(10-02-2013 06:34 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 06:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 04:00 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 10:20 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 09:54 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The idea is to get access to new populations of cable boxes and to then get more for those boxes. Getting premium dollars (ie-dollars instead of cents) for all those Texas cable boxes is the long term goal for the Pac-12.

That is "one" idea. But if you look at past expansion moves, many have actually avoided that. The Big Ten's first move was Nebraska. That was not a market move. The ACC's first move was Syracuse and Pittsburgh, two smaller markets than the other teams they considered in Rutgers and UConn. They then took ND (no market), and replaced Maryland with a smaller market Louisville over the mega market of UConn. The Big XII took TCU (no new market at all) and West Virginia, smaller market choices than say Louisville, BYU, south Florida, or Rutgers, teams they looked at.

I say this all the time, and it bares repeating. People always remember the Big Ten commissioner setting the tone for conference expansion when talking about increasing markets and getting the biggest footprint you can. What no one pays attention to is that NO ONE actually followed this model EXCEPT for the Big East, which then immediately collapsed.

Markets have value. But they are not the most important aspect of the value of a school or program. That is why Notre Dame is the biggest prize in all of realignment, another ACC grab, and they have no market of their own.

You are interpreting "markets" very narrowly. After all, Notre Dame owns the Catholic market, and it's nationwide.

.......

The schools that were added may not be located in major markets. Many college towns are not major markets. But those schools have immense market value, both as name brands within their state as well as with the conference network revenue models.

Your concept of market glosses an important distinction, that between the market value of the school, and the value of the market the school is located in. Typically, when the term "market" is discussed around here, it refers to the latter, not the former.

For example, when the Big East added schools like Houston and Temple, many around here claimed they would significantly boost our media revenue, because those schools are located in huge markets (the cities of Houston and Philly, respectively) and would thus bring lots of potential viewers to the conference.

But, when one talks about a school like Alabama having high "market value", you aren't talking about a characteristic of that school's market, but rather a characteristic of the school, namely the value of its brand name.

Best to not conflate the two, as they are in fact different things. One is a property of the area a school is located, the other a property of the school itself, and so "market" is best reserved for the former.

the only people who said that were the ones who didnt want to admit the the new version of the big east was weaker than the old version.

Correct, but there were a whole lot of those types around here. Not now, before the new TV deals were actually signed? This place was swarming with them, mostly newbies that supported the newly-invited schools.

(10-02-2013 11:00 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 10:49 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 10:40 AM)john01992 Wrote:  UNLV has terrible academic rankings, terrible football, and is not a flagship. (im not even sure if they are technically the 2nd best NV school either).

as much as the p12 wants the LV market the downsides of UNLV just doesnt cut it.

over the course of the last 50 years there have only been 5 schools who have "moved up" into a power league. schools like su wvu & tcu were already well established as an indy or from an old power conference (swc & b8)

utah, louisville, arizona, michigan st. & arizona st.

considering that 3 of those are p12 schools its not far fetched to say that the p12 has a "build from within" mentality where they are more willing to build a school within their own footprint than to take a well established school outside their footprint.

thats why i dont think CSU is far fetched for the p12

To be clear, I wouldn't say they are far fetched. Im just saying they are less likely than other choices. Look, to do what I am saying the Pac-12 could take state flagships New Mexico and Nevada along with a pair of Texas schools to reach 16 schools all in connected states. I still wouldn't sleep on UNLV due to money. UNLV is supposed to build a stadium that would make the CSU stadium look like an cheap erector set. Additionally, UNLV brings an excellent travel destination, a bowl, and 2 million cable boxes. Then there is the money---UNLV athletics makes an extra 50 million a year off its bookings to the Thomas Mack Center. The school will always be able to compete with the big boys from a monetary angle. The football is awful, but with a new stadium and Pac-12 membership, they could easily turn that around.

new mexico & nevada do have that flagship status and their is a precedent here for NM because they were considered for the b12. however these are athletic moves but made by academic officials. the academics of both schools is an automatic rejection by the p12. and theres also the problem of "whose their in conference rival"

colorado and utah might not look like it but they compliment each other quite nicely and are historical rivals. you cant really say that for nevada & new mexico (or any other hypothetical 14th p12 school)

the LV market would be nice, however theres no NV school that can meet the p12s standards even as a project "building" school like zona, utah, & ASU

I call BS. You're just making stuff up. First off, UNM and Nevada are not instant rejections for the P12 academically at all....they may be automatic rejects based on football, but both are decent in academics. UNM is a high research school that has more research dollars than several PAC schools. Second, your quote about Colorado and Utah being "historic rivals" Before they joined the PAC...?? Colorado and Utah hadn't played since the "Mountain States Conference" days in the 1950's. That conference also had New Mexico.--along with BYU, Wyoming, Utah St and Colorado St.

(10-03-2013 09:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 06:34 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 06:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 04:00 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 10:20 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  That is "one" idea. But if you look at past expansion moves, many have actually avoided that. The Big Ten's first move was Nebraska. That was not a market move. The ACC's first move was Syracuse and Pittsburgh, two smaller markets than the other teams they considered in Rutgers and UConn. They then took ND (no market), and replaced Maryland with a smaller market Louisville over the mega market of UConn. The Big XII took TCU (no new market at all) and West Virginia, smaller market choices than say Louisville, BYU, south Florida, or Rutgers, teams they looked at.

I say this all the time, and it bares repeating. People always remember the Big Ten commissioner setting the tone for conference expansion when talking about increasing markets and getting the biggest footprint you can. What no one pays attention to is that NO ONE actually followed this model EXCEPT for the Big East, which then immediately collapsed.

Markets have value. But they are not the most important aspect of the value of a school or program. That is why Notre Dame is the biggest prize in all of realignment, another ACC grab, and they have no market of their own.

You are interpreting "markets" very narrowly. After all, Notre Dame owns the Catholic market, and it's nationwide.

.......

The schools that were added may not be located in major markets. Many college towns are not major markets. But those schools have immense market value, both as name brands within their state as well as with the conference network revenue models.

Your concept of market glosses an important distinction, that between the market value of the school, and the value of the market the school is located in. Typically, when the term "market" is discussed around here, it refers to the latter, not the former.

For example, when the Big East added schools like Houston and Temple, many around here claimed they would significantly boost our media revenue, because those schools are located in huge markets (the cities of Houston and Philly, respectively) and would thus bring lots of potential viewers to the conference.

But, when one talks about a school like Alabama having high "market value", you aren't talking about a characteristic of that school's market, but rather a characteristic of the school, namely the value of its brand name.

Best to not conflate the two, as they are in fact different things. One is a property of the area a school is located, the other a property of the school itself, and so "market" is best reserved for the former.

the only people who said that were the ones who didnt want to admit the the new version of the big east was weaker than the old version.

Correct, but there were a whole lot of those types around here.

Yes...namely people like yourself that said the incoming teams were much weaker and would bring the conf down.

Yet low be hold...its the former BIG EAST BCS PROGRAMS like UCONN and USF that are bringing down this conf...something NO ONE from that former Big East Conf (including yourself) predicted.

Funny how you change your tune and actually HIDE IT from the facts (i.e. former Big East Schools are hurting the conf the most).

PS. Apologize to those who want to comment on this interesting WSJ piece but its when people like quo post flame comments (which even contradict his past flame predictions) need to be called out because thats all he has done and will ever do on this board (flame).

Colorado State is one of those schools where they'd be on the P5 radar if they were at least *competent* in football. (I'd put also put Tulane, Rice, New Mexico and UNLV on that list, where legitimately horrific football performance has overridden their other attributes.) They have solid academics with a nice campus located in a fast-growing state. Their problem, of course, is that they can't even manage to meet the low standard of mere competence. They have "tremendous upside potential", but it's always a lot harder to actually realize that potential than a lot of fans and even university administrators believe.

(10-03-2013 09:26 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(10-03-2013 09:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 06:34 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 06:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 04:00 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  You are interpreting "markets" very narrowly. After all, Notre Dame owns the Catholic market, and it's nationwide.

.......

The schools that were added may not be located in major markets. Many college towns are not major markets. But those schools have immense market value, both as name brands within their state as well as with the conference network revenue models.

Your concept of market glosses an important distinction, that between the market value of the school, and the value of the market the school is located in. Typically, when the term "market" is discussed around here, it refers to the latter, not the former.

For example, when the Big East added schools like Houston and Temple, many around here claimed they would significantly boost our media revenue, because those schools are located in huge markets (the cities of Houston and Philly, respectively) and would thus bring lots of potential viewers to the conference.

But, when one talks about a school like Alabama having high "market value", you aren't talking about a characteristic of that school's market, but rather a characteristic of the school, namely the value of its brand name.

Best to not conflate the two, as they are in fact different things. One is a property of the area a school is located, the other a property of the school itself, and so "market" is best reserved for the former.

the only people who said that were the ones who didnt want to admit the the new version of the big east was weaker than the old version.

Correct, but there were a whole lot of those types around here.

Yes...namely people like yourself that said the incoming teams were much weaker and would bring the conf down.

Yet low be hold...its the former BIG EAST BCS PROGRAMS like UCONN and USF that are bringing down this conf...something NO ONE from that former Big East Conf (including yourself) predicted.

You seem to be conflating two different meanings of "bring down": a market meaning and a competitive meaning.

My predictions last year were about the conference being weakened in a market sense. I predicted that thanks to losing schools like WVU, Pitt, and Rutgers and adding schools like Houston, Temple, and UCF, that our media value had plunged from what ESPN had offered in Spring 2011 and that this would be reflected in our new contracts. Turned out I was extremely right about that, in fact i was so right that one could argue that i was actually wrong, in that even I did not think the media contracts would be as small as they turned out to be. So the new schools were in fact far weaker from a market value perspective than the schools that left.

But as far as competitively? I don't recall ever claiming that the old schools like USF and UConn would dominate the conference on the football field. If I did, please post a link. That would be silly of me, since neither my USF nor UConn has ever dominated any conference in football. Of course, as bad as we are right now, I hope to see us dominate UCF on the field in a few weeks.

(10-03-2013 09:23 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 11:00 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 10:49 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 10:40 AM)john01992 Wrote:  UNLV has terrible academic rankings, terrible football, and is not a flagship. (im not even sure if they are technically the 2nd best NV school either).

as much as the p12 wants the LV market the downsides of UNLV just doesnt cut it.

over the course of the last 50 years there have only been 5 schools who have "moved up" into a power league. schools like su wvu & tcu were already well established as an indy or from an old power conference (swc & b8)

utah, louisville, arizona, michigan st. & arizona st.

considering that 3 of those are p12 schools its not far fetched to say that the p12 has a "build from within" mentality where they are more willing to build a school within their own footprint than to take a well established school outside their footprint.

thats why i dont think CSU is far fetched for the p12

To be clear, I wouldn't say they are far fetched. Im just saying they are less likely than other choices. Look, to do what I am saying the Pac-12 could take state flagships New Mexico and Nevada along with a pair of Texas schools to reach 16 schools all in connected states. I still wouldn't sleep on UNLV due to money. UNLV is supposed to build a stadium that would make the CSU stadium look like an cheap erector set. Additionally, UNLV brings an excellent travel destination, a bowl, and 2 million cable boxes. Then there is the money---UNLV athletics makes an extra 50 million a year off its bookings to the Thomas Mack Center. The school will always be able to compete with the big boys from a monetary angle. The football is awful, but with a new stadium and Pac-12 membership, they could easily turn that around.

new mexico & nevada do have that flagship status and their is a precedent here for NM because they were considered for the b12. however these are athletic moves but made by academic officials. the academics of both schools is an automatic rejection by the p12. and theres also the problem of "whose their in conference rival"

colorado and utah might not look like it but they compliment each other quite nicely and are historical rivals. you cant really say that for nevada & new mexico (or any other hypothetical 14th p12 school)

the LV market would be nice, however theres no NV school that can meet the p12s standards even as a project "building" school like zona, utah, & ASU

I call BS. You're just making stuff up. First off, UNM and Nevada are not instant rejections for the P12 academically at all....they may be automatic rejects based on football, but both are decent in academics. UNM is a high research school that has more research dollars than several PAC schools. Second, your quote about Colorado and Utah being "historic rivals" Before they joined the PAC...?? Colorado and Utah hadn't played since the "Mountain States Conference" days in the 1950's. That conference also had New Mexico.--along with BYU, Wyoming, Utah St and Colorado St.

cu & utah do have a rivalry and its called the rumble in the rockies.

colorado & utah were the earliest members of the rocky mountain athletic conference which was formed before the pac12. even before that conference came along utah along with the colorado schools played each other very frequently and were considered the core members of the RMAC. at the time CSU was colorado A&M and wasnt very strong. the series record up until 1947 between cu-csu was 36-10. utah was much stronger and they developed into CUs major rival.

they missed each other only in 1909, 1959, & 1960 before ending the series in 1962. it was considered the biggest rivalry for both schools for the majority of those years however it slowly downgraded with the rise of in state powers for both schools. CUs entry to the b8 coupled with the the start of air force football is what finally killed it but at the time it was still the 2nd biggest rivalry for both schools.

look at the academic rankings

nevada
US news 189
ARWU i could only find a global ranking but its listed as in the 401-500 tier

new mexico
US news 167
ARWU 93 (201 global)

US news
ore st. 142
arizona st. 142
utah 121
arizona 120
wash st. 115
oregon 109
colorado 86

ARWU
wash st. 91
oregon 91
ore st. 53
utah 47
arizona st. 46
arizona 45
colorado 24 (32 global)


i didnt make any of that stuff up. thats the history between CU & utah and those are NM & NV's academic rankings

(10-03-2013 09:56 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-03-2013 09:23 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 11:00 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 10:49 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 10:40 AM)john01992 Wrote:  UNLV has terrible academic rankings, terrible football, and is not a flagship. (im not even sure if they are technically the 2nd best NV school either).

as much as the p12 wants the LV market the downsides of UNLV just doesnt cut it.

over the course of the last 50 years there have only been 5 schools who have "moved up" into a power league. schools like su wvu & tcu were already well established as an indy or from an old power conference (swc & b8)

utah, louisville, arizona, michigan st. & arizona st.

considering that 3 of those are p12 schools its not far fetched to say that the p12 has a "build from within" mentality where they are more willing to build a school within their own footprint than to take a well established school outside their footprint.

thats why i dont think CSU is far fetched for the p12

To be clear, I wouldn't say they are far fetched. Im just saying they are less likely than other choices. Look, to do what I am saying the Pac-12 could take state flagships New Mexico and Nevada along with a pair of Texas schools to reach 16 schools all in connected states. I still wouldn't sleep on UNLV due to money. UNLV is supposed to build a stadium that would make the CSU stadium look like an cheap erector set. Additionally, UNLV brings an excellent travel destination, a bowl, and 2 million cable boxes. Then there is the money---UNLV athletics makes an extra 50 million a year off its bookings to the Thomas Mack Center. The school will always be able to compete with the big boys from a monetary angle. The football is awful, but with a new stadium and Pac-12 membership, they could easily turn that around.

new mexico & nevada do have that flagship status and their is a precedent here for NM because they were considered for the b12. however these are athletic moves but made by academic officials. the academics of both schools is an automatic rejection by the p12. and theres also the problem of "whose their in conference rival"

colorado and utah might not look like it but they compliment each other quite nicely and are historical rivals. you cant really say that for nevada & new mexico (or any other hypothetical 14th p12 school)

the LV market would be nice, however theres no NV school that can meet the p12s standards even as a project "building" school like zona, utah, & ASU

I call BS. You're just making stuff up. First off, UNM and Nevada are not instant rejections for the P12 academically at all....they may be automatic rejects based on football, but both are decent in academics. UNM is a high research school that has more research dollars than several PAC schools. Second, your quote about Colorado and Utah being "historic rivals" Before they joined the PAC...?? Colorado and Utah hadn't played since the "Mountain States Conference" days in the 1950's. That conference also had New Mexico.--along with BYU, Wyoming, Utah St and Colorado St.

cu & utah do have a rivalry and its called the rumble in the rockies.

colorado & utah were the earliest members of the rocky mountain athletic conference which was formed before the pac12. even before that conference came along utah along with the colorado schools played each other very frequently and were considered the core members of the RMAC. at the time CSU was colorado A&M and wasnt very strong. the series record up until 1947 between cu-csu was 36-10. utah was much stronger and they developed into CUs major rival.

they missed each other only in 1909, 1959, & 1960 before ending the series in 1962. it was considered the biggest rivalry for both schools for the majority of those years however it slowly downgraded with the rise of in state powers for both schools. CUs entry to the b8 coupled with the the start of air force football is what finally killed it but at the time it was still the 2nd biggest rivalry for both schools.

look at the academic rankings

nevada
US news 189
ARWU i could only find a global ranking but its listed as in the 401-500 tier

new mexico
US news 167
ARWU 93 (201 global)

US news
ore st. 142
arizona st. 142
utah 121
arizona 120
wash st. 115
oregon 109
colorado 86

ARWU
wash st. 91
oregon 91
ore st. 53
utah 47
arizona st. 46
arizona 45
colorado 24 (32 global)


i didnt make any of that stuff up. thats the history between CU & utah and those are NM & NV's academic rankings

You cherry picked. I specifically mentioned research dollars at New Mexico being higher than several of the PAC schools. (And Research is a major part of the PACs mission) and you find overall ratings that have nothing to do with research. Even the cherry picked info you put down still has New Mexico in the ball park of other PAC institutions. (Nevada not all by your criteria) If you want to put last years research dollars down and compare them you'll see a much different situation.

(10-03-2013 10:34 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(10-03-2013 09:56 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-03-2013 09:23 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 11:00 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 10:49 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  To be clear, I wouldn't say they are far fetched. Im just saying they are less likely than other choices. Look, to do what I am saying the Pac-12 could take state flagships New Mexico and Nevada along with a pair of Texas schools to reach 16 schools all in connected states. I still wouldn't sleep on UNLV due to money. UNLV is supposed to build a stadium that would make the CSU stadium look like an cheap erector set. Additionally, UNLV brings an excellent travel destination, a bowl, and 2 million cable boxes. Then there is the money---UNLV athletics makes an extra 50 million a year off its bookings to the Thomas Mack Center. The school will always be able to compete with the big boys from a monetary angle. The football is awful, but with a new stadium and Pac-12 membership, they could easily turn that around.

new mexico & nevada do have that flagship status and their is a precedent here for NM because they were considered for the b12. however these are athletic moves but made by academic officials. the academics of both schools is an automatic rejection by the p12. and theres also the problem of "whose their in conference rival"

colorado and utah might not look like it but they compliment each other quite nicely and are historical rivals. you cant really say that for nevada & new mexico (or any other hypothetical 14th p12 school)

the LV market would be nice, however theres no NV school that can meet the p12s standards even as a project "building" school like zona, utah, & ASU

I call BS. You're just making stuff up. First off, UNM and Nevada are not instant rejections for the P12 academically at all....they may be automatic rejects based on football, but both are decent in academics. UNM is a high research school that has more research dollars than several PAC schools. Second, your quote about Colorado and Utah being "historic rivals" Before they joined the PAC...?? Colorado and Utah hadn't played since the "Mountain States Conference" days in the 1950's. That conference also had New Mexico.--along with BYU, Wyoming, Utah St and Colorado St.

cu & utah do have a rivalry and its called the rumble in the rockies.

colorado & utah were the earliest members of the rocky mountain athletic conference which was formed before the pac12. even before that conference came along utah along with the colorado schools played each other very frequently and were considered the core members of the RMAC. at the time CSU was colorado A&M and wasnt very strong. the series record up until 1947 between cu-csu was 36-10. utah was much stronger and they developed into CUs major rival.

they missed each other only in 1909, 1959, & 1960 before ending the series in 1962. it was considered the biggest rivalry for both schools for the majority of those years however it slowly downgraded with the rise of in state powers for both schools. CUs entry to the b8 coupled with the the start of air force football is what finally killed it but at the time it was still the 2nd biggest rivalry for both schools.

look at the academic rankings

nevada
US news 189
ARWU i could only find a global ranking but its listed as in the 401-500 tier

new mexico
US news 167
ARWU 93 (201 global)

US news
ore st. 142
arizona st. 142
utah 121
arizona 120
wash st. 115
oregon 109
colorado 86

ARWU
wash st. 91
oregon 91
ore st. 53
utah 47
arizona st. 46
arizona 45
colorado 24 (32 global)


i didnt make any of that stuff up. thats the history between CU & utah and those are NM & NV's academic rankings

You cherry picked. I specifically mentioned research dollars at New Mexico being higher than several of the PAC schools. (And Research is a major part of the PACs mission) and you find overall ratings that have nothing to do with research. Even the cherry picked info you put down still has New Mexico in the ball park of other PAC institutions. (Nevada not all by your criteria) If you want to put last years research dollars down and compare them you'll see a much different situation.

kinda hard to say i cherry picked when I used the two most well know academic rankings. your argument is nothing new. i have seen it almost 100 times but fans of so many different schools where they say that school X can get into conference B because they are really good in this one specific area. but the truth is is that conferences dont look at just one area. they look at the BIG PICTURE because not only do they like a schools research but the academic association & overall quality of that said school. and thats why NM mexico academics are an automatic rejection unless

1) the pac 12 is really desperate
2) texas is included in the move

oh and care to respond to utah & CU not being real rivals????

(10-02-2013 07:45 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  Interesting WSJ Article on what Colorado State is trying to do to make them a better future candidate to the Pac-12.

CSU wants to leave their almost 50 year old 32,000 seat off-campus stadium and build a new 40,000 seat on-campus stadium that will be one of the most expensive (per seat) on-campus stadiums built in recent years.

Ultimate goal for CSU is to attract more out-of-state students (which pay 3 times the tuition rate as in-state) but with a small fan base to begin with, this project has tons of obstacles in its way.

See link for complete feature story from WSJ:

Colorado State University Bets on a Stadium to Fill Its Coffers
Faced With Declining State Funding, School Believes Football Project Will Score
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...hare_tweet

Maybe USF should hire their AD....#@%#$!

Uh oh...did I just say that out loud?

(10-03-2013 09:45 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Colorado State is one of those schools where they'd be on the P5 radar if they were at least *competent* in football. (I'd put also put Tulane, Rice, New Mexico and UNLV on that list, where legitimately horrific football performance has overridden their other attributes.) They have solid academics with a nice campus located in a fast-growing state. Their problem, of course, is that they can't even manage to meet the low standard of mere competence. They have "tremendous upside potential", but it's always a lot harder to actually realize that potential than a lot of fans and even university administrators believe.

Football and tradition go hand in hand. History is hard to overcome. There are many reasons why historical success seems to self-perpetuate. One that goes overlooked is the "Can you get it done there?" factor. I think this influences the quality of applicants for head football job openings at certain schools.

Since 1966, here are the win percentages of those schools you mention, and where they rank nationally:

108 Rice 34%
106 Tulane 36%
101 New Mexico 39%
89 UNLV 42%
78 Colo St 46%

The Colo St numbers are inflated by the Lubick years. Aside from the brilliant Sonny Lubick, they win less than 4 games out of 10 historically.

See the Stassen W-L Calculator

(10-02-2013 10:49 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  To be clear, I wouldn't say they are far fetched. Im just saying they are less likely than other choices. Look, to do what I am saying the Pac-12 could take state flagships New Mexico and Nevada along with a pair of Texas schools to reach 16 schools all in connected states. I still wouldn't sleep on UNLV due to money. UNLV is supposed to build a stadium that would make the CSU stadium look like an cheap erector set. IIRC the new proposed UNLV stadium would cost over 800 million dollars. Additionally, UNLV brings an excellent travel destination, a bowl, and 2 million cable boxes. Then there is the money---UNLV athletics makes an extra 50 million a year off its bookings to the Thomas Mack Center. The school will always be able to compete with the big boys from a monetary angle. The football is awful, but with a new stadium and Pac-12 membership, they could easily turn that around.

Unfortunately, UNLV has scrapped plans for that $900M stadium.

According to some UNLV fans, Majestic and Craig Cavileer wanted to invest $400M in the project. Somehow, MGM swayed UNLV to cut out Majestic from the project. After that happened, MGM started building it's own MegaEvent center (that doesn't include UNLV). Some UNLV fans are now wondering if they ever get a new stadium.

(10-03-2013 02:22 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Since 1966, here are the win percentages of those schools you mention, and where they rank nationally:

108 Rice 34%
106 Tulane 36%
101 New Mexico 39%
89 UNLV 42%
78 Colo St 46%

The Colo St numbers are inflated by the Lubick years. Aside from the brilliant Sonny Lubick, they win less than 4 games out of 10 historically.

To play Devil's advocate, some other teams in these ranges:

Rank Team name Winning
Percentage
64 Missouri 50.37% Moved to SEC
65 Purdue 49.81%
66 Maryland 49.54% Moved to Big Ten
68 Virginia 49.08% Top Big Ten Candidate
69 California 48.23% Big XII would take them in a heartbeat
71 Cincinnati 47.66% Former ACC candidate. Big XII candidate
73 Texas Christian 47.39% Moved to Big 12
74 Kansas State 47.24%
80 Minnesota 43.93%
82 Navy 43.83% Potential ACC candidate
86 Baylor 43.33% Was a PAC 12 Candidate (albeit riding with Texas)
88 Illinois 42.24% Big XII and SEC would Gladlly take them
90 Washington State 41.92%
91t Kansas 41.87% Big Ten candidate
91t Mississippi State 41.87%
95 Kentucky 40.53%
96 Army 39.81%
100 Oregon State 38.79%
102 Indiana 38.49%
109 Duke 33.52% Big Ten and SEC wish list
111 Vanderbilt 32.26% Mentioned as Big Ten candidate



Just pointing out that there are a LOT of teams with similar or even worse winning percentages that have moved "up," or are looked at for moving up. It does not make it a moot point, but it discounts it as an end-all, be all. It somewhat validates Frank's point, because their issue is they are not known names (as big names anyway) AND have no pulse. That combination is more of the issue, than just the losing. Even still, there are a couple on this list who were in the same boat and have either moved, almost moved up, or are considered on deck.

(10-03-2013 02:33 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Unfortunately, UNLV has scrapped plans for that $900M stadium.

According to some UNLV fans, Majestic and Craig Cavileer wanted to invest $400M in the project. Somehow, MGM swayed UNLV to cut out Majestic from the project. After that happened, MGM started building it's own MegaEvent center (that doesn't include UNLV). Some UNLV fans are now wondering if they ever get a new stadium.

I never understood that project. First, they wanted to attract the NCAA tournament, yet the were building a stadium that did not even meet the current minimum standards. And that assumes the NCAA would even host an event in Vegas (I don't think they've ever had an NCAA game). There were other hopes they had that just didn't seem realistic. I never understood it...

(10-03-2013 09:56 AM)john01992 Wrote:  nevada
US news 189
ARWU i could only find a global ranking but its listed as in the 401-500 tier

new mexico
US news 167
ARWU 93 (201 global)

ARWU
wash st. 91
oregon 91
ore st. 53
utah 47
arizona st. 46
arizona 45
colorado 24 (32 global)

i didnt make any of that stuff up. thats the history between CU & utah and those are NM & NV's academic rankings

In the ARWU American ranks, you find

132-149
SMU
Texas Tech - Pac 16 offer
Wyoming
Utah St

109-131
BYU
SDSU
Oklahoma - Pac 16 offer

86-108
Oregon
Washington St
New Mexico
Houston

68-85
Colo St
Hawaii

53-67
Oregon St

UNLV, Nevada and Oklahoma St (who had a Pac 16 offer) are outside the Top 150.

It's hard for the Pac 12 to take too hard a stand on academics after offering Texas Tech and Oklahoma St.

However, New Mexico, Houston, Hawaii and Colo St are all ranked as highly as two of the Pac 12 members. These schools would not be excluded on academics alone.

Wow. Some great comments in that article.[/align]

(10-03-2013 02:36 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-03-2013 02:22 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Since 1966, here are the win percentages of those schools you mention, and where they rank nationally:

108 Rice 34%
106 Tulane 36%
101 New Mexico 39%
89 UNLV 42%
78 Colo St 46%

The Colo St numbers are inflated by the Lubick years. Aside from the brilliant Sonny Lubick, they win less than 4 games out of 10 historically.

To play Devil's advocate, some other teams in these ranges:

Rank Team name Winning
Percentage
64 Missouri 50.37% Moved to SEC
65 Purdue 49.81%
66 Maryland 49.54% Moved to Big Ten
68 Virginia 49.08% Top Big Ten Candidate
69 California 48.23% Big XII would take them in a heartbeat
71 Cincinnati 47.66% Former ACC candidate. Big XII candidate
73 Texas Christian 47.39% Moved to Big 12
74 Kansas State 47.24%
80 Minnesota 43.93%
82 Navy 43.83% Potential ACC candidate
86 Baylor 43.33% Was a PAC 12 Candidate (albeit riding with Texas)
88 Illinois 42.24% Big XII and SEC would Gladlly take them
90 Washington State 41.92%
91t Kansas 41.87% Big Ten candidate
91t Mississippi State 41.87%
95 Kentucky 40.53%
96 Army 39.81%
100 Oregon State 38.79%
102 Indiana 38.49%
109 Duke 33.52% Big Ten and SEC wish list
111 Vanderbilt 32.26% Mentioned as Big Ten candidate



Just pointing out that there are a LOT of teams with similar or even worse winning percentages that have moved "up," or are looked at for moving up. It does not make it a moot point, but it discounts it as an end-all, be all. It somewhat validates Frank's point, because their issue is they are not known names (as big names anyway) AND have no pulse. That combination is more of the issue, than just the losing. Even still, there are a couple on this list who were in the same boat and have either moved, almost moved up, or are considered on deck.

The context of Frank's comment (to which my response was directed) was about G5 schools moving up to P5. P5 schools are already "in the club." That's a different deal.

TCU obviously overcame their losing tradition during the Fran/Patterson years. It was only then that they got the call. Likewise, Cincy (who hasnt been called up yet) has overcome their losing tradition with the Dantonio, Kelly & Jones hires, making a couple of BCS games.

PS Baylor never was, and never will be, a Pac 12 target.

(10-03-2013 02:22 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  Football and tradition go hand in hand. History is hard to overcome. There are many reasons why historical success seems to self-perpetuate. One that goes overlooked is the "Can you get it done there?" factor. I think this influences the quality of applicants for head football job openings at certain schools.

Good point. E.g., I remember that when Saban left Michigan State for LSU he was asked why he left a Big 10 school for an SEC school, something that in 1999 was perceived as a lateral move, not a step up. He said that while MSU was a fine school, after 5 years there he concluded it would always be in Michigan's shadow with respect to factors like support and recruiting, whereas LSU was a place that "you could win a national title from" because it was the king of its dominion.

Coaches do factor stuff like that in, especially the top coaches.

(10-03-2013 02:54 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  PS Baylor never was, and never will be, a Pac 12 target.

I meant "target" as in 'willing to accept' to get Texas. I wrote that in Excel and it auto fills, so I went with it. No the PAC 12 was not going to invite Baylor on it's on. But they were going to invite Baylor... along with 5 other Big 12 South schools (although they obviously preferred Colorado).

(10-03-2013 02:54 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  TCU obviously overcame their losing tradition during the Fran/Patterson years. It was only then that they got the call.

Actually, TCU only got the call from the Big 12 AFTER Texas A&M announced they were leaving the Big 12 for the SEC.

If A&M was still a Big 12 member...odds are, Big 12 would still have the same 4 TX schools as part of their conf:

Texas
Texas A&M
Baylor
Texas Tech

As it was pretty clear to all that the Big 12 was not going to add a 5th school from TX to that line-up.

(10-03-2013 04:19 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(10-03-2013 02:54 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  PS Baylor never was, and never will be, a Pac 12 target.

I meant "target" as in 'willing to accept' to get Texas. I wrote that in Excel and it auto fills, so I went with it. No the PAC 12 was not going to invite Baylor on it's on. But they were going to invite Baylor... along with 5 other Big 12 South schools (although they obviously preferred Colorado).

I include the Pac 16. Baylor was never a part of that plan.

The original plan was UT, A&M, Tech, OU, Ok St & Colorado. Colorado accepted first. Nebraska went to the Big 10 the next day. A&M balked on Pac 12 and started playing footsy with the SEC.

Baylor started conferencing with Missouri, Kansas, Kansas St and Iowa St to see what they could do to keep the Big 12 together. Eventually, Baylor threatened to sue over the A&M to SEC deal.

Within a few days, the Pac 12 took Utah as the 12th member once A&M was out of the picture, and continued talking with UT, Tech, OU and Ok St. In fact, some in the Pac 12 preferred Kansas to Ok St.

But the left-behinds (Baylor, Kansas St, etc) pledged to give UT, OU etc. a portion of their exit fees from Colorado, Nebraska, etc. And Beebe got the TV partners to agee to keep the TV deal intact with just 10 teams. The rest is history.

Currently, the Pac 12 wants nothing to do with a church-owned and operated school. See BYU.