(08-12-2013 02:02 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(08-12-2013 12:49 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  When you get right down to it, the issue here is Freedom of Association.

Ohio State CHOOSES to associate themselves with the other members of the private club called the Big 10 Conference.

Ohio State CHOOSES to share their earning power with Minnesota and Northwestern and Indiana because they know that doing so benefits Ohio State when they go to negotiate as a collective unit.

But Ohio State does not CHOOSE to associate itself with Ohio or Cincy who do not get then benefit from association with Ohio State and they think thats unfair.

It's not unfair. It's Ohio State exercising their Freedom of Association.

What is unfair is Ohio and Cincy demanding that they be forced into Ohio State's private club against it's will or that Ohio State's private club be forced to give up their collective earnings to Ohio and Cincy because the private clubs they are a part of can't make that level of money on their own.

The ESPN contract is for all of FBS, Ohio and Cincy are already in the club, but don't let facts get in the way of a good elitist rant.

I was going to say--I don't think anyone's arguing Ohio or Cincy have a right to be in the B1G. What people argue about is non-Cartel teams' right to a chance at the postseason.

(08-12-2013 02:02 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(08-12-2013 12:49 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  When you get right down to it, the issue here is Freedom of Association.

Ohio State CHOOSES to associate themselves with the other members of the private club called the Big 10 Conference.

Ohio State CHOOSES to share their earning power with Minnesota and Northwestern and Indiana because they know that doing so benefits Ohio State when they go to negotiate as a collective unit.

But Ohio State does not CHOOSE to associate itself with Ohio or Cincy who do not get then benefit from association with Ohio State and they think thats unfair.

It's not unfair. It's Ohio State exercising their Freedom of Association.

What is unfair is Ohio and Cincy demanding that they be forced into Ohio State's private club against it's will or that Ohio State's private club be forced to give up their collective earnings to Ohio and Cincy because the private clubs they are a part of can't make that level of money on their own.

The ESPN contract is for all of FBS, Ohio and Cincy are already in the club, but don't let facts get in the way of a good elitist rant.

Not for much longer

(08-12-2013 02:06 PM)justinslot Wrote:  

(08-12-2013 02:02 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(08-12-2013 12:49 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  When you get right down to it, the issue here is Freedom of Association.

Ohio State CHOOSES to associate themselves with the other members of the private club called the Big 10 Conference.

Ohio State CHOOSES to share their earning power with Minnesota and Northwestern and Indiana because they know that doing so benefits Ohio State when they go to negotiate as a collective unit.

But Ohio State does not CHOOSE to associate itself with Ohio or Cincy who do not get then benefit from association with Ohio State and they think thats unfair.

It's not unfair. It's Ohio State exercising their Freedom of Association.

What is unfair is Ohio and Cincy demanding that they be forced into Ohio State's private club against it's will or that Ohio State's private club be forced to give up their collective earnings to Ohio and Cincy because the private clubs they are a part of can't make that level of money on their own.

The ESPN contract is for all of FBS, Ohio and Cincy are already in the club, but don't let facts get in the way of a good elitist rant.

I was going to say--I don't think anyone's arguing Ohio or Cincy have a right to be in the B1G. What people argue about is non-Cartel teams' right to a chance at the postseason.

There's no AQ to the playoff.

If Boise goes on another tear and is ranked 4th or higher, they are in.

Sorry, but CFB is not going down the road of the NCAA tournament where a Washington team sits out and watches while freaking Vermont gets in just to be blown out in the first round.

(08-12-2013 11:26 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-12-2013 10:45 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  There were 3 schools that did a combo of winning and investing that moved up since 1998 (Louisville, Utah and TCU) and 1 school that got relegated (Temple, who wasn't even relegated as a result of conference realignment).

That's a net change of 2 schools within the power conference structure over the past 16 years. So, yes, there is a *chance* of moving up by winning and investing, but the reality is that it's about as controllable as "investing" in lottery tickets.

It's not a lottery. Millions of people "invest" in tickets in a lottery like Powerball, and each has an equal chance. This is far from that.

The three teams you mentioned, Louisville, Utah, and TCU, are the only teams that invested big and won big. Boise has won big, and has done a great job while having far fewer resources than the big boys, but Boise hasn't poured as much money into their program and their donor base and population base are small.

If dozens of programs "on the outside" of the Big 5 invested as much money as these three, then you could say that only three of them moving up was just chance. But that's not the case. TCU in recent years has raised more than 10 times as much money per year as the average non-Big 5 program. Go back and look at that list of Big 12 fundraising in another thread here. TCU is 2nd in the Big 12 in fundraising, and Louisville raised more money for athletics than anyone in the Big 12 other than Texas and TCU.

Wasn't TCU in a power league before though? So they had way more money than a real non-AQ typically has. Thus they can spend way more. There's no way a MAC team (e.g.) would be able to spend that much, they just don't have that kind of money. Especially when the state keeps cutting back their funding, and paying the money late on top of that. TCU isn't a good example.

(08-12-2013 02:29 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(08-12-2013 02:06 PM)justinslot Wrote:  

(08-12-2013 02:02 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(08-12-2013 12:49 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  When you get right down to it, the issue here is Freedom of Association.

Ohio State CHOOSES to associate themselves with the other members of the private club called the Big 10 Conference.

Ohio State CHOOSES to share their earning power with Minnesota and Northwestern and Indiana because they know that doing so benefits Ohio State when they go to negotiate as a collective unit.

But Ohio State does not CHOOSE to associate itself with Ohio or Cincy who do not get then benefit from association with Ohio State and they think thats unfair.

It's not unfair. It's Ohio State exercising their Freedom of Association.

What is unfair is Ohio and Cincy demanding that they be forced into Ohio State's private club against it's will or that Ohio State's private club be forced to give up their collective earnings to Ohio and Cincy because the private clubs they are a part of can't make that level of money on their own.

The ESPN contract is for all of FBS, Ohio and Cincy are already in the club, but don't let facts get in the way of a good elitist rant.

I was going to say--I don't think anyone's arguing Ohio or Cincy have a right to be in the B1G. What people argue about is non-Cartel teams' right to a chance at the postseason.

There's no AQ to the playoff.

If Boise goes on another tear and is ranked 4th or higher, they are in.

Sorry, but CFB is not going down the road of the NCAA tournament where a Washington team sits out and watches while freaking Vermont gets in just to be blown out in the first round.

It won't get to that point but right now CFB is at the other extreme.

(08-12-2013 02:43 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-12-2013 11:26 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-12-2013 10:45 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  There were 3 schools that did a combo of winning and investing that moved up since 1998 (Louisville, Utah and TCU) and 1 school that got relegated (Temple, who wasn't even relegated as a result of conference realignment).

That's a net change of 2 schools within the power conference structure over the past 16 years. So, yes, there is a *chance* of moving up by winning and investing, but the reality is that it's about as controllable as "investing" in lottery tickets.

It's not a lottery. Millions of people "invest" in tickets in a lottery like Powerball, and each has an equal chance. This is far from that.

The three teams you mentioned, Louisville, Utah, and TCU, are the only teams that invested big and won big. Boise has won big, and has done a great job while having far fewer resources than the big boys, but Boise hasn't poured as much money into their program and their donor base and population base are small.

If dozens of programs "on the outside" of the Big 5 invested as much money as these three, then you could say that only three of them moving up was just chance. But that's not the case. TCU in recent years has raised more than 10 times as much money per year as the average non-Big 5 program. Go back and look at that list of Big 12 fundraising in another thread here. TCU is 2nd in the Big 12 in fundraising, and Louisville raised more money for athletics than anyone in the Big 12 other than Texas and TCU.

Wasn't TCU in a power league before though? So they had way more money than a real non-AQ typically has. Thus they can spend way more. There's no way a MAC team (e.g.) would be able to spend that much, they just don't have that kind of money. Especially when the state keeps cutting back their funding, and paying the money late on top of that. TCU isn't a good example.

TCU was in the same boat as SMU, Rice, and Houston in the late 1990s -- i.e., pretty much where the MAC programs were. TCU landed in the circus that was the 16-team WAC and worked their way up. Louisville was in Conference USA.

TCU is a private school with a small alumni base. Louisville is a public school that's always had to fight for attention against the SEC "flagship" school in their state. Those two schools and their boosters raised tons of money and got it done. If they had just made excuses or felt sorry for themselves, they'd be griping about how "unfair" it was that others "got lucky" and left them behind.

(08-12-2013 03:01 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-12-2013 02:43 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-12-2013 11:26 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-12-2013 10:45 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  There were 3 schools that did a combo of winning and investing that moved up since 1998 (Louisville, Utah and TCU) and 1 school that got relegated (Temple, who wasn't even relegated as a result of conference realignment).

That's a net change of 2 schools within the power conference structure over the past 16 years. So, yes, there is a *chance* of moving up by winning and investing, but the reality is that it's about as controllable as "investing" in lottery tickets.

It's not a lottery. Millions of people "invest" in tickets in a lottery like Powerball, and each has an equal chance. This is far from that.

The three teams you mentioned, Louisville, Utah, and TCU, are the only teams that invested big and won big. Boise has won big, and has done a great job while having far fewer resources than the big boys, but Boise hasn't poured as much money into their program and their donor base and population base are small.

If dozens of programs "on the outside" of the Big 5 invested as much money as these three, then you could say that only three of them moving up was just chance. But that's not the case. TCU in recent years has raised more than 10 times as much money per year as the average non-Big 5 program. Go back and look at that list of Big 12 fundraising in another thread here. TCU is 2nd in the Big 12 in fundraising, and Louisville raised more money for athletics than anyone in the Big 12 other than Texas and TCU.

Wasn't TCU in a power league before though? So they had way more money than a real non-AQ typically has. Thus they can spend way more. There's no way a MAC team (e.g.) would be able to spend that much, they just don't have that kind of money. Especially when the state keeps cutting back their funding, and paying the money late on top of that. TCU isn't a good example.

TCU was in the same boat as SMU, Rice, and Houston in the late 1990s -- i.e., pretty much where the MAC programs were. TCU landed in the circus that was the 16-team WAC and worked their way up. Louisville was in Conference USA.

TCU is a private school with a small alumni base. Louisville is a public school that's always had to fight for attention against the SEC "flagship" school in their state. Those two schools and their boosters raised tons of money and got it done. If they had just made excuses or felt sorry for themselves, they'd be griping about how "unfair" it was that others "got lucky" and left them behind.

As of the mid-90s they were still in the SWC though. And even SMU, Rice and Houston were better known than MAC teams.

(08-12-2013 03:01 PM)Wedge Wrote:  TCU was in the same boat as SMU, Rice, and Houston in the late 1990s -- i.e., pretty much where the MAC programs were. TCU landed in the circus that was the 16-team WAC and worked their way up.

Conference USA officially launched on July 1, 1995 after a couple of years of talk. In the 18 years since then, C-USA has made mostly smart moves, IMHO, and has survived as best as it possibly could have.

But there was one glaring mistake -- letting TCU come in, starting with the 2001 season. They stayed 4 years and bolted. Never, ever trust those people again.

In their defense, in 2001 they entered a conference with 14 other members. When they left in 2005, only six of the team who were members when they joined (ECU, Houston, Tulane, Southern Miss, UAB, and Memphis) were left. Louisville, Cincinnati, South Florida, Army, Charlotte, Saint Louis, DePaul, and Marquette had all left or been asked to leave, and TCU walked out with them.

Truth be told it is rather impressive that CUSA lost 9 members in one year, and maintained basically the same reputation (in part because it was undervalued to begin with)