(09-21-2016 03:02 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 02:50 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 01:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 01:15 PM)HuskyHawk Wrote:  Geography has become irrelevant in modern big time college athletics.

UConn is the only flagship state U under consideration, has the largest Athletic budget by a significant margin and has the highest market penetration in a significant market of all the schools (again not close). Non football sports do matter as well. Look at recent comments by B12 leaders on that point. The Big 12 cannot remain a local plains state to TX league or it might as well fold now.

Geography does matter. That's why the most successful P5 conferences - the B1G and SEC - are also the most geographically compact. Neither has ever expanded with a school that wasn't in a state contiguous with at least one state of a present member. They've never island-hopped. E.g., recall that when the SEC added Missouri some acted like that was a geographical leap. But truth is, Missouri bordered not just one, but three existing SEC states.

And there's a difference between the Big 12 remaining a "local plain state league" and ... expanding to a place that is literally closer to parts of Greenland than it is to parts of Texas. That's the problem UConn faces.

Because as you say, you guys are pretty much aces on all other counts. So it clearly does matter.

UConn is 400(!) miles further on average than any other candidate. That makes a difference.

It does make a difference - it gets Big 12 games on the local broadcasts in NYC and Boston. As far as travel time, though, there isn't much of a difference between flying from Texas to Pittsburgh and driving to Morgantown or flying from Texas to Hartford and driving to Rentschler. If the Big 12 really cares about geography then a CSU/AFA/BYU/Houston 4-team add is right there, but it's be really considered a non-starter because it's less profitable.

IF...IF UConn could get on local NYC and Boston TV they would be in a P5 conference.

(09-21-2016 03:19 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 03:02 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 02:50 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 01:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 01:15 PM)HuskyHawk Wrote:  Geography has become irrelevant in modern big time college athletics.

UConn is the only flagship state U under consideration, has the largest Athletic budget by a significant margin and has the highest market penetration in a significant market of all the schools (again not close). Non football sports do matter as well. Look at recent comments by B12 leaders on that point. The Big 12 cannot remain a local plains state to TX league or it might as well fold now.

Geography does matter. That's why the most successful P5 conferences - the B1G and SEC - are also the most geographically compact. Neither has ever expanded with a school that wasn't in a state contiguous with at least one state of a present member. They've never island-hopped. E.g., recall that when the SEC added Missouri some acted like that was a geographical leap. But truth is, Missouri bordered not just one, but three existing SEC states.

And there's a difference between the Big 12 remaining a "local plain state league" and ... expanding to a place that is literally closer to parts of Greenland than it is to parts of Texas. That's the problem UConn faces.

Because as you say, you guys are pretty much aces on all other counts. So it clearly does matter.

UConn is 400(!) miles further on average than any other candidate. That makes a difference.

It does make a difference - it gets Big 12 games on the local broadcasts in NYC and Boston. As far as travel time, though, there isn't much of a difference between flying from Texas to Pittsburgh and driving to Morgantown or flying from Texas to Hartford and driving to Rentschler. If the Big 12 really cares about geography then a CSU/AFA/BYU/Houston 4-team add is right there, but it's be really considered a non-starter because it's less profitable.

IF...IF UConn could get on local NYC and Boston TV they would be in a P5 conference.

They already are. Sports New York (SNY) carries their games in the NY/Fairfield County area. I was in Portsmouth New Hampshire last weekend and was able to watch their game against Virginia at a bar without any special football packages. They're on TV in those areas.

Convince the North schools they're getting a great deal by being put in a new north division that stretches from Utah to Connecticut/Florida and is full of schools they don't care about and no annual games against OU/UT anymore.

Basically, the only way you'll get the north teams to agree to ANY expansion is by offering an immediate, long term extension of the GOR in exchange for a vote for expansion.

But will OU and UT agree to give up their only leverage that easily? Do they want expansion with G5 teams that badly?

My money still says "no expansion"

I think he's saying if people in those areas actually tuned their TV's to that channel ...

10th,

Or it's really this easy:

A - Iowa St, KS, KS St, WV, Cincy, Houston
B - Texas, Tech, TCU, Baylor, OU, OK St


That defeats all the claims you made up.

(09-21-2016 03:45 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I think he's saying if people in those areas actually tuned their TV's to that channel ...

I only said they were broadcasted in those markets. Never made NYC out to be some college-football-crazed town owned by UConn. Getting to play basketball games in MSG and football games in one of NY's stadiums on a regular basis is a nice perk though.

(09-21-2016 03:48 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  10th,

Or it's really this easy:

A - Iowa St, KS, KS St, WV, Cincy, Houston
B - Texas, Tech, TCU, Baylor, OU, OK St


That defeats all the claims you made up.

You still have to convince the north schools that being forced into that division is in their best interest. Good luck.

(09-21-2016 01:43 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 01:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 01:15 PM)HuskyHawk Wrote:  Geography has become irrelevant in modern big time college athletics.

UConn is the only flagship state U under consideration, has the largest Athletic budget by a significant margin and has the highest market penetration in a significant market of all the schools (again not close). Non football sports do matter as well. Look at recent comments by B12 leaders on that point. The Big 12 cannot remain a local plains state to TX league or it might as well fold now.

Geography does matter. That's why the most successful P5 conferences - the B1G and SEC - are also the most geographically compact. Neither has ever expanded with a school that wasn't in a state contiguous with at least one state of a present member. They've never island-hopped. E.g., recall that when the SEC added Missouri some acted like that was a geographical leap. But truth is, Missouri bordered not just one, but three existing SEC states.

And there's a difference between the Big 12 remaining a "local plain state league" and ... expanding to a place that is literally closer to parts of Greenland than it is to parts of Texas. That's the problem UConn faces.

Because as you say, you guys are pretty much aces on all other counts. So it clearly does matter.

The B1G is in no way compact. It stretches from the Atlantic coast all the way to Nebraska. They're successful because they've primarily taken big state schools that do well academically, and as a result have a huge base of alumni and general state residents to market to and draw money from. Same with the SEC. It's not about which schools are contiguous, it's about population base. Rutgers went to the B1G because New Jersey has about 3x the population of CT, not anything their AD did.

So you think it's just coincidental that these allegedly sprawling B1G and SEC just happen to have no islands? I don't think that is likely or even possible.

As I said, UConn would be a geographic fit with the B1G and ACC. But the Big 12 is a reeeeeeeeal stretch, literally.

(09-21-2016 03:54 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 03:48 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  10th,

Or it's really this easy:

A - Iowa St, KS, KS St, WV, Cincy, Houston
B - Texas, Tech, TCU, Baylor, OU, OK St


That defeats all the claims you made up.

You still have to convince the north schools that being forced into that division is in their best interest. Good luck.

Well, those northern schools would have a hell of a lot better chance of winning than they have in the past. There is still an issue----ive said before I think the nuts-and-bolts of building divisions is going to be a problem for Big12 expansion. Its going to be hard for schools to give up annual meetings with Texas and Oklahoma in exchange for games against UH, Cincy, Memphis, etc.

(09-21-2016 03:54 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 03:48 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  10th,

Or it's really this easy:

A - Iowa St, KS, KS St, WV, Cincy, Houston
B - Texas, Tech, TCU, Baylor, OU, OK St


That defeats all the claims you made up.

You still have to convince the north schools that being forced into that division is in their best interest. Good luck.

Given that they'd have an easier path to the CCG that way, and that any expansion scenario is going to call for divisions somewhat along those lines, I don't think convincing them is going to be as difficult as you're making it out to be.

(09-21-2016 01:52 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 12:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  * Whine about them all you want, but I have been in academia for 20+ years, and they matter, they are the most publicly-regarded rankings.

If this is true you should know better. US News isn't used by legit academics as a true measure of a university.

Plenty of other more respected and objective reports differ with their "findings".

Within academia, many will argue and wrangle over various measures of school quality, usually in favor of whatever measure happens to make them look best. But that in and of itself is revealing, as it shows that everyone wants to "look best", meaning there is a large PR dimension to this.

And my knowledge is sure and true: Nothing impacts on the PR domain like USNWR. USNWR is easily the best known publicly, and even academics who strongly disagree with its approach know that their rankings count the most, especially in PR-domain areas, which athletics surely is.

So while yes, if a team of cosmologists at university X are putting together a consortium to study some aspect of the heavens, USNWR is useless to them and they will use some technical ratings of faculty and research facilities at other Astronomy departments and the like to invite faculty from other universities to join them.

But for something like athletics, USNWR rules. That's the way it is even though Coog fans don't like it.

And FWIW, yes, I wish USF's rating was 60 or so positions higher than what it is. Would do us some good in this too.

(09-21-2016 01:29 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Well, the PAC is even stronger than the Big Ten and SEC, in terms of having only schools that fit within a geographic identity, when you consider that Big Ten has "leaked" over to the northeast and SEC has "leaked" over to Texas/Arkansas.

But because the west is so dang big, they're technically not the most compact conf in terms of sq miles.

Not sure about that. Colorado is a LONG way from the Pacific coast.

As for SEC "leaking", Arkansas and Texas were both members of the Confederacy, probably the single most defining cultural characteristic (with a pardon to border state Kentucky) of SEC schools.

The problem is that realignment has been so flawed and arbitrary. So long as huge schools, in huge markets, with good on the field performance like Houston, or UCF, USF, Cincinnati, etc. are 'left out', there will continue to be a problem. This is why you see the AAC winning NY bowls, or performing so well this season against P5. Because the 'split' is really arbitrary and not reflective of on the field capability. It's a problem because the P5 $$$ are over 20x what the G5 are getting.

This could be fixed fast if they would just field a best of the rest conference, let it get a decent enough TV contract to compete, and a pathway to the playoff. Gets easier if the playoff expands to 8.

(09-21-2016 01:59 PM)HuskyHawk Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 01:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 01:15 PM)HuskyHawk Wrote:  Geography has become irrelevant in modern big time college athletics.

UConn is the only flagship state U under consideration, has the largest Athletic budget by a significant margin and has the highest market penetration in a significant market of all the schools (again not close). Non football sports do matter as well. Look at recent comments by B12 leaders on that point. The Big 12 cannot remain a local plains state to TX league or it might as well fold now.

Geography does matter. That's why the most successful P5 conferences - the B1G and SEC - are also the most geographically compact. Neither has ever expanded with a school that wasn't in a state contiguous with at least one state of a present member. They've never island-hopped. E.g., recall that when the SEC added Missouri some acted like that was a geographical leap. But truth is, Missouri bordered not just one, but three existing SEC states.

And there's a difference between the Big 12 remaining a "local plain state league" and ... expanding to a place that is literally closer to parts of Greenland than it is to parts of Texas. That's the problem UConn faces.

Because as you say, you guys are pretty much aces on all other counts. So it clearly does matter.

But the reality the Big 12 faces is that the SEC already stole Missouri and their top school in the Houston area (and arguably Arkansas long before). The B1G took Nebraska on the northern border. The PAC took Colorado and added Utah to take away an expansion candidate.

It their stupidity, the BiG 12 didn't try to grab Louisville and Cinci with WVU. So they are bordered on all sides by stronger leagues and no school is leaving those leagues. Nobody they can add is close except Houston. Once you're in a plane it really doesn't matter, and UConn is maybe 30 minutes more by air, but is also close to the airport, unlike many Big 12 schools. There's no real difference in travel between Cinci, USF, UConn or UCF.

FWIW, I see USF's distance from the Big 12 as being a negative issue as well. We're not as badly off as UConn is, but it's not good for us.

The Big 12 just has zero interest or presence anywhere close to UConn. Nobody associated with the Big 12 can possibly believe that people in the greater New York-Boston area will have any interest in Big 12 athletics if UConn joins. There's just no common ground culturally at all. A Texas Tech- UConn football game sounds ridiculous on the face of it. Who up there in Yankee land or the great southwest would care?

That's why the Big East's old deal with the Pinstripe Bowl didn't last. Bringing a Big 12 team in to NYC for a bowl game was a non-starter for everyone.

(09-21-2016 04:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 01:52 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 12:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  * Whine about them all you want, but I have been in academia for 20+ years, and they matter, they are the most publicly-regarded rankings.

If this is true you should know better. US News isn't used by legit academics as a true measure of a university.

Plenty of other more respected and objective reports differ with their "findings".

Within academia, many will argue and wrangle over various measures of school quality, usually in favor of whatever measure happens to make them look best. But that in and of itself is revealing, as it shows that everyone wants to "look best", meaning there is a large PR dimension to this.

And my knowledge is sure and true: Nothing impacts on the PR domain like USNWR. USNWR is easily the best known publicly, and even academics who strongly disagree with its approach know that their rankings count the most, especially in PR-domain areas, which athletics surely is.

So while yes, if a team of cosmologists at university X are putting together a consortium to study some aspect of the heavens, USNWR is useless to them and they will use some technical ratings of faculty and research facilities at other Astronomy departments and the like to invite faculty from other universities to join them.

But for something like athletics, USNWR rules. That's the way it is even though Coog fans don't like it.

And FWIW, yes, I wish USF's rating was 60 or so positions higher than what it is. Would do us some good in this too.

I will agree that USNWR is what the public goes to. My point was anyone who is actually an academic does not go there first and at best gives them only a passing level or credibility based on their metrics.

It's not a case of not being happy with the results (like you of course I would like to be higher for the uninformed fan) it is case of how heavily it is weighted when it is easily debunked.

That said I think I read somewhere that anyone who is actually ranked in the report represents the top 5% of higher education in the US. If that is true I don't see why (though as flawed as it is) anyone who is ranked is deemed a school with poor academics.

10th,

No convincing to be done -- convincing only has context if there's a negative aspect that has to be agreed upon.


coog,

In that set up, two teams in "A" get to play both OU and Texas and the other four get to play one or the other, every year.

You can't tell me that losing out on a trip to Austin or Norman one every four years is going to matter. Mind you that every school in "A" will be in the state of Texas every year, probably multiple times.

(09-21-2016 04:18 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 04:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 01:52 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 12:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  * Whine about them all you want, but I have been in academia for 20+ years, and they matter, they are the most publicly-regarded rankings.

If this is true you should know better. US News isn't used by legit academics as a true measure of a university.

Plenty of other more respected and objective reports differ with their "findings".

Within academia, many will argue and wrangle over various measures of school quality, usually in favor of whatever measure happens to make them look best. But that in and of itself is revealing, as it shows that everyone wants to "look best", meaning there is a large PR dimension to this.

And my knowledge is sure and true: Nothing impacts on the PR domain like USNWR. USNWR is easily the best known publicly, and even academics who strongly disagree with its approach know that their rankings count the most, especially in PR-domain areas, which athletics surely is.

So while yes, if a team of cosmologists at university X are putting together a consortium to study some aspect of the heavens, USNWR is useless to them and they will use some technical ratings of faculty and research facilities at other Astronomy departments and the like to invite faculty from other universities to join them.

But for something like athletics, USNWR rules. That's the way it is even though Coog fans don't like it.

And FWIW, yes, I wish USF's rating was 60 or so positions higher than what it is. Would do us some good in this too.

I will agree that USNWR is what the public goes to. My point was anyone who is actually an academic does not go there first and at best gives them only a passing level or credibility based on their metrics.

It's not a case of not being happy with the results (like you of course I would like to be higher for the uninformed fan) it is case of how heavily it is weighted when it is easily debunked.

That said I think I read somewhere that anyone who is actually ranked in the report represents the top 5% of higher education in the US. If that is true I don't see why (though as flawed as it is) anyone who is ranked is deemed a school with poor academics.

Houston is not a school with "poor academics". You are better than, yes, probably 90% to 95% of all universities out there. But this is a relative thing, relative to the other schools that are also trying to get into the conference.

It's like if 5 girls are trying out to be a model, and you have two 9s, two 8s, and a 7. The 7 girl isn't "ugly", she's actually well above average looking. On the street, she'd turn more than one guys head which is why she probably thinks she can be a model to begin with. But in that group, she looks bad.

FWIW, here is the ACC touting its academic ranking. Does this every year. Observe the metric they use:

http://www.theacc.com/news/acc-leads-pow...2014-09-09

(09-21-2016 04:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  FWIW, here is the ACC touting its academic ranking. Does this every year. Observe the metric they use:

http://www.theacc.com/news/acc-leads-pow...2014-09-09

LOL stopped reading when in the first paragraph I saw they were citing USNWR..... Plus they are including Notre Dame in the results which clearly helps..... All the way in or out Notre Dame, to me you can't include them if they aren't all the way in.

I would argue though in any study it would be between the B10 and the ACC.

The ACC is boosted by the inclusion of Duke (who actually is an asset), Virginia a solid academic school but one that is middle of the road in athletics, North Carolina (up for debate with the recent academic scandals) and Wake (who brings very little on the athletic front).

(09-21-2016 04:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 04:18 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 04:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 01:52 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 12:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  * Whine about them all you want, but I have been in academia for 20+ years, and they matter, they are the most publicly-regarded rankings.

If this is true you should know better. US News isn't used by legit academics as a true measure of a university.

Plenty of other more respected and objective reports differ with their "findings".

Within academia, many will argue and wrangle over various measures of school quality, usually in favor of whatever measure happens to make them look best. But that in and of itself is revealing, as it shows that everyone wants to "look best", meaning there is a large PR dimension to this.

And my knowledge is sure and true: Nothing impacts on the PR domain like USNWR. USNWR is easily the best known publicly, and even academics who strongly disagree with its approach know that their rankings count the most, especially in PR-domain areas, which athletics surely is.

So while yes, if a team of cosmologists at university X are putting together a consortium to study some aspect of the heavens, USNWR is useless to them and they will use some technical ratings of faculty and research facilities at other Astronomy departments and the like to invite faculty from other universities to join them.

But for something like athletics, USNWR rules. That's the way it is even though Coog fans don't like it.

And FWIW, yes, I wish USF's rating was 60 or so positions higher than what it is. Would do us some good in this too.

I will agree that USNWR is what the public goes to. My point was anyone who is actually an academic does not go there first and at best gives them only a passing level or credibility based on their metrics.

It's not a case of not being happy with the results (like you of course I would like to be higher for the uninformed fan) it is case of how heavily it is weighted when it is easily debunked.

That said I think I read somewhere that anyone who is actually ranked in the report represents the top 5% of higher education in the US. If that is true I don't see why (though as flawed as it is) anyone who is ranked is deemed a school with poor academics.

Houston is not a school with "poor academics". You are better than, yes, probably 90% to 95% of all universities out there. But this is a relative thing, relative to the other schools that are also trying to get into the conference.

It's like if 5 girls are trying out to be a model, and you have two 9s, two 8s, and a 7. The 7 girl isn't "ugly", she's actually well above average looking. On the street, she'd turn more than one guys head which is why she probably thinks she can be a model to begin with. But in that group, she looks bad.

FWIW, here is the ACC touting its academic ranking. Does this every year. Observe the metric they use:

http://www.theacc.com/news/acc-leads-pow...2014-09-09

Looked at your list and most ACC schools are ranked right where I thought they'd be including the school who ranks last. (And by a country mile behind the 2nd to last). They are ranked #161. Guess that school!
Cheers!

(09-21-2016 04:35 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 04:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 04:18 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 04:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-21-2016 01:52 PM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  If this is true you should know better. US News isn't used by legit academics as a true measure of a university.

Plenty of other more respected and objective reports differ with their "findings".

Within academia, many will argue and wrangle over various measures of school quality, usually in favor of whatever measure happens to make them look best. But that in and of itself is revealing, as it shows that everyone wants to "look best", meaning there is a large PR dimension to this.

And my knowledge is sure and true: Nothing impacts on the PR domain like USNWR. USNWR is easily the best known publicly, and even academics who strongly disagree with its approach know that their rankings count the most, especially in PR-domain areas, which athletics surely is.

So while yes, if a team of cosmologists at university X are putting together a consortium to study some aspect of the heavens, USNWR is useless to them and they will use some technical ratings of faculty and research facilities at other Astronomy departments and the like to invite faculty from other universities to join them.

But for something like athletics, USNWR rules. That's the way it is even though Coog fans don't like it.

And FWIW, yes, I wish USF's rating was 60 or so positions higher than what it is. Would do us some good in this too.

I will agree that USNWR is what the public goes to. My point was anyone who is actually an academic does not go there first and at best gives them only a passing level or credibility based on their metrics.

It's not a case of not being happy with the results (like you of course I would like to be higher for the uninformed fan) it is case of how heavily it is weighted when it is easily debunked.

That said I think I read somewhere that anyone who is actually ranked in the report represents the top 5% of higher education in the US. If that is true I don't see why (though as flawed as it is) anyone who is ranked is deemed a school with poor academics.

Houston is not a school with "poor academics". You are better than, yes, probably 90% to 95% of all universities out there. But this is a relative thing, relative to the other schools that are also trying to get into the conference.

It's like if 5 girls are trying out to be a model, and you have two 9s, two 8s, and a 7. The 7 girl isn't "ugly", she's actually well above average looking. On the street, she'd turn more than one guys head which is why she probably thinks she can be a model to begin with. But in that group, she looks bad.

FWIW, here is the ACC touting its academic ranking. Does this every year. Observe the metric they use:

http://www.theacc.com/news/acc-leads-pow...2014-09-09

Looked at your list and most ACC schools are ranked right where I thought they'd be including the school who ranks last. (And by a country mile behind the 2nd to last). They are ranked #161. Guess that school!
Cheers!

The School the Big 12 should have taken when they added WVU?