(08-08-2011 04:23 PM)BigEastFan99 Wrote:  If a candidate ran for office in New York, NH, Vt, MA, RI or ME on the platform that they were going to raise taxes and pump that money into the state college athletic system, I do not think they would win. If a candidate does that in the midwest or the south, that gains them votes.

Not so. NY sends billions in appropriations to its schools each year. Candidates have lead athletic improvements within SUNY, and saw no ill effects. SBU's stadium is named for their State Senator who brought them the funds. UB got our stadium the same way, and our local delegates bring home smaller athletic appropriation funds to complement larger private funds for projects. SBU has state funds for arena improvements frozen until next year, Albany has state funds for a new FB stadium, track facility, and turf field, all in-hand, Binghamton got a great new arena and soccer facility from the state. And all use private money to fund all or part of other improvements.

You just can't lump SUNY in with the smaller NE schools. URI and UNH have the worst state support as part of their total budget in the nation, and they can't make up for it with their lack of professional schools and research. The problem of SUNY's meddling in athletics was solved in 1986, and the system now allows each school to chart their own course athletically.

(08-08-2011 01:48 AM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  I just don't think the BE would look Northeast again unless UConn, Rutgers, Syracuse or Pitt left. The idea that the SUNY schools (Buffalo, Albany, SB) could thrive as a group in BCS football is pretty farfetched.

Why not, in the future? UB and SBU already fit BCS institutionally with UB or sometimes both viewed as peers by other large-state flagships, both with $1B+ budgets, AAU membership, new revenue streams from the state with the last budget amendments, $1B combined in state and private funding for physical improvements each year, markets that do not overlap with other FBS members (like OH). When it comes to becoming BCS-worthy and invite looks from presidents, it costs far, far less to build athletics to BCS-quality, than a whole institution to BCS-quality.

You keep throwing out recruiting numbers, but you ignore the points already stated: IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MANY FBS PLAYERS NY and NE PRODUCES. IT'S SOMETHING BIG-TIME SCHOOLS IN OTHER STATES WITH EVEN WEAKER HS FB GET OVER QUITE NICELY.

(08-08-2011 01:48 AM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  Buffalo is a weak MAC team

When's the last time your kitties won a trophy again?

(08-07-2011 11:42 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  "T Shirt" fans of college program are relatively limited bunch on a national scale. In B1G and SEC country there are a lot more T-Shirts than elsewhere with relatively few NFL markets.

I agree about the SEC to a certain extent, but my problem again is with the characterization of B1G country. Once again, the Midwest is even MORE rabid about the NFL compared to the Northeast. Packers fans (and I loathe them) blow everyone else away in turns of being rabid. When you go to Wisconsin, you'll see Packers news on the front page of the newspaper (as in the actual front page, not the just the front of the sports page) in the middle of May! The whole reason why Green Bay is able to support a team with such a small immediate market is because it HAS to draw fans from the entire state.

Yet, despite having to compete the most rabid NFL fan base anywhere in a medium-sized state in terms of population (and such NFL fan base comes from the ENTIRE state), the University of Wisconsin sells out an 80,000-seat football stadium EVERY game... AND an 18,000-seat basketball stadium EVERY game... AND sell over 10,000 tickets to EVERY hockey game to lead NCAA attendance by a massive margin. UW needs to draw people from Milwaukee in order to support the Badgers just like the Packers need to draw people from that same Milwaukee market, yet they do more than fine despite having a much smaller population base to deal with compared to, say, Texas or USC or even schools like Illinois and Maryland.

Ultimately, it's the character of the school itself (number of alums, success on the field or court, historical emphasis on sports, etc.), NOT the market, that determines whether they will draw fans. EVERY region of the country except for the Northeast has proven that college and NFL football can coexist.

By the way, here are top 10 NFL teams with the best local ratings in 2010:

http://www.neworleanssaints.com/news-and...5a6f991f0b

Saints 43.9 (SEC market)
Steelers 41.9 (Big Ten/Big East)
Packers 41.3 (Big Ten)
Chiefs 36.9 (Big 12)
Colts 34.9 (Big Ten)
Vikings 34.5 (Big Ten)
Ravens 30.9 (ACC)
Patriots 30.9 (ACC)
Bills 30.9 (Big East)
Browns 29.1 (Big Ten)

5 of the top 10 were in the Big Ten footprint. There are a number of reasons why college teams in the Northeast aren't popular, but NFL competition isn't one of them. It hasn't made a single dent in the Big Ten's TV contracts and attendance.

Football in the east used to be the Ivy League. When they deemphasized athletics at their universities, it seems like the rest of the northeast did the same, unless they lived in a college town (which wasn't in the big city, and therefore not worthy of notice)...

(08-09-2011 04:06 AM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  

(08-08-2011 01:48 AM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  I just don't think the BE would look Northeast again unless UConn, Rutgers, Syracuse or Pitt left. The idea that the SUNY schools (Buffalo, Albany, SB) could thrive as a group in BCS football is pretty farfetched.

Why not, in the future? UB and SBU already fit BCS institutionally with UB or sometimes both viewed as peers by other large-state flagships, both with $1B+ budgets, AAU membership, new revenue streams from the state with the last budget amendments, $1B combined in state and private funding for physical improvements each year, markets that do not overlap with other FBS members (like OH). When it comes to becoming BCS-worthy and invite looks from presidents, it costs far, far less to build athletics to BCS-quality, than a whole institution to BCS-quality.

You keep throwing out recruiting numbers, but you ignore the points already stated: IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MANY FBS PLAYERS NY and NE PRODUCES. IT'S SOMETHING BIG-TIME SCHOOLS IN OTHER STATES WITH EVEN WEAKER HS FB GET OVER QUITE NICELY.

(08-08-2011 01:48 AM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  Buffalo is a weak MAC team

When's the last time your kitties won a trophy again?

Counting the number of players and looking at the results thus far, it appears that FCS is the correct operating level for a SUNY school.

Buffalo 85 scholarship (.300 performance)
SBU 65 scholarship (.500 performance)
Albany 30 scholarship (.650 performance)

I have a difficult time seeing all 3 of these schools forcing their way into a BCS conference going the traditional BCS buster route of a school like TCU. This is what I'm saying, having all 3 SUNY's in a BCS conference works in theory but not very well in practice.

Like you said the SUNY's are finding their D1 identities gradually. Could I see SBU and Albany moving up to the CAA football conference, absolutely. Could I see SBU and Albany moving up to the MAC.....maybe but that creates for the MAC another Ohio-Michigan stiuation with too many schools.

Could I see Buffalo becoming a BCS buster like Boise State and joining the Big East, then in future decades watching Stony Brook and Albany accomplish the same?

I think BG-Kent State-Miami-OHIO would have a better shot as a unit to the BCS with more in-state talent to work with. All of those schools have done more in FBS over the last decade than Buffalo with BG and Miami having a few top 25 seasons.

(08-07-2011 11:00 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

Bill Marsh Wrote:Football is unique among major sports in that it is normally played on weekends during the day - especially in college. That's why fans can travel for hours & make an all day event of a game, sometimes even a whole weekend event.

So, when are teams competing DIRECTLY with NFL teams?

Uh, how about seven days a week, 365 days per year? Have you ever lived in an NFL city? How about an NFL city in the Northeast?

I'm a native New Yorker & lived there for 25 years. I now live in CT about half way between NYC & Boston, so I get inundated with both the NY teams & the Patriots.

The fact that we get inundated with media reports & media talk all the time doesn't mean we're inundated with actual football events 24/27/365. I think of the competition for fans has to do with eyeballs on TV & fannies in the seats. If I can follow UConn football + the NY Giants, I don't know why other football fans can't also follow both a college team & a pro team.

Most SEC fans have never set foot on a college campus.

(08-07-2011 11:00 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

Bill Marsh Wrote:Penn Sate has an enormous following in Philadelphia & they do extremely well there on TV. They draw a large contingent of ticket holders who travel for hours to their games each week. Are they in direct competition with the Eagles?

Of course Penn State is in competition with the Eagles but not like Temple is and like Villanova would be. And it is not just the Eagles that those schools compete with for attention. There is also the Phillies, the Flyers, the Sixers and about 10,000 cultural options that rural schools like Penn State do not have to contend with.

Those schools rely on Philadelphia area media for coverage of their teams/events whereas Penn State - which has support throughout the state - does not.

The largest contingent of PSU season ticket holders are from greater Philly. More than half of PA's population lives in either greater Philly or greater Pittsburgh. And a lot of others live in easter PA in places that are not "greater Philadelphia" but are certainly within the Philly sphere of influence.

I think there's no question that PSU is in direct competition with the Eagles. I they had tp depend o rural PA for their ticket sales, their arean would be less than half the size it is.

Where do you think all those PSU alums are going for employment after graduation? To the sticks? They're largely in Philly & NY metro areas.

yeah they just drive thru..

(08-09-2011 03:00 PM)Bill Marsh Wrote:  Where do you think all those PSU alums are going for employment after graduation? To the sticks? They're largely in Philly & NY metro areas.

I love that you said that as that is what the middle of nowhere Southern Tier of NY calls the state of PA. lol

(08-09-2011 02:10 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  Counting the number of players and looking at the results thus far, it appears that FCS is the correct operating level for a SUNY school.

Buffalo 85 scholarship (.300 performance)
SBU 65 scholarship (.500 performance)
Albany 30 scholarship (.650 performance)

Ah yes, because ~10 years is a perfect measuring stick of correct operating level.

(08-09-2011 02:10 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  Could I see SBU and Albany moving up to the MAC.....maybe but that creates for the MAC another Ohio-Michigan stiuation with too many schools.

Here's a brief lesson from someone with multiple degrees in geographic analysis...or from just looking as a map: Albany is further from Buffalo than Cleveland is from Cincinnati, and the same distance from Albany to Stony Brook. Albany does not have the resources UB and SBU do to move up, but even if they did, NYS is huge in area and population to support multiple successfull FBS programs.

(08-09-2011 02:10 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  I think BG-Kent State-Miami-OHIO would have a better shot as a unit to the BCS with more in-state talent to work with. All of those schools have done more in FBS over the last decade than Buffalo with BG and Miami having a few top 25 seasons.

You have no clear concept of what BCS means. It's not merely football results. If it were, Boise would have been mentioned as a PAC12 or BIG12 candidate. The typical BCS member has a $800-$1B+ endowment, $900K-1B+ budget, over 80% are public flagships/land-grants. Buffalo is the only MAC member that fits or have fit those numbers (our endowment was $800M+ before the market tanked). We're the only public AAU school who is not in an AQ conference. We're the only MAC member who is listed as a peer by multiple BCS institutions, and our president rubs elbows with the BIG10's, Pitt's, and Rutgers' leaders at AAU meetings. We're the only MAC member that gets the highest college football ratings in our Top 50 market.

BG's ENTIRE school budget was $300M for this academic year; UB will spend $350M+ in just research expendatures. Who really has the best shot to attract other university presidents?

Buffalo to BE.

(08-09-2011 03:12 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Buffalo to BE.

What took you so long? :mysterymachine:

Actually, Mark May declared it as likely in the near future, during his speach at our pre-season banquet

Though, I'd rather Herbie have been there to say it, since he's the one truly in bed with an AQ school's leadership.

(08-07-2011 11:00 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

Bill Marsh Wrote:On the NFL side, Green Bay has the entire state of Wisconsin as its fan base. Here, fans travel hours to attend a pro game each week. Are they in direct competition with the Badgers?

Truthfully, no, they are not. They are 2.5 hours apart.

Bill Mrash Wrote:And when are teams in the same market? You've mentioned Michigan/Detroit & Washington/Seattle, but what about Florida/Jacksonville?

1:30 hours apart.

Bill Marsh Wrote:Texas A&M/Houston?

1:45 hours apart.

Bill Marsh Wrote:Georgia/Atlanta?

1:30 hours apart.

Bill Marsh Wrote:Notre Dame/Indianapolis?

3:00 hours apart.

Bill Marsh Wrote:LSU/New Orleans?

1:30 hours apart.

Sensing a trend here?

Bill Marsh Wrote:Are these all so far apart that they're not in direct competition, not competing for fans in the same market?

Yes, that is precisely what I'm saying. But don't take my word for it. Rather let's defer to the folks who measure markets professionally.

That is why New Orleans and Baton Rouge are listed as two separate media markets; as are College Station/Houston, Gainesville/Jacksonville, Athens/Atlanta, and South Bend/Indianapolis. And for the record, Ann Arbor and Detroit are also separate media markets but I was being generous (a lot of good that did me).

For example, to use your list, Tulane was once a major power that drew well. Now the Saints are the kings of NOLA. The rest of Louisiana's clearly did not though (as you correctly asserted).

The same is true of Houston in Houston and SMU in Dallas. Once the NFL took hold, those schools went by the wayside.

I can't believe that this is even being debated. Are Miami, Georgia Tech, Boston College, etc., all just coincidences?

Bill Marsh Wrote:There are others.

Okay. Who?

Bill Marsh Wrote:But ignored here is the fact that the market for a state flagship is the entire state.

No, it wasn't. In fact I agree with that entirely. I just don't think it is a coincidence that almost all of the NCAA teams that have to compete directly in market against NFL teams struggle at the gate. And in the rare instances that the NCAA team in or near an NFL market does succeed, that usually comes at the expense of the local NFL team (who almost has to be a perrenial loser - ala the Detroit Lions).

There are only so many discretionary dollars to go around.

Quote:How is Texas not in direct competition with the Cowboys for fan interest despite the distance & 2 different metro areas?

Because the University of Texas is itself located in a city with a large metro population (42nd largest DMA). Also, as you accurately pointed out, they have the rest of Texas from which to draw. Houston, SMU, TCU, etc., have no such luxury.

Bill Marsh Wrote:Then we have the fact that college football is almost always played on Saturdays when no NFL games are being played & NFL games are almost always played on Sundays when no college games are played?

Because the war for attention extends far beyond what happens on three hours each Saturday and Sunday.

Bill Marsh Wrote:Are football fans unable to watch their sport more than once a week? Are they unable to attend more than one game per weekend while fans in other sports attend multiple games? Can football fans not root for BOTH a pro team AND a college team?

Of course they can, but there are only so many discretionary dollars to go around.

To use your example of Philadelphia. Seriously, by percentage, if given the choice of a Penn State national championship or an Eagles Super Bowl, how many Philadelphians would choose the former over the latter?

Or I can ask it another way. If you gave the average Philadelphia sports fan the choice of a ticket to the BCS national championship game (featuring Penn State) or a ticket to the Super Bowl (featuring the Eagles), how many would choose the former over the latter?

As someone who has previously lived in the "City of Brotherly Love" (and Cherry Hill, NJ) and still makes it out there multiple times per year, I would guess that less than five percent would pick the PSU tix over the Eagles tix and that is probably being generous.

And that is the core of my argument. It is nearly impossible for any college football program - flagship or otherwise - to compete directly against the higher level version of the game. It is the same reason why you don't usually see minor league baseball teams flourish in major league cities. However those minor league teams often do much, much better in more rural areas.

I would sincerely be interested in your answer to that question. How many Philadelphians would prioritize Penn State over the Eagles?


Now ask that same question to the average person from Harrisburg (79 DMA). Or Wilkes-Barre/Scranton (69). Or Allentown (70). Or York (105). Or Lancaster (115). Or Reading (133). Or Erie (166). Or Johnstown (184). Or Meadville (244). Or State College (249). Or Altoona (255). Or Williamsport (259).

That's the difference.

Certainly your opinion is the conventional wisdom, so you'll have a lot of support for it. I think an oft overlooked factor is that most of the land grant flagships are by their very nature & histories located outside of metropolises. these are the very schools that typically have the largest on campus student bodies, largest alumni bases, & the largest supoort among non-alumni because of their prominence & identity as the "state's school."

So, are they getting big attendance because they're not in competiton with the NFL or is that just a coincidence. I'm on the coincidence side of the argument. Just an accident of history. Since most of our population lives in or near cities, they obviously have to be drawing from those very same populations for the fans & that's where their alumni are. You cite BC & Miami, but as private schools, they shouldn't even be in the conversation because it's not an apples to apples comparison.

If lack of NFL competition, then how do we explain schools like Michigan (111,825), Washington (66,264), Cal (57,873), Miami (52,575), & Pitt (52,165)?

How do we explain the fact that a school like UCLA draws the same 60,000 fans today as they did 25 years ago when they were in direct competition with the NFL Rams?

For every Minnesota that doesn't draw in an NFL city, there are 5 more Indiana's who don't draw either despite being located in a college town out in the sticks, far from NFL competition.

BTW, I don't consider the travel times you listed to be significant. Many fans - both college & pro routinely - travel farther than that to games. By excluding teams that are within a couple of hours of a pro city, the deck is being stacked so that schools who are drawing fans from as little as an hour away (half way between) who are clearly within the metro area are eliminated from the conversation.

The bottom line here is the fact that flagships draw big attendance numbers wherever they are. However, they are by and large not in big cities. That more than NFL competition explains attendance.

(08-08-2011 01:48 AM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

(08-07-2011 04:03 AM)Bill Marsh Wrote:  

(08-06-2011 09:36 AM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  There is something to be said for why the Big East has a TX and FL school in it with interest in a second FL and TX school instead of a second NY school like Buffalo. I do think talent places NE football at a disadvantage and is why its taken the programs longer to develop in the region.

When the Big East brought together Boston College, Temple, and Rutgers in the early 90's at the time it proved to be too many BCS level NE football programs for all of them to sustain a regular top 80 performance.

Boston College developed and moved onto the ACC using more of a national recruiting base. Temple was cut from the BE to the benefit of Rutgers recruiting. UConn was added to the BE and has attracted a different type of player attracted to the rural Storrs campus along with taking players that would have in the past gone to BC or Syracuse.

I just don't think the BE would look Northeast again unless UConn, Rutgers, Syracuse or Pitt left. The idea that the SUNY schools (Buffalo, Albany, SB) could thrive as a group in BCS football is pretty farfetched. In a MAC level non-AQ conference Buffalo, Albany, Stony Brook, UMass, New Hampshire, Temple, Delaware, James Madison would all probably do OK.

Frankly if the Big East were smart, it would look precisely to the Northeast rather than to overcrowded markets elsewhere. The Northeast is where the undeveloped markets are. It's exactly why the Big East should stay at 9 football programs until another top program like TCU emerges. That would give a program like UMass time to develop to a level where it is viable & competitive at this level.

The biggest mistake that the Big East can make is adding 2nd & 3rd tier programs from states that are already crowded with college football programs. That would lock the conference into a membership that will not be able to compete in the long run & would leave no openings for new & emerging programs that can be competitive.

You are contradicting your own comments here.

First you are saying less stick with the Northeast because they have 50 or 60 million people to work with. Let's upgrade UMass to the BCS level. OK. That is adding a second tier NE program to the Big East.

Nope. I'm not contradicting myself because I never said to add UMass. I said that the Big East should wait to give programs in the Northeast like UMass time to grow.

I've never believed that the Big East should add lesser programs regardless of where they're located. The conference can't afford to jeopardize its BCS status that way.

I believe the conference should only add programs when they have arrived & their addition to the conference is a no brainer, basically an offer the conference can't refuse like TCU.

I would be quicker to add a program with a big market + a good geographic fit sooner than one at the same level on the field but with lesser market potential & z more remote geographic location.

(08-08-2011 01:48 AM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  And while I think UMass could rise up to the BCS level potentially, its silly to think that all the SUNY schools could make it at the BE level.

I did the in-state scholarship numbers for Buffalo before but I'm going to add Syracuse and the other SUNY schools.

NJ/PA/NY and Northeast Players

Syracuse (59)-31 from New York
Buffalo (46)-37 from New York
Stony Brook (60)-41 from New York
Albany (80)-59 from New York

Just as I suspected, as you move from the 30 scholarship Albany program to 65 scholarship Stony Brook to the FBS programs they become more reliant upon out-of-state talent.

If all 4 programs were in the Big East, they would probably only have 15 in-state players from New York max. There are probably only 60 BCS level players produced in the entire state. At the MAC level maybe 100 players.

There is enough talent in the NE for a few more MAC level upgrades like a Stony Brook or a Delaware. I don't see how these schools could possibly be on the fast track to the BCS. Syracuse has become a medicore BCS program and Buffalo is a weak MAC team. UMass in the MAC might help maximize Buffalo's recruiting in the East and convince guys to walk-on there over playing at Stony Brook or Albany. UMass is going to get more Mass guys to walk-on and hit NJ harder taking guys in the process that would have previously signed with Delaware or other CAA schools.

If you take a look at FBS teams from Texas (12) or Florida (7) and they are 90% in-state. Even in Ohio with 8 FBS schools the rosters average 65% in-state. There is probably 2 more Ohio MAC schools than what there needs to be but oh well.

If the whole proposed Big XII meltdown was to happen, my guess is the BE would shift its football conference to the Midwest instead of trying to add Temple or UMass.

SEC: TAMU/Clemson
ACC: UConn, Syracuse, Rutgers
PAC: Texas, TT, OSU, OU
Big East: Iowa State, Missouri, Kansas, K-State

The Big East would have 18 schools and 13 of which would then be in the Midwest (TCU, KU, KSU, MU, ISU, Marq, DePaul, ND, UL, UC, WVU, PITT). Only GTown, Villanova, Seton, St. John's, Providence would still be in the East and also Florida outlier USF.

The Big East would be opposite the Big Ten in more markets like the ACC is opposite the SEC across the South. The Big East would essentially be abandoning Northeast BCS level football in this scenario having lost too many markets to the ACC to stay viable.

So, please explain why the populous Northeast is lacking in football talent as compared with some other regions of the country.

Is it something in the water? Inferior DNA? Just what is it?

(08-08-2011 06:25 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(08-07-2011 02:51 AM)Bill Marsh Wrote:  

(08-02-2011 01:06 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  A couple of thoughts:

(1) The relative lack of influence of the public flagships in the Northeast compared to everywhere else in the country cannot be overstated. Penn State is obviously an exception, but UConn only moved up to FBS during the past decade, UMass is only moving up to FBS (and even then, only to the MAC) during the next decade, Rutgers has about a century of Cubs-like ineptitude on the field, the state of New York doesn't have a true flagship, and the other Northeastern states' flagships are FCS schools. The fact that all of the individual flagships in the region (outside of Penn State) don't have much in the way of historical success (or any history at all) means that New York and Boston, where most people who graduate from those schools end up living, don't end up with a critical mass of college football fans and make them extremely weak markets for the sport. In contrast, the Big Ten and SEC schools are pumping out more grads on an absolute basis and then grab larger market shares in places where their grads migrate to (like Chicago and Atlanta) on a relative basis.

(2) I believe the NFL influence is very overstated compared to point #1. The Big Ten footprint is home to the Bears, Packers, Steelers, Vikings and Browns, all of whom have huge loyal fan bases but still manage to support their college teams very heavily, as well. The Cowboys are the most valuable franchise in the NFL, yet that hasn't dampened any enthusiasm for Texas, Texas A&M and college football in general in the Dallas market. Any market that is worth having is a pro team market already. Every region in the country outside of the Northeast is able to have pro teams coexist with large college fan bases, so I don't buy the presence of the NFL as a valid excuse for tepid college football support.

Completely concur, Frank. Let me add one more point - a #3 to your 2.

(3) Basketball is the great equalizer among college alumni who gather around the water cooler at their jobs in NYC & Boston. Even alums of all those small schools in the Northeast can keep hope alive that they can compete with the big boys in college basketball. Not only does the Big East provide that format, but the basketball success in other power conferences of football non-entities like Duke, Indiana, & Kansas encourages them. Further, every time a Butler, or a VCU, or a George Mason makes it to the Final Four the alums of those smaller colleges are encouraged. The fact is that so many smaller colleges are successful in the tournament & pull upsets every year, that alums of those schools & others like them can hold their own in any college hoops conversation. College football is completely different, so it takes NFL talk to bring everyone in the office together.

Well...those runs are still few and far between (over time).

The last team to win a National Title that was not in a "big" major conf at the time was Louisville in 1986 (and previously in 1980), when they were a member of the Metro Conf (a good "mid-major" in today's terms, conf at the time).

So since 1978, only Louisville & UNLV have been able to pull off a national championship in hoops that was not a member of a major conf at the time.

Also, since 1985, only 4* programs not in a major 6 conf have even made it to the Championship Game (Utah, UNLV, Butler-twice, and Memphis* which had their season vacated from the records).

NCAA Tourn is a blast...and yes, most upsets occur in the round of 64 or the round of 32...and while a team like VCU, Butler, et al might make a run, over time, those runs are normally few and far between. (I do think with more 1 and done players to the NBA, mid-majors with veteran line-ups might have a better chance to today to make a run vs decades past when major teams would be loaded with top veterans).

What does all that have to do with my point?

All I said is that runs deep into the tournament help keep hope alive & encourage conversations around the water cooler. Alums from smaller colleges in the Northeast can stand toe to toe with alums from power 6 conferences feel like they can hold their heads up because their schools & others like them can compete on the same playing field. The NCAA tournament is the great equalizer, just the opposite of college football.

The very fact that the Big East offers basketball competition between football schools & non-football schools is part of its magic in the East. Every alum form a school that does not play big time college football can see his equivalent in the Big East. Let's not forget that UConn was not a BCS football program when it won the national championship either in 1999 or in 2004.

While you point out that UNLV (1990) was the last mid major to win a NC, let's not forget that Kansas is the only Big XII school to have won a NC in that same period. In fact, they're the only Big XII school to have won a NC in the last 65 years. Is the rest of the Big XII supposed to give up & lose interest in basketball?

Since 1990, only one Big Ten school has one a NC - none in the past decade.

It's been 14 years since anyone from the Pac Ten has won a NC. that's not as long as the 20 year drought for mid majors, but it's still a long time. The Pac Ten has only won 2 NC's since 1990. Heck, they've only won 2 since the UCLA era ended 36 years ago. Mid majors have done better than that.

If NC's are the standard, then no one but the ACC & the Big East should pay any attention to the tournament. Okay, and occasionally the SEC.

(08-08-2011 02:11 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  Connecticut also has a fairly large population (4 million) compared to the other New England states of RI, VT, NH, Maine. That is a pretty big market and made perfect sense to be covered by the BE.

New Hampshire and Delaware have some of the largest budgets among all of the non-BCS schools so I don't see where its a funding thing. I think its more of a market and talent issue for flagships of the smaller New England states.

The Big East was conceived in pre-cable TV days. It was built around big arenas. Hartford had the biggest arena in New England. That's why they were included in the Big East - not because of their state's population.

Holy Cross was extended an invitation because Worcester also had a big arena & Holy Cross could fill it in those days. Same reason why Providence was included.

The Big East also wanted the Meadowlands Arena. They wanted Rutgers to be the member that filled it. When Rutgers declined, they still wanted the arena, which is why they invited Seton hall despite the fact that The Hall had a dismal program at the time. It's the same reason why they took Pitt over Penn State - that & the fact that travel to State College was a nightmare in those days.