Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)


Post Reply 
Big Market vs. Small market conferences
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
ark30inf Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,639
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation: 588
I Root For: Arkansas State
Location:
Post: #41
RE: Big Market vs. Small market conferences
(04-18-2012 10:44 AM)CAJUNNATION Wrote:  
(04-18-2012 10:14 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  ....give yourself the best chance and that means aligning schools based on the ability to produce winners, align enough winners and you can have a conference that produces a lot of BCS and NCAA Tournament money. If you have a league having that success TV will follow.


Thank You.


Give me a school with a high quality football program or basketball program or both with a rabid fanbase any day.

That's the best way to build a conference.

That's the way they built them before we were born. They are called MAJOR conferences today.

It can still be done today. All it takes is for a group of schools to say NO MORE and build for the future. I'm thinking these schools could build something pretty special:

Texas State
Louisiana
Louisiana Tech
Arkansas State
WKU
Middle Tennessee
Appalachain State
Georgia State
Georgia Southern
Troy
South Alabama

Imagine what almost was with the MWC.

Utah, BYU, Boise State, Air Force, San Diego State, etc. etc.

That group was going to be a major conference. They just cashed out way too early.

But the Crystal Pepsi Conference seems so much cooler.
04-18-2012 12:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CAJUNNATION Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,689
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 75
I Root For: Western Civilization
Location: Parts Unknown
Post: #42
RE: Big Market vs. Small market conferences
Last 5 years, bowl game appearances....


BIG MARKET 10

7 bowl games


SMALL MARKET 12

23 bowl games
04-18-2012 12:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #43
RE: Big Market vs. Small market conferences
(04-18-2012 11:09 AM)ajg Wrote:  
(04-18-2012 10:14 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  <snip>
For the next several years those guys stomped all over Apple but the long range focus paid off. Five years later Compaq was struggling and in another year bought out, five more years down the road Gateway was struggling and bought out. Four years after Gateway is shut down, Apple is the richest company in the world.

Chasing markets is a today answer to make money today.

I appreciate the sentiment about a long range outlook. It makes sense for most endeavors.

What I don't understand about the Apple analogy is this, how does choosing a school with a history of recent success on the football field equal a long range outlook while choosing a team in a large market and little success, but much potential, equal short range thinking.

The old bromide is true - winning cures a multitude of sins. And it is also true that you cant make a million people move to a small town.

If a big market team gets good, the bandwagon will be overflowing. It's not easy but with the right coach and a few good recruiting cycles huge things can happen.

Credit to Boise, they have done some great things, but what goes up can come down. What if they got hit with sanctions? No allegations here (other than I have always wondered how they got all those highly ranked California recruits to move to Idaho) but ask yourself what would happen to all that national interest?

In college you look to see how they run things.

For example when ASU was mired in a particularly bad run I noticed that the Red Wolves were climbing out of the bottom 1/3rd of the all-sports standings. Got to the mid-point and continue up to the top 1/3. Football followed them a bit later.

Right decisions were being made and those paid off.

Look at how a school hires. If you fire a coach for poor success, does the replacement look more like or less like the guy you fired.

You ought to be able to go back to the archives to see a discussion early in 2011 about the new hires in football. At the time I said, ASU, UL, and UNT had all made good hires because they hired the guy who looked like the best fit for their circumstances. UNT improved 2 win, UL improved 6 wins, ASU improved 6 wins.

I questioned ULM's hire the year before because I felt like they were replacing Weatherbie with a guy who was probably the most similar candidate to Weatherbie. Berry is now two years in and his two years are -1 win compared to Weatherbie's final two.

I thought the jury was out on WKU's hire. While I was underwhelmed by Elson, I didn't have enough info on him other than he had the good fortune of better knowing what he was walking into. His first two years are +7 over the last two years of Elson.

All schools make mistakes but you can catch trends and more importantly you can assess the likely improvements based on whether they are trying to do the same thing with a different face.
04-19-2012 10:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.