(08-12-2019 10:11 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(08-12-2019 07:54 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(08-12-2019 07:30 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  The old WAC was part of the cartel back then. It even had a National Champion in 1984.

Arizona, Arizona State and Utah are now in a power conference. Wyoming, Colorado State, New Mexico, UTEP and BYU are on the outside looking in. You can include San Diego State, Fresno State and Hawaii which were members after 1981. The WAC was the Western version of the ACC (before Florida State). It had a seat in the big table until the beginning of the BCS predecessor, the Alliance and the WAC-16 fiasco.

If they were in the cartel then why weren’t they part of the bowl alliance/coalition in the 1990s? Because they weren’t

If you read my last paragraph I answered your question. The Alliance and BCS didn’t include the WAC.....that and its expansion to 16 was what caused eight schools to form a new conference. Limited money, little to no exposure, lost rivalries and not being an AQ league in the new BCS didn’t make sense for a 16 team league to stay together. The question is, had the WAC decided not to expand and stay at nine or ten (Fresno State joined in 1992), would they have been included in the Alliance/BCS? Probably not but we will never know.

Rice, Tulane and SMU are old money schools that were once in a power conference. Houston was more of a newcomer and they were part of the cartel from 1976-1996.

The Big Ten and Pac 10 weren’t part of the Bowl Alliance either.

Actually, it was going to 16 that influenced the Cotton Bowl bid, which was also left out of the Bowl Alliance in place of the Orange, Sugar, and Fiesta bowls.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/3691...RIAGE.html

Regardless, the Bowl Alliance sucked.

(08-12-2019 10:57 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  It's mostly about being a flagship (34 of them):
Cal, UCLA, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, West Virginia, Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, LSU, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri

Or being a high budget, high profile athletics private school (13 of them):
Stanford, Southern Cal, TCU, Baylor, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Wake, Miami, Duke

I am going to throw one (1) specialty Engineering public school in with the privates:
Georgia Tech

We have at this point accounted for 48 schools. 28 of the 48 are AAU schools.

We then look at land grant schools, the "states" type schools of which there are 12:
Washington State, Oregon State, Texas A&M, Michigan State, Mississippi State, Auburn, Purdue, Oklahoma State, Iowa State, Kansas State, Virginia Tech, Clemson.

The remaining 5 includes three "State" schools of enormous size, literally "best of breed":
NC State, Arizona State, Florida State

The final two: Louisville, Texas Tech

32 of the 65 are AAU.

Similar schools who didn't make the cut:

UConn, BYU, Colorado State, Tulane, Rice

Of the above group UConn and BYU look the most like the P5, but UConn abandoned P5 aspirations with the Big East move. They started FBS football too late to make the cut (same for UMass). Tulane and Rice kind of fell out of major status over the decades.

When you look at the rest, they seem to be trying to get in on the "Louisville exception"; that is being so important in athletics it overrides everything else. Memphis, Boise State, Fresno State and UNLV all fall in that category. Houston, Cincy and perhaps Temple fall into a better version academically than Louisville. UCF and USF (and ECU) may be most comparable to the Texas Tech category, being directional, that is "other big State Universities than flagships or land grant".

The question is, are any of UCF, Houston, Cincy, USF big enough to overcome being the "Louisville" category to get into P5?

North Carolina State is the land grant for Carolina.

(08-12-2019 10:57 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  It's mostly about being a flagship (34 of them):
Cal, UCLA, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, West Virginia, Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, LSU, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri

Or being a high budget, high profile athletics private school (13 of them):
Stanford, Southern Cal, TCU, Baylor, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Wake, Miami, Duke

I am going to throw one (1) specialty Engineering public school in with the privates:
Georgia Tech

We have at this point accounted for 48 schools. 28 of the 48 are AAU schools.

We then look at land grant schools, the "states" type schools of which there are 12:
Washington State, Oregon State, Texas A&M, Michigan State, Mississippi State, Auburn, Purdue, Oklahoma State, Iowa State, Kansas State, Virginia Tech, Clemson.

The remaining 5 includes three "State" schools of enormous size, literally "best of breed":
NC State, Arizona State, Florida State

The final two: Louisville, Texas Tech

32 of the 65 are AAU.

Similar schools who didn't make the cut:

UConn, BYU, Colorado State, Tulane, Rice

Of the above group UConn and BYU look the most like the P5, but UConn abandoned P5 aspirations with the Big East move. They started FBS football too late to make the cut (same for UMass). Tulane and Rice kind of fell out of major status over the decades.

When you look at the rest, they seem to be trying to get in on the "Louisville exception"; that is being so important in athletics it overrides everything else. Memphis, Boise State, Fresno State and UNLV all fall in that category. Houston, Cincy and perhaps Temple fall into a better version academically than Louisville. UCF and USF (and ECU) may be most comparable to the Texas Tech category, being directional, that is "other big State Universities than flagships or land grant".

The question is, are any of UCF, Houston, Cincy, USF big enough to overcome being the "Louisville" category to get into P5?

No. It's about being the number and wealth of your loyal alumni. "number" "wealth" and "loyalty" are the 3 keys.

Size helps - a lot. Academic prestige increase the wealth of your alumni. Being private typically makes the alumni more loyal.

"Flagship" or "land grant" status don't mean anything. "Flagship" status didn't help Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, or New Mexico. Montana and Idaho actually got demoted from the big-boy table in the 1950s. "Land grant" status didn't help New Mexico State, Utah State, or Colorado State.

That's why schools like Pitt, Georgia Tech, Arizona State, NC State, Texas Tech, and Florida State got in. Public, not flagship, not land grant. But they've got lots of rich, loyal alumni.

Being "rich and private" didn't help Tulsa, Rice, or Richmond because they're too small. Being "large and private" like Syracuse or Northwestern (which are bigger than many flagship SEC and Big 12 schools) is more important.


By that measure (large number of rich and/or loyal alumni), the next schools in should be Cincinnati, SDSU, Houston, USF, UCF, and maybe Hawai'i and Memphis (whose alums are more loyal but less numerous). It's no coincidence that those are the exact schools that people are talking about in P5 expansion, except Hawai'i and SDSU which are too geographically remote.

And it's why UMass and UConn are not on anyone's list - UConn is actually about the same size as Syracuse and Memphis but only has an average level of alumni loyalty, and UMass doesn't have the loyalty of its alums the way most other similar-sized schools do.

(08-12-2019 05:11 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I was torn on whether or not to include WVU, Rutgers, BC, and Syracuse on this list. I’m not sure that all of their time as eastern independents was really at CFB’s highest level. WVU also had a spell, upon joining the SoCon in 1950, where they were abandoned with the little schools upon the ACC breakaway and spent 1953-1968 with schools that were decidedly not top tier until they returned to independence. Perhaps fans from these schools could help provide an argument/counter argument for why they were or weren’t competing at the highest echelons.

A couple of responses.

Syracuse was the second college in America (after Harvard) to construct a steel reinforced concrete stadium, which they did in 1907. From that moment, it has been committed to competing at the highest available level of competition. Until the early 1950s, this meant playing a lot of Ivy schools, but they also played Michigan annually during its independent years, Michigan St., Maryland, and many others. They turned down a Rose Bowl invitation in 1916, for instance, because it had already played on the west coast that year.

The early 1950s brought significant turmoil in college sports. There was a major point shaving scandal in basketball, academic cheating scandals, a dispute about how to handle television rights, and a dispute around how to provide financial support for college athletes. At that time, a number of schools either dropped big time sports or moved to a nonscholarship model. Even some who joined in adopting the scholarship model did not seek to compete with the Big Tens of the world. This is the period, for instance, of the Southern Conference-ACC split and the formation of the Ivy League.

Syracuse most clearly decided to continue to compete at the highest level. They lost Cornell (who joined the Ivy League), Temple (who dropped to college division), and Fordham (who dropped football) as annual games. It effectively replaced them with Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Army and Maryland, each of which was extremely competitive at a national level with recent major bowl appearances, AP top 10 rankings, and even national championships. This commitment is reflected in Syracuse's 4 major bowl appearances in the 1950s and a National Championship.

With respect to some of the others, BC had national success in the 1940s under Frank Leahy, but was not consistently competitive at a national level. It constructed a new stadium in the late 1950s and slowly improved its level of competition through the 1960s and 1970s. By the I-A/I-AA split, it was well positioned to be the only New England team to stay in I-A. With the formation of the Big East and the arrival of Jack Bicknell and Doug Flutie in the early 1980s, the rest is history.

For many years, Rutgers followed the Ivy League model for DI play. It didn't make the commitment to playing big time until the mid to late 1970s, just in time to survive the I-A/I-AA split. Rutgers's rise is actually a pretty amazing story given the incredible challenge of moving from Ivy League level to the Big Ten in 40 years.

As far as Eastern Independent teams, Holy Cross was at the top level until the early 80's. They waited until after the split to actually drop, which was a messed-up situation...

They just poached Rick Carter, a championship winning coach at Dayton, with the promise to compete at 1-A. The AD subsequently turned down an A10 invite and moved the Crusaders into the Colonial (Patriot) Conference with a bunch of wannabe Ivies. This was a non-scholarship league and forced HC into 1-AA.

Carter was pissed, but quite successful at HC and then became devastated because he couldn't get out of his contract to even interview for the Notre Dame job. He committed suicide a few years later. The Crusaders had a Heisman finalist, Gordie Lockbaum (recruited by Carter), who played both sides of the ball in the late 80's.

Pre-1945 the University of Cincinnati was a much different school than it was today. Back then UC had fewer than 10,000 students (including the medical and law school) and had a much smaller physical campus. Our athletic schedules back then consisted of small private schools (some who do not even sponsor DI athletics today) like Boston U., Wayne University (now Wayne State), Dayton, Western Reserve (Case Western), etc. The school did not begin to explode in size until the 1950s, 60s and beyond.

(08-12-2019 07:54 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(08-12-2019 07:30 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  The old WAC was part of the cartel back then. It even had a National Champion in 1984.

Arizona, Arizona State and Utah are now in a power conference. Wyoming, Colorado State, New Mexico, UTEP and BYU are on the outside looking in. You can include San Diego State, Fresno State and Hawaii which were members after 1981. The WAC was the Western version of the ACC (before Florida State). It had a seat in the big table until the beginning of the BCS predecessor, the Alliance and the WAC-16 fiasco.

If they were in the cartel then why weren’t they part of the bowl alliance/coalition in the 1990s? Because they weren’t

WAC and ACC were at about the same level in the 1980s. They had national champions (Clemson 1981, BYU 1984). They weren't on the level of the major conferences, which had permanent ties to major bowls (Rose, Sugar, Cotton, Orange, later Fiesta), but they were in the cartel. They were part of the College Football Alliance, along with the PAC-10, SEC, SWC and the major independents, which controlled the TV contract.

ACC moved up (adding Florida State), WAC moved down.

EDIT: Was the WAC some kind of junior partner of the first Bowl Coalition, with a Cotton Bowl tie-in?
EDIT 2: No, I was hazily remembering that the Cotton Bowl was part of the Bowl Coalition, which included some non-major bowls, and the WAC champ went to the Cotton Bowl for a couple of years, but the two didn't overlap. When the Cotton was in the Bowl Coalition, it was a major New Years' Day bowl and didn't have the WAC, when the WAC was in the Cotton it was not a major NYD bowl and wasn't in the Bowl Alliance.

(08-12-2019 06:52 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  UH was in the Country Club for 20 years.

Yeah, too bad they couldn't make it back the way TCU did,

(08-13-2019 09:17 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  WAC and ACC were at about the same level in the 1980s. They had national champions (Clemson 1981, BYU 1984). They weren't on the level of the major conferences, which had permanent ties to major bowls (Rose, Sugar, Cotton, Orange, later Fiesta), but they were in the cartel. They were part of the College Football Alliance, along with the PAC-10, SEC, SWC and the major independents, which controlled the TV contract.

The ACC was always considered a major conference. The league decided to get a tie-in to send the champ to the Citrus Bowl once it made financial sense in the 80's. This deal had a clause where the ACC team could opt out, penalty free, if they were invited to play in a "national championship" game in another bowl.

Quote:EDIT: Was the WAC some kind of junior partner of the first Bowl Coalition, with a Cotton Bowl tie-in?
EDIT 2: No, I was hazily remembering that the Cotton Bowl was part of the Bowl Coalition, which included some non-major bowls, and the WAC champ went to the Cotton Bowl for a couple of years, but the two didn't overlap. When the Cotton was in the Bowl Coalition, it was a major New Years' Day bowl and didn't have the WAC, when the WAC was in the Cotton it was not a major NYD bowl and wasn't in the Bowl Alliance.

You're getting the Bowl Coalition confused with the Bowl Alliance. The WAC didn't get a Cotton tie-in until the Bowl Alliance was formed, which did not include the Cotton Bowl.

The Bowl Alliance was all about creating a National Championship game with the Orange, Sugar, and Fiesta Bowls. The Rose Bowl, Big Ten, and Pac 10 were not a part of it. Neither was the Cotton Bowl, so they had to do something to save their standing as a major bowl game.

From 1985:

Coach Ray Perkins, preparing his Alabama team for tonight's Aloha Bowl, said he would like to see the four major New Year's Day bowls serve as first-round games leading to a "College Super Bowl."The eight teams eligible for the national title would include the champions from six major conferences -- Big Ten, Pac-10, Big Eight, Atlantic Coast, Southwest and Southeastern -- and the two highest-ranked independents or "non-major" conference teams.

If I recall the WAC deal with the Cotton Bowl only lasted 3 seasons

(08-13-2019 09:01 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Pre-1945 the University of Cincinnati was a much different school than it was today. Back then UC had fewer than 10,000 students (including the medical and law school) and had a much smaller physical campus. Our athletic schedules back then consisted of small private schools (some who do not even sponsor DI athletics today) like Boston U., Wayne University (now Wayne State), Dayton, Western Reserve (Case Western), etc. The school did not begin to explode in size until the 1950s, 60s and beyond.

Any idea why the MAC wasn’t good enough for the Bearcats but slimming it in the MVC, with conference mates as far away as UNT was preferable?

(08-13-2019 10:05 AM)westwolf Wrote:  

(08-12-2019 06:52 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  UH was in the Country Club for 20 years.

Yeah, too bad they couldn't make it back the way TCU did,

Just a little more time.

(08-13-2019 07:43 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(08-12-2019 10:57 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  It's mostly about being a flagship (34 of them):
Cal, UCLA, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, West Virginia, Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, LSU, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri

Or being a high budget, high profile athletics private school (13 of them):
Stanford, Southern Cal, TCU, Baylor, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Wake, Miami, Duke

I am going to throw one (1) specialty Engineering public school in with the privates:
Georgia Tech

We have at this point accounted for 48 schools. 28 of the 48 are AAU schools.

We then look at land grant schools, the "states" type schools of which there are 12:
Washington State, Oregon State, Texas A&M, Michigan State, Mississippi State, Auburn, Purdue, Oklahoma State, Iowa State, Kansas State, Virginia Tech, Clemson.

The remaining 5 includes three "State" schools of enormous size, literally "best of breed":
NC State, Arizona State, Florida State

The final two: Louisville, Texas Tech

32 of the 65 are AAU.

Similar schools who didn't make the cut:

UConn, BYU, Colorado State, Tulane, Rice

Of the above group UConn and BYU look the most like the P5, but UConn abandoned P5 aspirations with the Big East move. They started FBS football too late to make the cut (same for UMass). Tulane and Rice kind of fell out of major status over the decades.

When you look at the rest, they seem to be trying to get in on the "Louisville exception"; that is being so important in athletics it overrides everything else. Memphis, Boise State, Fresno State and UNLV all fall in that category. Houston, Cincy and perhaps Temple fall into a better version academically than Louisville. UCF and USF (and ECU) may be most comparable to the Texas Tech category, being directional, that is "other big State Universities than flagships or land grant".

The question is, are any of UCF, Houston, Cincy, USF big enough to overcome being the "Louisville" category to get into P5?

No. It's about being the number and wealth of your loyal alumni. "number" "wealth" and "loyalty" are the 3 keys.

Size helps - a lot. Academic prestige increase the wealth of your alumni. Being private typically makes the alumni more loyal.

"Flagship" or "land grant" status don't mean anything. "Flagship" status didn't help Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, or New Mexico. Montana and Idaho actually got demoted from the big-boy table in the 1950s. "Land grant" status didn't help New Mexico State, Utah State, or Colorado State.

That's why schools like Pitt, Georgia Tech, Arizona State, NC State, Texas Tech, and Florida State got in. Public, not flagship, not land grant. But they've got lots of rich, loyal alumni.

Being "rich and private" didn't help Tulsa, Rice, or Richmond because they're too small. Being "large and private" like Syracuse or Northwestern (which are bigger than many flagship SEC and Big 12 schools) is more important.


By that measure (large number of rich and/or loyal alumni), the next schools in should be Cincinnati, SDSU, Houston, USF, UCF, and maybe Hawai'i and Memphis (whose alums are more loyal but less numerous). It's no coincidence that those are the exact schools that people are talking about in P5 expansion, except Hawai'i and SDSU which are too geographically remote.

And it's why UMass and UConn are not on anyone's list - UConn is actually about the same size as Syracuse and Memphis but only has an average level of alumni loyalty, and UMass doesn't have the loyalty of its alums the way most other similar-sized schools do.

Lots of good points here. Size matters a whole lot and prestige is a major secondary factor. That’s why the most academically prestigious states school in most states is its strongest football program. A big school that turns out a lot of financially well off alumni is going to be one that has the resources to be a major competitor. Their alumni have, on average, more disposable income to spend on college athletics and donations than other schools. Notice there aren’t a bunch of former teacher’s colleges in the upper echelons.

In places like New England it gets a little bit different. Your state’s most prestigious school is a private that is a century or more older than your local land grant and/or Catholic school. Your wealthy local families don’t see land grant or state flagship as an allure and aren’t going to steer their kids there.

Out west you have a lot of small states whose largest state university is dwarfed in enrollment by those in more populous states so they are on the periphery as well.

(08-13-2019 12:21 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(08-13-2019 09:01 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Pre-1945 the University of Cincinnati was a much different school than it was today. Back then UC had fewer than 10,000 students (including the medical and law school) and had a much smaller physical campus. Our athletic schedules back then consisted of small private schools (some who do not even sponsor DI athletics today) like Boston U., Wayne University (now Wayne State), Dayton, Western Reserve (Case Western), etc. The school did not begin to explode in size until the 1950s, 60s and beyond.

Any idea why the MAC wasn’t good enough for the Bearcats but slimming it in the MVC, with conference mates as far away as UNT was preferable?

A combination of factors. First, the MAC that UC was in only had Ohio and Miami along with Case Western, Butler and Wayne State. The conference makeup began to change after Wayne and Butler announced it was dropping down in 1949 and Case followed shortly thereafter. The conference scrambled adding first Western Michigan (to replace Wayne) and then later Toledo. When the MAC announced it was adding Bowling Green and Kent State UC decided it was no longer the conference they had started in 1946.

The MVC of the 1950s was a much different conference that it is today. When UC announced it was leaving the conference Oklahoma State was in the conference, and programs like Bradley, Saint Louis and Wichita State were pretty strong. UC believed exposure in those markets was much more profitable than to be in an Ohio/Michigan based conference like the MAC.

The MVC was very good for UC. UC went on to win conference crowns, had 5 straight Final 4s, 2 national championships and a runner up in hoops. The football program won the MVC a couple times.

(08-13-2019 07:43 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(08-12-2019 10:57 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  It's mostly about being a flagship (34 of them):
Cal, UCLA, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, West Virginia, Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, LSU, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri

Or being a high budget, high profile athletics private school (13 of them):
Stanford, Southern Cal, TCU, Baylor, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Wake, Miami, Duke

I am going to throw one (1) specialty Engineering public school in with the privates:
Georgia Tech

We have at this point accounted for 48 schools. 28 of the 48 are AAU schools.

We then look at land grant schools, the "states" type schools of which there are 12:
Washington State, Oregon State, Texas A&M, Michigan State, Mississippi State, Auburn, Purdue, Oklahoma State, Iowa State, Kansas State, Virginia Tech, Clemson.

The remaining 5 includes three "State" schools of enormous size, literally "best of breed":
NC State, Arizona State, Florida State

The final two: Louisville, Texas Tech

32 of the 65 are AAU.

Similar schools who didn't make the cut:

UConn, BYU, Colorado State, Tulane, Rice

Of the above group UConn and BYU look the most like the P5, but UConn abandoned P5 aspirations with the Big East move. They started FBS football too late to make the cut (same for UMass). Tulane and Rice kind of fell out of major status over the decades.

When you look at the rest, they seem to be trying to get in on the "Louisville exception"; that is being so important in athletics it overrides everything else. Memphis, Boise State, Fresno State and UNLV all fall in that category. Houston, Cincy and perhaps Temple fall into a better version academically than Louisville. UCF and USF (and ECU) may be most comparable to the Texas Tech category, being directional, that is "other big State Universities than flagships or land grant".

The question is, are any of UCF, Houston, Cincy, USF big enough to overcome being the "Louisville" category to get into P5?

No. It's about being the number and wealth of your loyal alumni. "number" "wealth" and "loyalty" are the 3 keys.

Size helps - a lot. Academic prestige increase the wealth of your alumni. Being private typically makes the alumni more loyal.

"Flagship" or "land grant" status don't mean anything. "Flagship" status didn't help Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, or New Mexico. Montana and Idaho actually got demoted from the big-boy table in the 1950s. "Land grant" status didn't help New Mexico State, Utah State, or Colorado State.

That's why schools like Pitt, Georgia Tech, Arizona State, NC State, Texas Tech, and Florida State got in. Public, not flagship, not land grant. But they've got lots of rich, loyal alumni.

Being "rich and private" didn't help Tulsa, Rice, or Richmond because they're too small. Being "large and private" like Syracuse or Northwestern (which are bigger than many flagship SEC and Big 12 schools) is more important.


By that measure (large number of rich and/or loyal alumni), the next schools in should be Cincinnati, SDSU, Houston, USF, UCF, and maybe Hawai'i and Memphis (whose alums are more loyal but less numerous). It's no coincidence that those are the exact schools that people are talking about in P5 expansion, except Hawai'i and SDSU which are too geographically remote.

And it's why UMass and UConn are not on anyone's list - UConn is actually about the same size as Syracuse and Memphis but only has an average level of alumni loyalty, and UMass doesn't have the loyalty of its alums the way most other similar-sized schools do.

NC State is both Land Grant and Flagship in NC.

UNC-Ch has no Engineering School, Agricultural School, Vet School, etc. In 1931 UNC and NC A&M were combined with the Woman's College (UNC-G) and made to split out programs. That's why NC State has no Med School, no Law School, and no Nursing School.

Actually it's mostly about the company you kept pre-1933.

If your were in the PCC, Big 10, Southern Conference, Southwest Conference, Big 6 in 1933 you are in the P-5 today with the exception of Idaho, Montana, Chicago, Rice, SMU,Tulane, Sewanee, VMI, and Washington and Lee.

50 of the current 65 were in those five conferences. Another 5 Utah, Colorado, TT, Arizona, and ASU were in quasi-major Mountain related conferences. That's 55 of 65.

(08-12-2019 07:54 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(08-12-2019 07:30 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  The old WAC was part of the cartel back then. It even had a National Champion in 1984.

Arizona, Arizona State and Utah are now in a power conference. Wyoming, Colorado State, New Mexico, UTEP and BYU are on the outside looking in. You can include San Diego State, Fresno State and Hawaii which were members after 1981. The WAC was the Western version of the ACC (before Florida State). It had a seat in the big table until the beginning of the BCS predecessor, the Alliance and the WAC-16 fiasco.

If they were in the cartel then why weren’t they part of the bowl alliance/coalition in the 1990s? Because they weren’t

Yeah I would say as of 1996 it was

Big Table:
SEC
Big Ten
Big 12
ACC
PAC 10
Big East


Next Table:
WAC
CUSA

Then everyone else

Prior to the Big 12 forming the SWC was absolutely included too.

By the time 2005 rolled around you can put MWC in for WAC and keep CUSA in that next tier.

By the time 2013 hit you can drop CUSA and slide AAC/Former Big East down to their spot in the next tier.

(08-13-2019 07:43 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  No. It's about being the number and wealth of your loyal alumni. "number" "wealth" and "loyalty" are the 3 keys.

Size helps - a lot. Academic prestige increase the wealth of your alumni. Being private typically makes the alumni more loyal.

"Flagship" or "land grant" status don't mean anything. "Flagship" status didn't help Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, or New Mexico. Montana and Idaho actually got demoted from the big-boy table in the 1950s. "Land grant" status didn't help New Mexico State, Utah State, or Colorado State.

That's why schools like Pitt, Georgia Tech, Arizona State, NC State, Texas Tech, and Florida State got in. Public, not flagship, not land grant. But they've got lots of rich, loyal alumni.

Being "rich and private" didn't help Tulsa, Rice, or Richmond because they're too small. Being "large and private" like Syracuse or Northwestern (which are bigger than many flagship SEC and Big 12 schools) is more important.


By that measure (large number of rich and/or loyal alumni), the next schools in should be Cincinnati, SDSU, Houston, USF, UCF, and maybe Hawai'i and Memphis (whose alums are more loyal but less numerous). It's no coincidence that those are the exact schools that people are talking about in P5 expansion, except Hawai'i and SDSU which are too geographically remote.

And it's why UMass and UConn are not on anyone's list - UConn is actually about the same size as Syracuse and Memphis but only has an average level of alumni loyalty, and UMass doesn't have the loyalty of its alums the way most other similar-sized schools do.

NC State is a land grant.

Pitt, Georgia Tech, Arizona State, and Florida State, as well as UCLA and Louisville, are in states where the flagship is also the land grant. These universities are pretty clearly the second highest profile public universities within their respective states, and therefore fill the role of being a second public P5 in these states. They either have clear statewide alumni representation, student enrollment and fan bases and/or have extremely strong followings in the largest cities within their respective states. Cincinnati could arguably fill this role in Ohio.

Syracuse and BC are privates in states with no public P5 schools. Northwestern and Vanderbilt are privates in states with only one public P5 school, filling the niche for a second P5 school often filled by the land grant. All fill the role that might otherwise be assumed by a public university.

Only one state, Texas, has three public P5 schools. This suggests that other schools with similar profiles seeking P5 status lack some elements that make them a good fit for a P5 conference, possibly history and tradition, but also possibly statewide alumni representation, student enrollment and fan bases

(08-13-2019 01:39 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(08-12-2019 07:54 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(08-12-2019 07:30 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  The old WAC was part of the cartel back then. It even had a National Champion in 1984.

Arizona, Arizona State and Utah are now in a power conference. Wyoming, Colorado State, New Mexico, UTEP and BYU are on the outside looking in. You can include San Diego State, Fresno State and Hawaii which were members after 1981. The WAC was the Western version of the ACC (before Florida State). It had a seat in the big table until the beginning of the BCS predecessor, the Alliance and the WAC-16 fiasco.

If they were in the cartel then why weren’t they part of the bowl alliance/coalition in the 1990s? Because they weren’t

Yeah I would say as of 1996 it was

Big Table:
SEC
Big Ten
Big 12
ACC
PAC 10
Big East


Next Table:
WAC
CUSA

Then everyone else

Prior to the Big 12 forming the SWC was absolutely included too.

By the time 2005 rolled around you can put MWC in for WAC and keep CUSA in that next tier.

By the time 2013 hit you can drop CUSA and slide AAC/Former Big East down to their spot in the next tier.

Yes. Your list is very accurate. Prior to 1996, the WAC was more or less a power conference. Once the Alliance and BCS were in place, it lost a seat in the big table and we all know the rest of the story.

(08-13-2019 07:01 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(08-12-2019 10:11 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(08-12-2019 07:54 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(08-12-2019 07:30 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  The old WAC was part of the cartel back then. It even had a National Champion in 1984.

Arizona, Arizona State and Utah are now in a power conference. Wyoming, Colorado State, New Mexico, UTEP and BYU are on the outside looking in. You can include San Diego State, Fresno State and Hawaii which were members after 1981. The WAC was the Western version of the ACC (before Florida State). It had a seat in the big table until the beginning of the BCS predecessor, the Alliance and the WAC-16 fiasco.

If they were in the cartel then why weren’t they part of the bowl alliance/coalition in the 1990s? Because they weren’t

If you read my last paragraph I answered your question. The Alliance and BCS didn’t include the WAC.....that and its expansion to 16 was what caused eight schools to form a new conference. Limited money, little to no exposure, lost rivalries and not being an AQ league in the new BCS didn’t make sense for a 16 team league to stay together. The question is, had the WAC decided not to expand and stay at nine or ten (Fresno State joined in 1992), would they have been included in the Alliance/BCS? Probably not but we will never know.

Rice, Tulane and SMU are old money schools that were once in a power conference. Houston was more of a newcomer and they were part of the cartel from 1976-1996.

The Big Ten and Pac 10 weren’t part of the Bowl Alliance either.

Actually, it was going to 16 that influenced the Cotton Bowl bid, which was also left out of the Bowl Alliance in place of the Orange, Sugar, and Fiesta bowls.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/3691...RIAGE.html

Regardless, the Bowl Alliance sucked.

Thanks for the link.

Interesting how the WAC and Holiday Bowl were thinking in suing the Alliance for not being included. The fact that the Cotton Bowl which was demoted as well showed interest in the WAC proves that they still had some cache.

Karl Benson can be blamed for a lot of things but the WAC-16 expansion was done by his predecessor and he just took the WAC commissioner job when that article was written in August 1994 (wow it’s been 25 years).