I've seen several places here & in commentary where whatever the BE or a new conference follows the current BE, that the conference make-up will all & always aspire to be in one of the power conferences. Therefore the conference make-up will always be unsettled. It doesn't bode well for the schools or the conference as regards financial stability. So whatever path we take, whatever decisions are made regarding conference affiliation, it needs to be done with the goal of being one of the top 64 universities (in the top 4 conferences - which assumes an ultimate 4 x 16). Or make it top 80 as an ultimate number if you think the ACC survives.

Unfortunately, several schools, like Ole Miss, MSU, AZSU, CA, MN, IN, IA ST, KS and some others may not truely be one of the top 64 schools in the country but are going to be there by being vested in one of the top power conferences already (didn't include a couple of ACC schools because I think eventually the ACC will be gone too). Criteria for inclusion aside from current power-conference affiliation will be athletics success (especially in FB but BB too), TV market and academics.

So do we have a chance at ever being one of the top 64 (or 80) and if so what about our plans (long term) & performance indicate we are on the right path?

No

If we don't have a chance to be one of the top 80 schools (I know I said top 64) then why worry, moan & groan so much about conference affiliation? I said 64 because I think the SEC, B1G, PAC & B12 will eventually all have 16 teams and secure their positions as the power conferences. There may be room for a weaker 5th conference made up of the remaining ACC schools and the best of the rest but beyond those 80 schools the landscape will be weak and we will be left out. We can find a nice home for BB & probably the minor sports and play FB in the best situation we can find as mid-major FB school with a lot more stability and lower costs. If we aren't attempting to make the long term decisions to eventually be one of the top 80 schools, why fret about something we will never accomplish? To me this is the question we should be asking & discussing, are we one of the top 80 schools and if not what can we do to get there. Just playing musical chairs with new conference affiliations won't change anything in the end unless its a step toward the ultimate top 80. And we better know what it takes to be one of those top 80 or there is no hope for any semblance of parity with the power programs. I want to be one of the top 80 and think we have enough potential to get there, but thinking and potential aren't enough to make it happen & I can't say I know what needs to be done but we better find out quick and get on with it.

(01-02-2013 08:51 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  If we don't have a chance to be one of the top 80 schools (I know I said top 64) then why worry, moan & groan so much about conference affiliation? I said 64 because I think the SEC, B1G, PAC & B12 will eventually all have 16 teams and secure their positions as the power conferences. There may be room for a weaker 5th conference made up of the remaining ACC schools and the best of the rest but beyond those 80 schools the landscape will be weak and we will be left out. We can find a nice home for BB & probably the minor sports and play FB in the best situation we can find as mid-major FB school with a lot more stability and lower costs. If we aren't attempting to make the long term decisions to eventually be one of the top 80 schools, why fret about something we will never accomplish? To me this is the question we should be asking & discussing, are we one of the top 80 schools and if not what can we do to get there. Just playing musical chairs with new conference affiliations won't change anything in the end unless its a step toward the ultimate top 80. And we better know what it takes to be one of those top 80 or there is no hope for any semblance of parity with the power programs. I want to be one of the top 80 and think we have enough potential to get there, but thinking and potential aren't enough to make it happen & I can't say I know what needs to be done but we better find out quick and get on with it.

I think in this scenario our geography may actually help us for once with the ACC or B12.

2-11 and getting paid or 6-5 and going to a bowl

(01-02-2013 11:20 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  I've seen several places here & in commentary where whatever the BE or a new conference follows the current BE, that the conference make-up will all & always aspire to be in one of the power conferences. Therefore the conference make-up will always be unsettled. It doesn't bode well for the schools or the conference as regards financial stability. So whatever path we take, whatever decisions are made regarding conference affiliation, it needs to be done with the goal of being one of the top 64 universities (in the top 4 conferences - which assumes an ultimate 4 x 16). Or make it top 80 as an ultimate number if you think the ACC survives.

Unfortunately, several schools, like Ole Miss, MSU, AZSU, CA, MN, IN, IA ST, KS and some others may not truely be one of the top 64 schools in the country but are going to be there by being vested in one of the top power conferences already (didn't include a couple of ACC schools because I think eventually the ACC will be gone too). Criteria for inclusion aside from current power-conference affiliation will be athletics success (especially in FB but BB too), TV market and academics.

So do we have a chance at ever being one of the top 64 (or 80) and if so what about our plans (long term) & performance indicate we are on the right path?

Of those you have listed Cal is clearly far and away ahead of us and not really sure why they are on the list. To a lesser degree, the same goes for MSU (unless you mean Mississippi State), Minnesota and Indiana. On balance, these institutions have spotty revenue sport performance but (with the possible exception of MSU) have academics, non-revenue sport and/or alumni support that is just well beyond what we have right now. Arizona State is one that definitely doesn't belong in the big leagues but they happen to have favorable geography and connection with Arizona. Same thing applies for Iowa State, they clearly don't actually belong but have other things in their favor.

Overall, I would think we would be in the 75-85 range with all factors considered but definitely not in the top 64.

(01-02-2013 10:00 PM)tkgrrett Wrote:  

(01-02-2013 11:20 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  I've seen several places here & in commentary where whatever the BE or a new conference follows the current BE, that the conference make-up will all & always aspire to be in one of the power conferences. Therefore the conference make-up will always be unsettled. It doesn't bode well for the schools or the conference as regards financial stability. So whatever path we take, whatever decisions are made regarding conference affiliation, it needs to be done with the goal of being one of the top 64 universities (in the top 4 conferences - which assumes an ultimate 4 x 16). Or make it top 80 as an ultimate number if you think the ACC survives.

Unfortunately, several schools, like Ole Miss, MSU, AZSU, CA, MN, IN, IA ST, KS and some others may not truely be one of the top 64 schools in the country but are going to be there by being vested in one of the top power conferences already (didn't include a couple of ACC schools because I think eventually the ACC will be gone too). Criteria for inclusion aside from current power-conference affiliation will be athletics success (especially in FB but BB too), TV market and academics.

So do we have a chance at ever being one of the top 64 (or 80) and if so what about our plans (long term) & performance indicate we are on the right path?

Of those you have listed Cal is clearly far and away ahead of us and not really sure why they are on the list. To a lesser degree, the same goes for MSU (unless you mean Mississippi State), Minnesota and Indiana. On balance, these institutions have spotty revenue sport performance but (with the possible exception of MSU) have academics, non-revenue sport and/or alumni support that is just well beyond what we have right now. Arizona State is one that definitely doesn't belong in the big leagues but they happen to have favorable geography and connection with Arizona. Same thing applies for Iowa State, they clearly don't actually belong but have other things in their favor.

Overall, I would think we would be in the 75-85 range with all factors considered but definitely not in the top 64.

The schools listed are some that came to mine athletically that probably don't belong in the top 64 but are there based upon their conference affiliations. That there are several schools such as those listed who are taking up places among the top 64 by virtue of there conference affiliation rather than performance, it makes it all the more difficult for Memphis to make the grade. Of course we could debate exactly who those schools are who don't belong based upon performance but that isn't the point. The issue is since we are not currently one of the top 64 schools (or top 80 probably either), what do we do to get there. There's a lot more to it than fretting over our current conference affiliation. What should we be doing to improve our standing to make the top 80? And if we aren't going to ultimately get to a top 80 standing (which includes the weak sisters who are already there by virtue of their conference affiliation) for inclusion into a weak 5th major, why all the effort?

(01-02-2013 11:38 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  why all the effort?

Because we CAN become a power program - no damn reason we can't do the same thing here that is done other places. Seek help for your pathetic inferiority complex.

(01-03-2013 09:11 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(01-02-2013 11:38 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  why all the effort?

Because we CAN become a power program - no damn reason we can't do the same thing here that is done other places. Seek help for your pathetic inferiority complex.

I think you have failed to read my posts....I've said "whatever decision are made should be done with the goal of being one of the top 64 programs in the country..". I am asking what those decisions are?

I don't think joining the MWC is a winning strategy, or going back to the CUSA, or hope we find a spot in the Sunbelt or MAC as some have suggested in panic on this board. All that does is identify us with the have-nots. I'm saying I don't know what that strategy should be but I do see some distinctions between the manner in which our school admin has proceeded compared to Louisville - a school that was behind us in the 60-80s. I have seen what Louisville has done as I watched them knockoff the #3 team in the nation last night & their #4 BB team win on TV. My point is we can't afford to be a follower any longer in this unsettled conference realignment process. As a minimum we have to have the commitment to tie ourselves in performance, academics, influence and politics to schools who are either already members of a power conference or who will inevitably be there when things settle out in the top 64/80 with 4 power conferences of 16 & one possible addition of weaker schools (the ACC as it seems now). We can no longer allow our school to be "handled" by the city of Memphis, the TBOR, state funding and the plans of those organziations IF we really aspire to be one of the top power programs. Because there is a day coming when there will be no place to go once the realignment process is complete with its top 64/80 programs.

No I don't think its an inferiority complex that has motivated my posts, it's a realization that our school has to make some radical changes in its approach to success - it's obvious the status quo hasn't worked over the last 50 years yet we continue to do the same things expecting a different outcome - that is what is pathetic... & short-sighted dumb.

(01-03-2013 09:50 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  it's obvious the status quo hasn't worked over the last 50 years yet we continue to do the same things expecting a different outcome - that is what is pathetic... & short-sighted dumb.

Have to agree to an extent:

(1) The community and local government has a never seemed to realize the full importance and potential benefits of a successful big-time football program at UofM

(2) Majority of our fans have always had the "support them when they deserve it" mentality. Large crowds are important to recruiting

(3) The "can't" mentality (happily fostered by enemies of the university) has always been pervasive

(4) Never had our own board of regents

(5) Football program always neglected in favor of basketball

(6) Overlooking important details - don't even follow our own brand standard

(7) The medical school is owned by people 400 miles away

Etc, etc.

Folks keep saying we have to perform with success on the field & I agree whole-heartedly but that won't be enough. We just have to look at our FB & BB success of the 60s-80s period to see it isn't enough. As late as Dockery, we beat 3-4 SEC programs in FB, had played for a Nat'l championship in BB & still the powers that be had no interest in our program. Of course during that same period, the TBOR was formed to forever channel funding to UTK & keep our university down, equal with ETSU, MTSU and the UT regional schools. We let, even joined with the city of Memphis to divert state funding for facilities to their own uses (MSC, MMS, Pyramid, etc). We hired inept ADs - a succession of them who further crippled our sports programs & we continue to let local & state politicians set the course of our university while our school president has to please a boss (TBOR) where our unversity doesn't even get funding priority after UTK. And academics must take a stronger position too.

These are all things that must change now if we are to honestly have the opportunity to eventually be one of the included power schools. Yet all we forcus on as a fanbase is the disappointment with the BE instability, whether JP is a good floor coach, whether we should or shouldn't play SEC schools, when the plan has to be much bigger with long term goals that can bring about real change and progress.

(01-03-2013 11:38 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  Folks keep saying we have to perform with success on the field & I agree whole-heartedly but that won't be enough. We just have to look at our FB & BB success of the 60s-80s period to see it isn't enough. As late as Dockery, we beat 3-4 SEC programs in FB, had played for a Nat'l championship in BB & still the powers that be had no interest in our program. Of course during that same period, the TBOR was formed to forever channel funding to UTK & keep our university down, equal with ETSU, MTSU and the UT regional schools. We let, even joined with the city of Memphis to divert state funding for facilities to their own uses (MSC, MMS, Pyramid, etc). We hired inept ADs - a succession of them who further crippled our sports programs & we continue to let local & state politicians set the course of our university while our school president has to please a boss (TBOR) where our unversity doesn't even get funding priority after UTK. And academics must take a stronger position too.

These are all things that must change now if we are to honestly have the opportunity to eventually be one of the included power schools. Yet all we forcus on as a fanbase is the disappointment with the BE instability, whether JP is a good floor coach, whether we should or shouldn't play SEC schools, when the plan has to be much bigger with long term goals that can bring about real change and progress.

I agree.

What are the main differences between U of M and Louisville? What is their governance structure like compared to our TBOR? Do they have their own governing board? Do they have a medical school? Whats their endowment compared to ours?

I see a ton of similarities like the size of the cities, the corporate support, etc. however they are light years ahead of us in every aspect. Their academic ratings have gone up, they are making a transition from a commuter type school to traditional one with all of the new dorms. I don't see why we can't do the same thing. What are we missing?

I can remember beating them 37-7 at their place not too long ago and now their athletic budget is more than double ours, they have won a BCS game, gone to multiple Final Fours and have competed in the College World Series all in the last few years and about to go to the ACC. Impressive. They should be the blueprint for what we want to accomplish. Do a comparison on all aspects of their University and try to copy it. If they can do it, why cant we?