(01-20-2013 07:10 PM)ECUPirated Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 07:03 PM)ScreamShatter Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 06:57 PM)ECUPirated Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 06:49 PM)ScreamShatter Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 06:42 PM)Lord2FLI Wrote:  And yet, they've managed to do it anyway, take a look at their endowment, they have the money.

Villanova has a decent endowment and still struggled to meet the demands that the Big East required before letting them upgrade. And even with an endowment, Tulsa isn't going to be able to increase their fan base or the fact that their region would be one of the smallest in the league.

They did very well in the CUSA. But we aren't the CUSA. We are the Big East, and our goal is to rebuild back to the level where we were or better. Tulsa doesn't help with that, and they don't add value to the TV package. Period. It's math.

I've got to agree with Lord2Fli on this. Money/TV revenue is only one part of the equation. A conference that can yield teams that can consistently compete against the Cartel is equally as important especially with an Access Bowl and 20-40 million on the line. Tulsa is one of the those schools (like a few others) that have been able to athletically achieve more with less for years.

They are able to achieve bowl invites by competing against some pretty weak CUSA teams. In the long run, they won't be able to do that in the Big East. And then they'll just become a drag on us financially.

Now does that statement really validate / make sense with the point you're trying to make? Several of those "weak" teams as you are calling them are headed to the nBE. How could they "NOT" do the same thing in the nBE?

Yes -- it does make sense. The Big East expanded to take the best of the CUSA schools who had a combination of good football, good basketball, large fan bases, and large metro regions. Tulsa meets 1 of those requirements. Will they have the ability to pull 40,000 in the stadiums in the future? No. As ECU, Houston, UCF, etc improve, will they be able to make bowl games? No.

Haven't we spent this year talking about how great it was having 3 Big East teams in the Top 25 football teams? When is the last time you've seen a small university make that list on a consistent basis? There's a reason for that -- alumni support and school size.

(01-20-2013 07:09 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Anyone that has a problem with an addition of Tulsa, go play them in football and get your ass beat. There isn't a school in the nBE that TU can't hang with.

That's no the question at hand. The question is do they add value to the TV contract? The answer is no.

(01-20-2013 07:00 PM)ScreamShatter Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 06:56 PM)panicstricken Wrote:  At Tulsa we just win conference titles, win our bowl games and we dont let in dumbs.

I guess we should be ashamed of that.

You can do all that, but still doesn't make you profitable for the Big East.

Serious question.

Does an extra 500 grand a year on your TV contract do a single thing for you as a Temple fan? Does it make your football team relevant? Does it build you a new stadium?

(01-20-2013 07:17 PM)ScreamShatter Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 07:09 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Anyone that has a problem with an addition of Tulsa, go play them in football and get your ass beat. There isn't a school in the nBE that TU can't hang with.

That's no the question at hand. The question is do they add value to the TV contract? The answer is no.

Tulsa was on FX, FXSW, ESPN, CBSCS 13 times in 2012.

How many times was Temple on TV?

And why do you care about the TV contract? Is it because you have a bad football program and it gives you something to root for?

(01-20-2013 07:18 PM)panicstricken Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 07:00 PM)ScreamShatter Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 06:56 PM)panicstricken Wrote:  At Tulsa we just win conference titles, win our bowl games and we dont let in dumbs.

I guess we should be ashamed of that.

You can do all that, but still doesn't make you profitable for the Big East.

Serious question.

Does an extra 500 grand a year on your TV contract do a single thing for you as a Temple fan? Does it make your football team relevant? Does it build you a new stadium?

Yes -- because money is what will stabilize the conference. If we get lower into the area of the MWC contract, that is going to be an issue for stability of this conference.

(01-20-2013 07:19 PM)panicstricken Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 07:17 PM)ScreamShatter Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 07:09 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Anyone that has a problem with an addition of Tulsa, go play them in football and get your ass beat. There isn't a school in the nBE that TU can't hang with.

That's no the question at hand. The question is do they add value to the TV contract? The answer is no.

Tulsa was on FX, FXSW, ESPN, CBSCS 13 times in 2012.

How many times was Temple on TV?

And why do you care about the TV contract? Is it because you have a bad football program and it gives you something to root for?

It's easy to be on TV when you're in the middle of nowhere.

As I said, I care about the stability of the conference. If Tulsa isn't going to add value to TV contract, then I don't think you should be added. Your school is just too small and in a small region to provide long term value of any kind to us. Sorry. It's all about numbers.

(01-20-2013 07:21 PM)ScreamShatter Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 07:18 PM)panicstricken Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 07:00 PM)ScreamShatter Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 06:56 PM)panicstricken Wrote:  At Tulsa we just win conference titles, win our bowl games and we dont let in dumbs.

I guess we should be ashamed of that.

You can do all that, but still doesn't make you profitable for the Big East.

Serious question.

Does an extra 500 grand a year on your TV contract do a single thing for you as a Temple fan? Does it make your football team relevant? Does it build you a new stadium?

Yes -- because money is what will stabilize the conference

Seriously, that's enough. Nothing, not a damn thing in the world, will stabilize this conference as long as conferences above the Big East can be raided. We get it, you want a ****** UMass instread of a ****** Tulsa, enough already.

(01-20-2013 07:26 PM)Lord2FLI Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 07:21 PM)ScreamShatter Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 07:18 PM)panicstricken Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 07:00 PM)ScreamShatter Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 06:56 PM)panicstricken Wrote:  At Tulsa we just win conference titles, win our bowl games and we dont let in dumbs.

I guess we should be ashamed of that.

You can do all that, but still doesn't make you profitable for the Big East.

Serious question.

Does an extra 500 grand a year on your TV contract do a single thing for you as a Temple fan? Does it make your football team relevant? Does it build you a new stadium?

Yes -- because money is what will stabilize the conference

Seriously, that's enough. Nothing, not a damn thing in the world, will stabilize this conference as long as conferences above the Big East can be raided. We get it, you want a ****** UMass instread of a ****** Tulsa, enough already.

No -- I said I didn't want ANYONE added until after (and if) Navy comes and then we could look at options like Tulsa and UMass. That's been my argument.

Money does stabilize things. The nBE will be partially ranked based off what we are valued. So if we want to be clearly marked as the 6th best conference, which is important for us so that we can attract recruits, then we need this TV package to be sizable over the MWC.

I have a logical argument here. It's not because I dislike Tulsa. It's because I'm making an argument for this league to think about what's in our best long term interest.

So Temple (in one of the biggest TV markets in the US) got kicked out of the BE for being awful at CFB.

Now you want to add one of the worst CFB teams in the country to the nBE because you think people in Boston care about a team in Western Mass.

Got it. Youre wicked smart.

(01-20-2013 07:33 PM)panicstricken Wrote:  So Temple (in one of the biggest TV markets in the US) got kicked out of the BE for being awful at CFB.

Now you want to add one of the worst CFB teams in the country to the nBE because you think people in Boston care about a team in Western Mass.

Got it. Youre wicked smart.

Temple isn't ranked as one of the worst teams in NCAA football anymore. And we're consistently ranked in basketball for the past 50 years.

I know Oklahoma doesn't rank too highly in terms of education, but if you read through my comments you'll see that I said many times I didn't want to add anyone until after Navy comes (if they come). And I said, a UMass add would be for Olympic sports with the option of football addition in the future after they've had time to develop.

If you want me to change my opinion then simply prove to me that Tulsa would add monetary value to the league? And that you could compete long term?

Obviously, I'm pretty interested in seeing this conference succeed. As we've considered adding schools I really don't know much about, it's been interesting to read about them and pick up a bit of info.

Tulsa has just over 4K students. Now, nothing about a small private school says they can't play bit time, TCU proved that. But TCU and SMU have 9.5K and 17K, respectively (per the Wiki entries). But I was quite a bit surprised at just how small Tulsa is. Does not mean they can't be good nBE members, just saying. I wonder how small we can go...

Some of the other schools we are talking about may be just now growing their programs. ODU, uMASS (just to pick two for examples), have 24K and 27K students, respectively and are in much bigger markets.

Boils down to what helps us most, a better FB program now, or building for success 10-20 years downstream. Again, nothing against Tulsa, whom I really like. But is Tulsa at max potential (as some posters here suggest), whereas some of these (smaller FB programs) might have more upside in the future? I don't know, but it's a legitimate debate.

Tulsa is a good program, and could certainly do what TCU did... Tulsa is the 'safe' pick for now. If we go the other way, we'll be ridiculed for a few years for bringing up such a 'work in progress'. But if we finally get some stability (which seems doubtful), planting a seed for the future might be the smarter move.

It will be interesting, but all the leaks seem to indicate we're branching into Oklahoma. We just need realignment to stop, THAT'S our biggest problem right now, no matter who we might considering inviting to join.

Northern Illinois University:
Students 25,313
Undergraduates 18,816
Postgraduates 6,497
Region Population 9,504,753


I believe NIU has been in their fair share of bowls too. Why is Tulsa better than NIU? It seems to fit more in with our overall league.

(01-20-2013 07:46 PM)ScreamShatter Wrote:  Northern Illinois University:
Students 25,313
Undergraduates 18,816
Postgraduates 6,497
Region Population 9,504,753


I believe NIU has been in their fair share of bowls too. Why is Tulsa better than NIU? It seems to fit more in with our overall league.

Between Tulane and Tulsa, it appears that your conference is making choices based more on SATs than RPI or market size or anything else.

(01-20-2013 07:44 PM)Bull Wrote:  Obviously, I'm pretty interested in seeing this conference succeed. As we've considered adding schools I really don't know much about, it's been interesting to read about them and pick up a bit of info.

Tulsa has just over 4K students. Now, nothing about a small private school says they can't play bit time, TCU proved that. But TCU and SMU have 9.5K and 17K, respectively (per the Wiki entries). But I was quite a bit surprised at just how small Tulsa is. Does not mean they can't be good nBE members, just saying. I wonder how small we can go...

Some of the other schools we are talking about may be just now growing their programs. ODU, uMASS (just to pick two for examples), have 24K and 27K students, respectively and are in much bigger markets.

Boils down to what helps us most, a better FB program now, or building for success 10-20 years downstream. Again, nothing against Tulsa, whom I really like. But is Tulsa at max potential (as some posters here suggest), whereas some of these (smaller FB programs) might have more upside in the future? I don't know, but it's a legitimate debate.

Tulsa is a good program, and could certainly do what TCU did... Tulsa is the 'safe' pick for now. If we go the other way, we'll be ridiculed for a few years for bringing up such a 'work in progress'. But if we finally get some stability (which seems doubtful), planting a seed for the future might be the smarter move.

It will be interesting, but all the leaks seem to indicate we're branching into Oklahoma. We just need realignment to stop, THAT'S our biggest problem right now, no matter who we might considering inviting to join.

I completely agree with your post. It's very well-stated.

Overall, I like Tulsa. My concern is all about long term. If Tulsa can be a TCU then I'm all for it...but I'm not sold. I wish the Tulsa posters would actually try to inform me what their school is about and what their plans are for the future as opposed to attacking me and Temple. I just want to know more. But no one wants to actually do proper analysis to prove their points on here.

Tulsa would have to almost double their attendance to just get to 30 thousand. Small school, not huge market( ou,osu), small attendence. I would hold off.

Ive tried.

People that are educated in North Philly must have a hard time grasping that people tend to watch teams that win football games consistently.

Networks pick teams that people will watch and put them on national platforms like FX, CBSCS and ESPN. FX Regional Tulsa games are shown in tiny little cities like Dallas, Houston, OKC, KC, STL and even little old Tulsa, OK.

What the hell does max potential mean? Does that mean we will never win more than we are winning now? Does that mean 11 wins is our ceiling? What happens if we beat Sooner (we do play them every year). Does that change our MAX potential limit. Does weve reached our limit mean that we will never get back to being in the dance every year, going to sweet 16s, elite 8s ect? I dont get why being a small school that is flat out better at Football than schools 10 times its size threatens so many people here.

Im done battling.

We're in. Were going crush everyone in the conference for a long time. Especially Cincinnati and Temple.

Temple was playing Tuesday night football games two years ago and all of sudden we need to convince their fans we belong.

Temple is a no-brainer to me, I can't believe anyone would question that! HUGE major market, BIG school, and currently a pretty successful program. Who cares if they had an issue a decade ago, that's ancient history. Frankly, we're pretty lucky Temple was available or we'd have had 7 FB schools in this last season. Good conference-mates, very similar large urban school, just like USF, UCF, Houston, etc.

I really don't have an issue with Tulane, only because they are building that new OCS. Not a powerpoint wish list, or 'raising funds'... Tulane has already broken ground. Shows me they are serious about getting back to being relevant. Again, we took a ribbing about Tulane, but once it's build and they start getting big crowds in it... They should be solid. Road trip, then celebrate in the French Quarter... seriously, does it get any better?? Tulane should have been in a BCS bowl, but we all know what happened.

My 2 cents...

# 55 market

Record against nBE teams
v ECU 5-5
v Houston 18-20
v Temple 2-0
v Tulane 8-1
v UCF 5-2
v Cincinnati 16-13-2
v Memphis 10-14
v Navy 1-1

Some AQ schools

v Arizona 2 wins
v Arkansas 16 wins
v Baylor 4 wins
v Florida 1 win
v Ga Tech 1 win
v Iowa 1 win
v Kansas 5 wins
v Kansas St 11 wins
v Louisville 14 wins
v Miami Fla 1 win
v Ole Miss 3 wins
v Mizzou 1 win
v Notre Dame 1 win
v Oklahoma 7 wins
v Oklahoma State 27 wins
v Texas AM 2 wins
v TCU 5 wins
v Texas Tech 12 wins
v Utah 2 wins
v Va Tech 3 wins
v Washington 3 wins

Bowls - 19 bowls including 2 Sugar Bowls, 1 Orange, 1 Gator

2 time CUSA Champions and won each Liberty Bowl they played in.

14 NCAA appearances
2 sweet 16
1 elite 8

Regular season CUSA champs 9 times

Yep. I think Tulsa is worthy.