watch at home. Add it all up and it's not hard to figure out.

At a place that is energized by football, their own fans fill large stadiums; they don't depend on the opponents' fans to do that. Perhaps A&M and LSU fans would buy lots of tickets for a game in Houston, but that would be just as true if they were playing Rice.

But there's nothing like a rival fanbase bringing in fans for energy. We saw this when Texas Tech came here in 2009. It was a much bigger deal then than when they came in last year because of the pre-game rankings, hype and that Tech was coming off its best season ever. Had Robertson seated 50k, that's how many would have showed up, compared to the 25-30k that normally showed up.

(02-13-2018 01:59 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  But there's nothing like a rival fanbase bringing in fans for energy. We saw this when Texas Tech came here in 2009. It was a much bigger deal then than when they came in last year because of the pre-game rankings, hype and that Tech was coming off its best season ever. Had Robertson seated 50k, that's how many would have showed up, compared to the 25-30k that normally showed up.

That kind of underscores the point though doesn't it?

Tech had to be a highly rated team to generate that kind of buzz. The same regional rival a few years later was not considered as big a deal.

But that's the reality of life in a conference. Not every team is going to be good, not every team will be highly ranked. The passion must be much more organic. Fans have to be interested in their own team more than the visiting team.

Tech was still a bigger deal than Tulsa, who has no fans or alums or half the AAC, which is either really small or really far away, if not both. There's nothing like playing half of your games against name teams or regional rivals, if not both.

And UH's legit fanbase has grown over the years, so no worries on that front.

(02-13-2018 03:26 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Tech was still a bigger deal than Tulsa, who has no fans or alums or half the AAC, which is either really small or really far away, if not both. There's nothing like playing half of your games against name teams or regional rivals, if not both.

And UH's legit fanbase has grown over the years, so no worries on that front.

Granted that Tech is a bigger deal than Tulsa or Tulane, but the ultimate question is does Houston help Tech out? Or the other schools in the league for that matter? That's the question that would be asked by conference leadership when deciding who to invite.

A school like Houston might get a boost from regional rivals, but what if they don't give a boost to others?

TCU got the call because they helped out more than other schools available. And they were about to be in a BCS league anyway as they had been invited to the Big East before it disintegrated. Financially speaking, TCU is bringing down more than Baylor or Texas Tech so that would indicate that TCU's success isn't purely a matter of being buoyed by regional rivals. TCU is adding to the pot in their own right.

I tend to think Houston will make the jump one day, but they've still got work to do. UH must be a net positive for other schools before being invited to join another league. Same goes for some other schools that have potential.

So I think the point is that a conference will look at a school and say "Do they help us at least as much as we help them?" If the answer is 'no' then there's nothing about that school that makes them stand out. A G5 school like Houston might get a boost from a visiting Power school, but that's true for all of them.

I'd say yes, as Houston would indeed travel to any locale in Oklahoma or south.

It's certainly better than it used to be.

(02-12-2018 09:50 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 07:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 05:32 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 05:34 AM)XLance Wrote:  No school should or would change conferences to try to boost attendance.
At Carolina, we are reducing the seating capacity in order to give the guests a more comfortable game day experience with wider chair back seats and improved Wi-Fi.
We know that our competition is the guy sitting on his couch, close to the Fridge, and a quick trip to the bathroom.
A school like Vanderbilt can't compete in their own league. Alabama averages over 100,000 and Vandy, what 35,000. Even with same TV money there is no way to make up the sale of 65,000 tickets X 7 times per year.
In a study at Carolina, the Tar Heels would have have to eliminate 7-8 of our 28 sports and channel all of that money into our football program in order to be competitive in the SEC, and that is before we decided to reduce capacity from 63,000.
Why would any school move to a conference, when they know they can never be competitive?

Perhaps UNC should concentrate on being competitive in the ACC first.

Carolina has more top ten finishes in the Director's Cup than the rest of the ACC combined (including Notre Dame). That's competitive Catboy!

And they haven't won an ACC title (in the other sport-football) since 1980. Only NCSU (1979) of the pre-2005 ACC has taken longer.

Care to talk about Nattys

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NC...mpionships

(02-13-2018 08:36 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 09:50 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 07:57 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 05:32 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 05:34 AM)XLance Wrote:  No school should or would change conferences to try to boost attendance.
At Carolina, we are reducing the seating capacity in order to give the guests a more comfortable game day experience with wider chair back seats and improved Wi-Fi.
We know that our competition is the guy sitting on his couch, close to the Fridge, and a quick trip to the bathroom.
A school like Vanderbilt can't compete in their own league. Alabama averages over 100,000 and Vandy, what 35,000. Even with same TV money there is no way to make up the sale of 65,000 tickets X 7 times per year.
In a study at Carolina, the Tar Heels would have have to eliminate 7-8 of our 28 sports and channel all of that money into our football program in order to be competitive in the SEC, and that is before we decided to reduce capacity from 63,000.
Why would any school move to a conference, when they know they can never be competitive?

Perhaps UNC should concentrate on being competitive in the ACC first.

Carolina has more top ten finishes in the Director's Cup than the rest of the ACC combined (including Notre Dame). That's competitive Catboy!

And they haven't won an ACC title (in the other sport-football) since 1980. Only NCSU (1979) of the pre-2005 ACC has taken longer.

Care to talk about Nattys

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NC...mpionships

Should I bring up the number of non-medical patents Virginia Tech has been awarded? It's just about as relevant to a football discussion as that link...

XLance is probably right about not being able to compete with ticket revenue of SEC teams... but what fans of all teams must realize is that they ARE in competition - for coaches, players, even students - with everybody. There's no place to hide. If all you care about is winning a conference title then best join the Sun Belt or C-USA.

(02-13-2018 09:36 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  XLance is probably right about not being able to compete with ticket revenue of SEC teams... but what fans of all teams must realize is that they ARE in competition - for coaches, players, even students - with everybody. There's no place to hide. If all you care about is winning a conference title then best join the Sun Belt or C-USA.

Exactly & it's not just about how much money you spend but spending the money you have wisely. UNC has IMO not maximized it's resources to full potential university wide period.

(02-13-2018 10:04 AM)mj4life Wrote:  

(02-13-2018 09:36 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  XLance is probably right about not being able to compete with ticket revenue of SEC teams... but what fans of all teams must realize is that they ARE in competition - for coaches, players, even students - with everybody. There's no place to hide. If all you care about is winning a conference title then best join the Sun Belt or C-USA.

Exactly & it's not just about how much money you spend but spending the money you have wisely. UNC has IMO not maximized it's resources to full potential university wide period.

You are joking....right?

http://www.bestcolleges.com/features/col...enditures/
11
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL
More than 97% of the 2012 R&D budget at UNC Chapel Hill was allotted to projects in science-related fields; biology, medicine, and non-classified life science fields collectively received roughly $650 million. The school invested less than $4 million in engineering R&D, all of which was earmarked for bioengineering and biomedical engineering studies.

Total R&D Expenditure: $966,781

Science: $934,238
Engineering: $5,014
Other: $27,529
Funding Sources (thousands of dollars):

Federal government: $585,758
State and local government: $26,104
Institution funds: $246,490
Businesses: $28,998
Nonprofit organizations: $62,736
Other donors: $16,695


https://247wallst.com/special-report/201...ernment/4/



9. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
> Total federal funds: $599.2 million
> Annual R&D expenditure: $966.8 million
> 2015 enrollment: 29,084
> 2016 endowment: $2.9 billion

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill received $599.2 million in federal grant money in 2015, the fifth most of any public university. Like most large research institutions, UNC allocated most of its R&D funds toward research in life sciences such as medicine and biology. Most of this funding came from the Department of Health and Human Services. However, the school also dedicates outsized portions of its R&D budget toward research in psychology and the social sciences. An estimated 4.8% of UNC’s total R&D spending goes to psychology research, compared to the 1.7% average for all universities. UNC also dedicates 9.2% of its total R&D spending to research in the social sciences, nearly three times the 3.4% average.

(02-13-2018 01:03 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(02-13-2018 10:04 AM)mj4life Wrote:  

(02-13-2018 09:36 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  XLance is probably right about not being able to compete with ticket revenue of SEC teams... but what fans of all teams must realize is that they ARE in competition - for coaches, players, even students - with everybody. There's no place to hide. If all you care about is winning a conference title then best join the Sun Belt or C-USA.

Exactly & it's not just about how much money you spend but spending the money you have wisely. UNC has IMO not maximized it's resources to full potential university wide period.

You are joking....right?

http://www.bestcolleges.com/features/col...enditures/
11
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL
More than 97% of the 2012 R&D budget at UNC Chapel Hill was allotted to projects in science-related fields; biology, medicine, and non-classified life science fields collectively received roughly $650 million. The school invested less than $4 million in engineering R&D, all of which was earmarked for bioengineering and biomedical engineering studies.

Total R&D Expenditure: $966,781

Science: $934,238
Engineering: $5,014
Other: $27,529
Funding Sources (thousands of dollars):

Federal government: $585,758
State and local government: $26,104
Institution funds: $246,490
Businesses: $28,998
Nonprofit organizations: $62,736
Other donors: $16,695


https://247wallst.com/special-report/201...ernment/4/



9. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
> Total federal funds: $599.2 million
> Annual R&D expenditure: $966.8 million
> 2015 enrollment: 29,084
> 2016 endowment: $2.9 billion

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill received $599.2 million in federal grant money in 2015, the fifth most of any public university. Like most large research institutions, UNC allocated most of its R&D funds toward research in life sciences such as medicine and biology. Most of this funding came from the Department of Health and Human Services. However, the school also dedicates outsized portions of its R&D budget toward research in psychology and the social sciences. An estimated 4.8% of UNC’s total R&D spending goes to psychology research, compared to the 1.7% average for all universities. UNC also dedicates 9.2% of its total R&D spending to research in the social sciences, nearly three times the 3.4% average.

Athletic Department wise , no they haven't