nert
1st String
Posts: 1,702
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 41
I Root For: Utah, CMU, Cincinnati
Location:
|
RE: SI.com nBE vs. MWC Who has better long term future?
(02-21-2013 04:00 PM)Texas2Step Wrote: (02-21-2013 09:10 AM)gocards#1 Wrote: (02-21-2013 12:09 AM)Texas2Step Wrote: (02-20-2013 10:18 PM)gocards#1 Wrote: The MWC is less likely to lose members in the future. The Pac 12 and Big 10 don't want anybody from that conference, and it's a step above CUSA, the MAC, and the Sun Belt and at worst on equal footing with the Big East.
Meanwhile there isn't a team in the Big East right now that can't wait to jump. UConn is as good as gone at this point. That alone makes the MWC better in the long term. Who knows what the Big East will look like tomorrow?
When did UConn receive an invite? When did Cincinnati receive an invite? The only thing a reputable journalist can do is talk about reality, not hypothetical futures, when comparing the futures of two or more leagues. How would you react if he were comparing the Big 12 and ACC, and said "Well UNC/UVA/VTech/etc. are as good as gone, so let's just take them out of our analysis". Wouldn't make sense right?
The major sticking point of this whole analysis, is that with all of the crap the Big East has endured for the last 12 months, from the media and their own members alike, there is still a clear competitive advantage top to bottom over the MWC. You can talk about Boise's individual BCS runs in the WAC all you like, but the numbers as a league don't lie. The MWC needed historic seasons in the past 5 years from three schools who all lost their head coaches this off season, in order to even make it close with a conference who just added a couple of schools who have been not only CUSA, but national bottom dwellers for these past several years.
My point is that the Big East is unstable, the MWC is not. The thread was about the future of the two conferences, and I think the fact that everyone in the Big East wants to jump ASAP proves it doesn't have a very bright future. Compare that to the MWC, who just had two members thumb their noses at the Big East.
The Big East with Louisville and Rutgers gives it a competitive advantage over the MWC, without them the MWC is a better conference. Yes, the MWC has some God awful teams, but the top half of the conference is much better than the top half of the Big East going forward. The Big East is mostly average programs and crappy programs, the MWC is an elite program, a bunch of average programs, and a bunch of crappy programs. The two are similar, but the MWC is slightly better.
The MWC is basically Boise and the 11 dwarves. Nevada and Fresno are the closest long term competitors to them, and Nevada just lost their hall of fame coach who invented the offense they've been running for decades, while Fresno has been on the decline since the mid-2000's (smacked by SMU in Hawaii Bowl). Look at the Big East, and you have a program that's went toe-to-toe in success with L'Ville, as well as a USF squad that just blew up the recruiting trail for non-aq's, a young UCF program that's only been improving each year in the heart of Florida, SMU spending money out of their ass everytime you look, and Houston building a new 40k seat stadium in a recruiting rich and growing state. If Boise loses more than 2 games in any season, they won't look so elite any longer with a stadium that seats <40k. Seeing Boise trying to throw their weight around wherever possible, I think it is fair to judge them based off of their attendance, especially if the 10 win seasons start to dry up in Idaho. We'll see...
Just a quick look at the NCAA attendance stats (they had years 2003, and then 2005-2011, by team) - and in not one of those years does Houston outdraw BoiseSt.
BoiseSt increased attendance in all but one season over the preceeding season, and rose from 28,098 in 2003 to 34,018 in 2011. Bronco Stadium's capacity was expanded to 37,000 in 2012.
Houston's attendance numbers start at 21,807 in 2003 (about 7,000 less than BoiseSt in that year), dropped to only 15,054 in 2005, then increased. They cracked the 30,000 number in 2010 and 2011, but were still drew 2-3,000 fewer fans on average than BoiseSt. The old stadium held 71,000+ and the new one will hold 40,000 - only 3,000 more than Bronco stadium can hold.
You might want to try another argument - one where the data actually supports you.
|
|