(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).