(01-27-2011 02:25 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  CSU is option 9 or 10 though at best. I would take AFA over them any day.

Agreed. Colorado State = Utah State; i.e. the third most-popular college football team in a relatively small state.

Hoping to capture the Denver TV market with CSU makes even less sense than hoping to capture the SLC market with USU, because football fans in Colorado will always be Broncos fans first and it's a pro sports market. College football is way down the list there.

(01-27-2011 01:46 PM)MichaelSavage Wrote:  Virginia Tech played for a national championship while in the Big East. Let me know the next time a current member does.

At the appropriate time, my fiend, these words will be shoved down your throat...

(01-27-2011 04:41 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-27-2011 02:25 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  CSU is option 9 or 10 though at best. I would take AFA over them any day.

Agreed. Colorado State = Utah State; i.e. the third most-popular college football team in a relatively small state.

Hoping to capture the Denver TV market with CSU makes even less sense than hoping to capture the SLC market with USU, because football fans in Colorado will always be Broncos fans first and it's a pro sports market. College football is way down the list there.

Also I saw a report last fall that losing CU actually did not hurt us tv-wise since denver was a pro-town and CU was underperforming. Wish I could find it right now. But if it is to be believed then CSU getting a bid is DOA and an AFA bid has more to do with military following + Denver than just getting into Denver.

(01-27-2011 04:34 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(01-27-2011 04:25 PM)West Coast Johnny Wrote:  Laugh out load at the Big 12 looking to expand with SDSU. One of the best programs in the country is in their back yard and going to the Big East. Hey Big 12? Do you want a good football conference or not?

I am assuming you mean TCU? I quite agree that TCU would make so much more sense in the BigXII(-2). But apparently they are not interested in another Texas school, as the conference is already heavy with them.

The issues with B12 stability are not competitive results. The Big 12 is usually #2 or #3 in terms of computer rank in football and would have been #1 or tied for #1 in RPI if the future 10 members were averaged together in men's hoops. We compete well enough.

The issue is tv following and whatever Texas TV sets are not dominated by the B12 schools does not amount to enough revenue to offset the 15-17 million needed to offset an additional share. There are exceptions (ACC academics for example) but generally speaking if you earn more revenue you can pick off a school from a league that does not. So per school payout is critical. TCU's addition would cost 3 million for the bottom 7 paychecks (as UT OU ATM get 20 regardless now) so it makes us more unstable to add them.

So adding TCU would make sense if UT or ATM left as it would give BCS AQ points, competitive sports, and help shore up DFW with BU + TT.
Until that happens they only offer to reinforce a strength while magnifying the big weakness we have as a league. That said I have respect for what they have built as a program.

(01-27-2011 01:53 PM)UofL07 Wrote:  

(01-27-2011 01:22 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  VPI was really a creation of the Big East, though, and an easy schedule year in and year out. Check the records, VPI usually played one of the easiest schedules in all of D1 football. That is how they racked up the "great" record. They would play in conference and possibly one other good school. Teams whose real goal is a championship usually play strong schools that can beat them. I think Schiano is following this plan (sorry, Brista).

L'ville, Cincy and USF have easily matched or exceeded what VPI did for the Big East. Within a few more years and you can through BC in the VPI category, too.

Don't get me wrong. I think UC, UofL, and USF were valuable additions to the Big East. However, material value (on-the-field performance, facilities, attendance, whatever other objective metric you want to include) is only part of the equation. The other half is more abstract/subjective and involves a combination of national TV appeal, a program's "prestige" and tradition (whether deserved or not), academics, etc.

Let's take the example of Boston college and UofL. UofL has higher attendance for both major sports, much better facilities for both major sports, has the most profitable basketball program in the nation, is considered one of the Top 10/15 all-time basketball programs by most analysts, has appearances in the Final Four/BCS/World Series over the last decade, has a more competitive athletic department across the board, etc. As a UofL fan, I'm extremely proud of all of that. However, I would argue that in the eyes of most casual sports fans (the people TV targets) Boston College still is a more valuable commodity than UofL's. BC has more tradition/prestige attached to its name than UofL does (has any school milked a single play more than the Flutie Hail Mary?) and more national appeal. Part of the reason is that UofL is a newcomer to the upper echelon (power conference) of college athletics.

Ultimately, my point was that there is no logical way to say that a conference could completely replace three brand name teams with three teams from a lower conference (none of whom have an outstanding football tradition). It isn't a 1:1 substitution. Over time, those teams may eventually become as valuable as the defectors, but they'll need time and success on the national stage to do so.

I understand your point, I agree to some degree. My point is that BC is a faded brand - no school has gotten as much mileage from one play as BC - and VPI was nothing before they joined the Big East. VPI did little to develop the Big East Brand. The Big East made VPI. Miami was the face of the Big East. Syracuse, Pitt and WVU were the challengers. BC and VPI were the problem children (they could win any game and won the games they should have won but were not a team that was feared). Rutgers and Temple were the doormats before the ACC raid.

Recall that the ACC had no interest in VPI. The Media has built VPI up much bigger than they really were. They still flop more often than not when playing the big boys.

L'ville is self made. They deserved an AQ invite and rightfully got it.

(01-27-2011 04:41 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-27-2011 02:25 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  CSU is option 9 or 10 though at best. I would take AFA over them any day.

Agreed. Colorado State = Utah State; i.e. the third most-popular college football team in a relatively small state.

Hoping to capture the Denver TV market with CSU makes even less sense than hoping to capture the SLC market with USU, because football fans in Colorado will always be Broncos fans first and it's a pro sports market. College football is way down the list there.

I've read before that CSU has more alumni in Colorado than CU does, because so many of CU's students are from out of state in the first place. No doubt, CSU doesn't draw as well as CU, but Ft. Collins is further from Denver than Boulder, and the MWC isn't the Big 12 or Pac-12. Put CSU in the Big 12, and I think you see their program support grow significantly with perhaps a larger share of the Denver market than CU brought in on average.

(01-27-2011 01:22 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  They would play in conference and possibly one other good school. Teams whose real goal is a championship usually play strong schools that can beat them. I think Schiano is following this plan (sorry, Brista).

No I'll be the first to admit this is exactly what we're trying to do (which sucks as a fan) and frankly not even doing that well at it.

(01-27-2011 05:37 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  The Media has built VPI up much bigger than they really were. They still flop more often than not when playing the big boys.

Ain't this the truth...

(01-27-2011 05:37 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(01-27-2011 01:53 PM)UofL07 Wrote:  

(01-27-2011 01:22 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  VPI was really a creation of the Big East, though, and an easy schedule year in and year out. Check the records, VPI usually played one of the easiest schedules in all of D1 football. That is how they racked up the "great" record. They would play in conference and possibly one other good school. Teams whose real goal is a championship usually play strong schools that can beat them. I think Schiano is following this plan (sorry, Brista).

L'ville, Cincy and USF have easily matched or exceeded what VPI did for the Big East. Within a few more years and you can through BC in the VPI category, too.

Don't get me wrong. I think UC, UofL, and USF were valuable additions to the Big East. However, material value (on-the-field performance, facilities, attendance, whatever other objective metric you want to include) is only part of the equation. The other half is more abstract/subjective and involves a combination of national TV appeal, a program's "prestige" and tradition (whether deserved or not), academics, etc.

Let's take the example of Boston college and UofL. UofL has higher attendance for both major sports, much better facilities for both major sports, has the most profitable basketball program in the nation, is considered one of the Top 10/15 all-time basketball programs by most analysts, has appearances in the Final Four/BCS/World Series over the last decade, has a more competitive athletic department across the board, etc. As a UofL fan, I'm extremely proud of all of that. However, I would argue that in the eyes of most casual sports fans (the people TV targets) Boston College still is a more valuable commodity than UofL's. BC has more tradition/prestige attached to its name than UofL does (has any school milked a single play more than the Flutie Hail Mary?) and more national appeal. Part of the reason is that UofL is a newcomer to the upper echelon (power conference) of college athletics.

Ultimately, my point was that there is no logical way to say that a conference could completely replace three brand name teams with three teams from a lower conference (none of whom have an outstanding football tradition). It isn't a 1:1 substitution. Over time, those teams may eventually become as valuable as the defectors, but they'll need time and success on the national stage to do so.

I understand your point, I agree to some degree. My point is that BC is a faded brand - no school has gotten as much mileage from one play as BC - and VPI was nothing before they joined the Big East. VPI did little to develop the Big East Brand. The Big East made VPI. Miami was the face of the Big East. Syracuse, Pitt and WVU were the challengers. BC and VPI were the problem children (they could win any game and won the games they should have won but were not a team that was feared). Rutgers and Temple were the doormats before the ACC raid.

Recall that the ACC had no interest in VPI. The Media has built VPI up much bigger than they really were. They still flop more often than not when playing the big boys.

L'ville is self made. They deserved an AQ invite and rightfully got it.

More revisionist history. Pitt was terrible during the '90s while VT was solidifying themselves as a power. WVU only finished the season ranked one time during the '90s. And, as you conveniently ignore, Virginia Tech played for a national title while a Big East member.

MS, WVU still leads the overall series with Virginia Tech 28-21-1 (2-2 in the last 4 games - although like any series, it's cyclic)...

The Hokies ended the rivalry in 2005, after joining the ACC, which is a pity. WVU and VT are natural rivals. But VT wanted nothing to do with the Mountaineers after 2005. There have been talk of late about reviving the battle for the Black Diamond Trophy. But I'm not going to hold my breath. IMO, the Hokies are chicken...

If "it" had happened with the Pac 16, I could have seen the Big 12 basically destroying the Mountain West in one last attempt to keep itself as an AQ conference:

Kansas
Kansas State
Iowa State
Missouri
Baylor
Texas Tech
San Diego State
UNLV
Boise State
BYU
Air Force
Colorado State

TCU, Wyoming, and New Mexico would have been the only schools left in the Mountain West, and we know what happened with TCU. The new Big 12 would have most major markets between St. Louis and San Diego at its disposal, although Phoenix would be a notable omission, and the California presence is not great. If BYU had passed on this I could see either TCU or Fresno State taking their place.

(02-01-2011 07:16 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  If "it" had happened with the Pac 16, I could have seen the Big 12 basically destroying the Mountain West in one last attempt to keep itself as an AQ conference:

Kansas
Kansas State
Iowa State
Missouri
Baylor
Texas Tech
San Diego State
UNLV
Boise State
BYU
Air Force
Colorado State

TCU, Wyoming, and New Mexico would have been the only schools left in the Mountain West, and we know what happened with TCU. The new Big 12 would have most major markets between St. Louis and San Diego at its disposal, although Phoenix would be a notable omission, and the California presence is not great. If BYU had passed on this I could see either TCU or Fresno State taking their place.

I really think if we raided them it would be a total of 8 or 9 teams if the KS schools and MU did not go to the BE.

We would likely have added in that scenario:
BYU
TCU
AFA
Boise
(Maybe 1 more depending on BCS AQ)

(01-27-2011 01:10 AM)UofL07 Wrote:  

(01-26-2011 10:28 PM)CatsClaw Wrote:  Does the Big East replace Miami and Virginia Tech with Cincinnati and South Florida?

UofL, UC, and USF are a big step below VTech and Miami in terms of national FB prestige. Adding those three schools did not come close to replacing the prestige VTech and Miami brought the league. I'm not embarrassed at all to say that either. Miami has 5 national titles, a .637 % win clip, 7 HoFers, and won 9 Big East titles (with multiple undefeated seasons).

So to answer your question, no the Big East did not even come close to replacing what it lost with Miami and VTech. What it did manage to do is take the best teams/athletic programs that were available at the time. Those teams have proven to be valuable to the Big East but you are kidding yourself if you think they are anywhere as appealing as Miami.

Well I guess Louisville is more appealing now....Miami can have all the titles they want we have better revenue and newer facilities now. Our time is coming.

(01-27-2011 01:10 AM)UofL07 Wrote:  

(01-26-2011 10:28 PM)CatsClaw Wrote:  Does the Big East replace Miami and Virginia Tech with Cincinnati and South Florida?

UofL, UC, and USF are a big step below VTech and Miami in terms of national FB prestige. Adding those three schools did not come close to replacing the prestige VTech and Miami brought the league. I'm not embarrassed at all to say that either. Miami has 5 national titles, a .637 % win clip, 7 HoFers, and won 9 Big East titles (with multiple undefeated seasons).

So to answer your question, no the Big East did not even come close to replacing what it lost with Miami and VTech. What it did manage to do is take the best teams/athletic programs that were available at the time. Those teams have proven to be valuable to the Big East but you are kidding yourself if you think they are anywhere as appealing as Miami.

Well I guess Louisville is more appealing now....Miami can have all the titles they want we have better revenue and newer facilities now. Our time is coming.