(01-04-2017 04:53 PM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 01:50 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 07:16 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  You forgot Hartford. 1.5 mil (AAC)

You can't have it both ways. You guys always want to claim that Metro NYC is part of your market. Therefore The Giants and Jets...

(01-03-2017 11:50 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Thank you. I keep adding more and more. My point was to highlight that San Diego would be the biggest metro with no NFL team that has FBS football and show other big places like Orlando and SA etc. apparently, I pissed you off.
Cheers!

You know an area that is also underserved, that could probably allow an FBS school to thrive, is the Inland Empire (Riverside)? It is its won own metropolitan area, over 4 million people, and is the largest by far with no pro sports team of its own. But since UC Riverside shuttered its program about 40 years ago, I am guessing not...

As someone with friends and family that graduated from UC Riverside I would love for them to carry that IE banner in the FBS. Hell, I'd probably go to at least one game every season.

But the Inland Empire is still largely a gigantic pool of commuters into LA and Orange counties. It identifies as part of the LA metro and is infested with USC fans. UCLA is trying to get in on the IE action by locating its training camp in Cal State San Bernardino each summer. They'll need better results than this year for the effort to be worthwhile.

Given the well-documented tough spot the Pac-12 finds itself in regarding eastward expansion I'd almost rather see the conference make a long-term effort to bring in four more UC campuses and try to unlock and/or create fan intensity in CA that mirrors that of the midwest and southeast. We certainly have the population for it. But were we to go this route there are already four other UC campuses with more prestige than UCR; UC San Diego, UC Davis, UC Santa Barbara and UC Irvine are all ranked higher. But even UCR ranks higher still than four of the Pac's current members: Wazzu, Oregon State, and both Arizona schools. Perhaps therein lies the solution. We should trade in the * State schools for more UC campuses.

From my outsider vantage point, the only California market that's truly a gap for the Pac-12 is San Diego (which has its own separate distinct identity from the LA area along with a large population). The other markets are either too small to worry about (at least compared to a potential new state like Nevada) or close enough (either geographically or identity-wise) to LA or the Bay Area that the current California-based Pac-12 schools effectively cover them.

Separately, the benefit of the fact that the other Pac-12 states have the "State" schools is that means that the conference has a P5 monopoly in those states. If the Pac-12 kept Arizona but let go of Arizona State, for example, ASU would be snapped up immediately by the Big 12 and now the Pac-12 has direct competition is a major and super-fast-growing market that it previously had a monopoly in. So, the value in those "State" schools in the Pac-12 on top of the flagships is as much about keeping those markets away from other competing P5 leagues as it is about owning those markets.

That's really the Pac-12's main competitive advantage compared to other P5 leagues: they have zero direct P5 competition in any of their markets. It's also why I believe that the MWC schools tend to be underrated on realignment forums like this one - those western markets might be smaller on paper compared to eastern markets, but many of them have little to no competition from the P5 (whereas virtually every market of any value in the Eastern and Central Time Zones has at least one P5 conference with a heavy presence, with many of those markets having multiple P5 leagues going after them).

(01-05-2017 07:38 AM)FloridaJag Wrote:  The cities that will get NFL Franchises are:

St. Louis
San Antonio
Orlando

If the Chargers move to LA, then San Diego will get a new franchise.

Tampa Bay is struggling at the gate and Orlando is merely an extension. If anything, the Bucs will move to Orlando.

(01-05-2017 10:17 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(01-05-2017 07:38 AM)FloridaJag Wrote:  The cities that will get NFL Franchises are:

St. Louis
San Antonio
Orlando

If the Chargers move to LA, then San Diego will get a new franchise.

Tampa Bay is struggling at the gate and Orlando is merely an extension. If anything, the Bucs will move to Orlando.

I don't think new NFL franchises are really in the cards for the near future. If/when the Chargers move to LA and Raiders move to Las Vegas (both of which I believe are inevitable), the next relocation prospect is really the Jaguars. Jacksonville has a strong lease in place with the Jags that has prevented legit relocation talks as of now, but as the lease comes closer and closer to its end date, the early termination penalties become more bearable. By every other objective measure (attendance, TV ratings, market size), the Jags should have been the #1 team to relocate compared to the Rams, Chargers and Raiders, but that lease has been holding them back.

That being said, the attractiveness of a new market for any pro sports league is assuming that the team is getting a brand new state-of-the-art stadium that is largely being funded by taxpayers (or at least someone *other* than the actual owner of the team). I'm not saying that's right or fair, but that's the reality for markets competing for pro sports franchises. So, we can talk about how attractive San Diego is as a market all that we want (and as I sit here after having walked to my office in downtown Chicago with a minus-7 windchill this morning, San Diego is REALLY attractive to me personally), but that city just shot down any chance of a publicly-funded stadium for the Chargers (which means I can't imagine why they'd suddenly change course for another NFL franchise). That's why the Sonics moved from Seattle to Oklahoma City and the Raiders will almost certainly move from the Bay Area to Las Vegas. Not many of us would turn down hundreds of millions of dollars (and in the case of the Raiders going to Las Vegas, nearly $2 billion for the new stadium) in free money, so we shouldn't expect pro sports owners to think any differently.

(01-04-2017 12:08 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(01-03-2017 11:25 PM)NoDak Wrote:  Cities that need FBS as they have no immediate football outlet:

Sacramento
Portland
Spokane
St Louis
Little Rock
Des Moines - Ames is close
Grand Rapids
Albany
Long Island
Richmond
Chattanooga
Montgomery
Shreveport
Wichita
Peoria
Milwaukee
Providence
Long Island
Fort Myers
Omaha

I assume you mean a 1A team...

Rochester, NY and Dayton, OH should be on your list.

I understand that the Cincinnati and Dayton DMAs will merge after the next census. And I can't imagine that it will be too long before that combined DMA merges with Columbus (via Springfield) to form one giant, continuous, sprawling, endless, festering, urban miasma.

Glad I live where I live.

(01-05-2017 10:11 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 04:53 PM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 01:50 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 07:16 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  You forgot Hartford. 1.5 mil (AAC)

You can't have it both ways. You guys always want to claim that Metro NYC is part of your market. Therefore The Giants and Jets...

(01-03-2017 11:50 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Thank you. I keep adding more and more. My point was to highlight that San Diego would be the biggest metro with no NFL team that has FBS football and show other big places like Orlando and SA etc. apparently, I pissed you off.
Cheers!

You know an area that is also underserved, that could probably allow an FBS school to thrive, is the Inland Empire (Riverside)? It is its won own metropolitan area, over 4 million people, and is the largest by far with no pro sports team of its own. But since UC Riverside shuttered its program about 40 years ago, I am guessing not...

As someone with friends and family that graduated from UC Riverside I would love for them to carry that IE banner in the FBS. Hell, I'd probably go to at least one game every season.

But the Inland Empire is still largely a gigantic pool of commuters into LA and Orange counties. It identifies as part of the LA metro and is infested with USC fans. UCLA is trying to get in on the IE action by locating its training camp in Cal State San Bernardino each summer. They'll need better results than this year for the effort to be worthwhile.

Given the well-documented tough spot the Pac-12 finds itself in regarding eastward expansion I'd almost rather see the conference make a long-term effort to bring in four more UC campuses and try to unlock and/or create fan intensity in CA that mirrors that of the midwest and southeast. We certainly have the population for it. But were we to go this route there are already four other UC campuses with more prestige than UCR; UC San Diego, UC Davis, UC Santa Barbara and UC Irvine are all ranked higher. But even UCR ranks higher still than four of the Pac's current members: Wazzu, Oregon State, and both Arizona schools. Perhaps therein lies the solution. We should trade in the * State schools for more UC campuses.

From my outsider vantage point, the only California market that's truly a gap for the Pac-12 is San Diego (which has its own separate distinct identity from the LA area along with a large population). The other markets are either too small to worry about (at least compared to a potential new state like Nevada) or close enough (either geographically or identity-wise) to LA or the Bay Area that the current California-based Pac-12 schools effectively cover them.

Separately, the benefit of the fact that the other Pac-12 states have the "State" schools is that means that the conference has a P5 monopoly in those states. If the Pac-12 kept Arizona but let go of Arizona State, for example, ASU would be snapped up immediately by the Big 12 and now the Pac-12 has direct competition is a major and super-fast-growing market that it previously had a monopoly in. So, the value in those "State" schools in the Pac-12 on top of the flagships is as much about keeping those markets away from other competing P5 leagues as it is about owning those markets.

That's really the Pac-12's main competitive advantage compared to other P5 leagues: they have zero direct P5 competition in any of their markets. It's also why I believe that the MWC schools tend to be underrated on realignment forums like this one - those western markets might be smaller on paper compared to eastern markets, but many of them have little to no competition from the P5 (whereas virtually every market of any value in the Eastern and Central Time Zones has at least one P5 conference with a heavy presence, with many of those markets having multiple P5 leagues going after them).

From my insider vantage point I agree that the four current CA schools "cover" most of the existing interest there is in the sport. But my intuition is that there is a lot of potential interest left dormant. The vast majority of UC students attend campuses other than Berkeley or LA, and yet they are precisely the type of students that would attend schools like Wisconsin, Illinois and Michigan if they lived in the midwest. The whole system (except for UC Merced at the moment) is made up of the type of public research schools that form the backbones of the other P5 conferences. As for identity, I think a person can think of themselves as an Angeleno and happily dream of their Anteaters upsetting the Trojans in the Coli or be a UC Davis Aggie on the peninsula and cherish the memory of humiliating Stanford. The identities of LA and the Bay Area's denizens need not be tied to just four teams. And, if I'm being honest, almost nobody chooses to cheer for Stanford based on geographic proximity anyway.

As it is, we're merely content to be the only real options for a state whose people have very few connections to any of the four current member schools. I can see your point about the value of monopolies, but while many Californians are indeed not choosing any other P5 conference's product, they are simply not choosing any collegiate product at all.

(01-05-2017 11:26 AM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote:  

(01-05-2017 10:11 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 04:53 PM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 01:50 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 07:16 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  You forgot Hartford. 1.5 mil (AAC)

You can't have it both ways. You guys always want to claim that Metro NYC is part of your market. Therefore The Giants and Jets...

(01-03-2017 11:50 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Thank you. I keep adding more and more. My point was to highlight that San Diego would be the biggest metro with no NFL team that has FBS football and show other big places like Orlando and SA etc. apparently, I pissed you off.
Cheers!

You know an area that is also underserved, that could probably allow an FBS school to thrive, is the Inland Empire (Riverside)? It is its won own metropolitan area, over 4 million people, and is the largest by far with no pro sports team of its own. But since UC Riverside shuttered its program about 40 years ago, I am guessing not...

As someone with friends and family that graduated from UC Riverside I would love for them to carry that IE banner in the FBS. Hell, I'd probably go to at least one game every season.

But the Inland Empire is still largely a gigantic pool of commuters into LA and Orange counties. It identifies as part of the LA metro and is infested with USC fans. UCLA is trying to get in on the IE action by locating its training camp in Cal State San Bernardino each summer. They'll need better results than this year for the effort to be worthwhile.

Given the well-documented tough spot the Pac-12 finds itself in regarding eastward expansion I'd almost rather see the conference make a long-term effort to bring in four more UC campuses and try to unlock and/or create fan intensity in CA that mirrors that of the midwest and southeast. We certainly have the population for it. But were we to go this route there are already four other UC campuses with more prestige than UCR; UC San Diego, UC Davis, UC Santa Barbara and UC Irvine are all ranked higher. But even UCR ranks higher still than four of the Pac's current members: Wazzu, Oregon State, and both Arizona schools. Perhaps therein lies the solution. We should trade in the * State schools for more UC campuses.

From my outsider vantage point, the only California market that's truly a gap for the Pac-12 is San Diego (which has its own separate distinct identity from the LA area along with a large population). The other markets are either too small to worry about (at least compared to a potential new state like Nevada) or close enough (either geographically or identity-wise) to LA or the Bay Area that the current California-based Pac-12 schools effectively cover them.

Separately, the benefit of the fact that the other Pac-12 states have the "State" schools is that means that the conference has a P5 monopoly in those states. If the Pac-12 kept Arizona but let go of Arizona State, for example, ASU would be snapped up immediately by the Big 12 and now the Pac-12 has direct competition is a major and super-fast-growing market that it previously had a monopoly in. So, the value in those "State" schools in the Pac-12 on top of the flagships is as much about keeping those markets away from other competing P5 leagues as it is about owning those markets.

That's really the Pac-12's main competitive advantage compared to other P5 leagues: they have zero direct P5 competition in any of their markets. It's also why I believe that the MWC schools tend to be underrated on realignment forums like this one - those western markets might be smaller on paper compared to eastern markets, but many of them have little to no competition from the P5 (whereas virtually every market of any value in the Eastern and Central Time Zones has at least one P5 conference with a heavy presence, with many of those markets having multiple P5 leagues going after them).

From my insider vantage point I agree that the four current CA schools "cover" most of the existing interest there is in the sport. But my intuition is that there is a lot of potential interest left dormant. The vast majority of UC students attend campuses other than Berkeley or LA, and yet they are precisely the type of students that would attend schools like Wisconsin, Illinois and Michigan if they lived in the midwest. The whole system (except for UC Merced at the moment) is made up of the type of public research schools that form the backbones of the other P5 conferences. As for identity, I think a person can think of themselves as an Angeleno and happily dream of their Anteaters upsetting the Trojans in the Coli or be a UC Davis Aggie on the peninsula and cherish the memory of humiliating Stanford. The identities of LA and the Bay Area's denizens need not be tied to just four teams. And, if I'm being honest, almost nobody chooses to cheer for Stanford based on geographic proximity anyway.

As it is, we're merely content to be the only real options for a state whose people have very few connections to any of the four current member schools. I can see your point about the value of monopolies, but while many Californians are indeed not choosing any other P5 conference's product, they are simply not choosing any collegiate product at all.

From some of the stats that I've seen, other Pac-12 schools (particularly Oregon, Oregon State, Arizona, Arizona State and Colorado) are getting inundated with California students because of how much competition there is to get into the UC system (especially Berkeley and UCLA). We see a similar situation in Illinois where the in-state demand to get into the University of Illinois flagship is so high that those that don't get accepted here (but still have pretty good grades and test scores) enroll in very large numbers at neighboring Big Ten schools like Indiana, Purdue and Iowa.

From the perspective of the Big Ten or Pac-12, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Chicago isn't a "Big Ten market" just based on Illinois and Northwestern fans, but rather that there's a huge cross section of Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Purdue, Iowa and other Big Ten alums that all live there. I could see how the Pac-12 would look at the LA and Bay Area markets in a similar fashion - it's not just about the California-based schools that drive *conference* interest, but rather the fact that you're adding in all of those Oregon, Arizona, Arizona State, et. al grads on top of them. In particular, the LA market is so large by itself that it's unrealistic to have a marketing plan for a conference that's based on direct alumni connections for only the in-state schools (unlike, say, the Birmingham market). For a market that large, you need a lot larger base of schools to pool from, which the out-of-state Pac-12 schools provide to a certain extent. It might not be as concentrated as SEC alums in Atlanta, Big 12 alums in Dallas or Big Ten alums in Chicago, but it's still pretty large (and the LA market is a lot bigger).

(01-05-2017 10:30 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-05-2017 10:17 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(01-05-2017 07:38 AM)FloridaJag Wrote:  The cities that will get NFL Franchises are:

St. Louis
San Antonio
Orlando

If the Chargers move to LA, then San Diego will get a new franchise.

Tampa Bay is struggling at the gate and Orlando is merely an extension. If anything, the Bucs will move to Orlando.

I don't think new NFL franchises are really in the cards for the near future. If/when the Chargers move to LA and Raiders move to Las Vegas (both of which I believe are inevitable), the next relocation prospect is really the Jaguars. Jacksonville has a strong lease in place with the Jags that has prevented legit relocation talks as of now, but as the lease comes closer and closer to its end date, the early termination penalties become more bearable. By every other objective measure (attendance, TV ratings, market size), the Jags should have been the #1 team to relocate compared to the Rams, Chargers and Raiders, but that lease has been holding them back.

That being said, the attractiveness of a new market for any pro sports league is assuming that the team is getting a brand new state-of-the-art stadium that is largely being funded by taxpayers (or at least someone *other* than the actual owner of the team). I'm not saying that's right or fair, but that's the reality for markets competing for pro sports franchises. So, we can talk about how attractive San Diego is as a market all that we want (and as I sit here after having walked to my office in downtown Chicago with a minus-7 windchill this morning, San Diego is REALLY attractive to me personally), but that city just shot down any chance of a publicly-funded stadium for the Chargers (which means I can't imagine why they'd suddenly change course for another NFL franchise). That's why the Sonics moved from Seattle to Oklahoma City and the Raiders will almost certainly move from the Bay Area to Las Vegas. Not many of us would turn down hundreds of millions of dollars (and in the case of the Raiders going to Las Vegas, nearly $2 billion for the new stadium) in free money, so we shouldn't expect pro sports owners to think any differently.

I agree. There's 10 FBS conferences, but only 2 of the 10 are in the Pacific & Mountain Time Zones.
PAC is safe due to having no competition in the Pacific Time Zone. The biggest competition for the PAC is that there's a big interest in the NFL, and a lukewarm interest in college sports. California is huge, but has 4 NFL teams and 4 PAC 12 schools, 3 MWC schools and about a million small colleges that play basketball and baseball.
The MWC is probably safe due to being mostly in the the Mountain Time Zone and non-PAC areas, San Diego, Las Vegas, Honolulu, Albuquerque etc. Smaller, but no competition.

Wyoming, no NFL, only 1 FBS school: Wyoming
Idaho, no NFL, no P5, soon to be only 1 FBS school in Boise St
Nevada, no NFL, no P5, only FBS is UNLV & Nevada
Hawaii, No NFL, no P5, only FBS is Hawaii
New Mexico, No NFL, No P5, currently 2 FBS, but if NMSU folds, only New Mexico.
*If Chargers leave, San Diego would have no NFL, no P5 and only San Diego St
That's why I don't see the AAC raiding the MWC for a team or two. They'd need to take a lot of them plus BYU. JMHO.
Cheers!

(01-05-2017 11:26 AM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote:  From my insider vantage point I agree that the four current CA schools "cover" most of the existing interest there is in the sport. But my intuition is that there is a lot of potential interest left dormant. The vast majority of UC students attend campuses other than Berkeley or LA, and yet they are precisely the type of students that would attend schools like Wisconsin, Illinois and Michigan if they lived in the midwest. The whole system (except for UC Merced at the moment) is made up of the type of public research schools that form the backbones of the other P5 conferences. As for identity, I think a person can think of themselves as an Angeleno and happily dream of their Anteaters upsetting the Trojans in the Coli or be a UC Davis Aggie on the peninsula and cherish the memory of humiliating Stanford. The identities of LA and the Bay Area's denizens need not be tied to just four teams. And, if I'm being honest, almost nobody chooses to cheer for Stanford based on geographic proximity anyway.

As it is, we're merely content to be the only real options for a state whose people have very few connections to any of the four current member schools. I can see your point about the value of monopolies, but while many Californians are indeed not choosing any other P5 conference's product, they are simply not choosing any collegiate product at all.

That may be true about the UC schools, however getting to the Pac-12 is decades away for anyone not already in FBS except perhaps UCSD because of how elite that school is and that it is in a vacant P12 market or at least one without an anchor team.

Honestly, Nevada and UNLV may have a better chance in the future than the UC-not-LA's (or Berkeley) and both have a minimal shot unless the Pac becomes a watered down shell of itself.

The only potential for drawing more California eyes is if SDSU and Fresno State were added or perhaps Sacramento State and that's less likely than the Nevada pair.

(01-05-2017 12:11 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(01-05-2017 11:26 AM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote:  From my insider vantage point I agree that the four current CA schools "cover" most of the existing interest there is in the sport. But my intuition is that there is a lot of potential interest left dormant. The vast majority of UC students attend campuses other than Berkeley or LA, and yet they are precisely the type of students that would attend schools like Wisconsin, Illinois and Michigan if they lived in the midwest. The whole system (except for UC Merced at the moment) is made up of the type of public research schools that form the backbones of the other P5 conferences. As for identity, I think a person can think of themselves as an Angeleno and happily dream of their Anteaters upsetting the Trojans in the Coli or be a UC Davis Aggie on the peninsula and cherish the memory of humiliating Stanford. The identities of LA and the Bay Area's denizens need not be tied to just four teams. And, if I'm being honest, almost nobody chooses to cheer for Stanford based on geographic proximity anyway.

As it is, we're merely content to be the only real options for a state whose people have very few connections to any of the four current member schools. I can see your point about the value of monopolies, but while many Californians are indeed not choosing any other P5 conference's product, they are simply not choosing any collegiate product at all.

That may be true about the UC schools, however getting to the Pac-12 is decades away for anyone not already in FBS except perhaps UCSD because of how elite that school is and that it is in a vacant P12 market or at least one without an anchor team.

Honestly, Nevada and UNLV may have a better chance in the future than the UC-not-LA's (or Berkeley) and both have a minimal shot unless the Pac becomes a watered down shell of itself.

The only potential for drawing more California eyes is if SDSU and Fresno State were added or perhaps Sacramento State and that's less likely than the Nevada pair.

I'm ok with a plan that's decades away, if that means getting the right schools. And the other UCs are much closer to being the right schools than any of the Cal States, Nevada or other MWC schools, in my opinion.

(01-05-2017 11:57 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  From some of the stats that I've seen, other Pac-12 schools (particularly Oregon, Oregon State, Arizona, Arizona State and Colorado) are getting inundated with California students because of how much competition there is to get into the UC system (especially Berkeley and UCLA). We see a similar situation in Illinois where the in-state demand to get into the University of Illinois flagship is so high that those that don't get accepted here (but still have pretty good grades and test scores) enroll in very large numbers at neighboring Big Ten schools like Indiana, Purdue and Iowa.

From the perspective of the Big Ten or Pac-12, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Chicago isn't a "Big Ten market" just based on Illinois and Northwestern fans, but rather that there's a huge cross section of Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Purdue, Iowa and other Big Ten alums that all live there. I could see how the Pac-12 would look at the LA and Bay Area markets in a similar fashion - it's not just about the California-based schools that drive *conference* interest, but rather the fact that you're adding in all of those Oregon, Arizona, Arizona State, et. al grads on top of them. In particular, the LA market is so large by itself that it's unrealistic to have a marketing plan for a conference that's based on direct alumni connections for only the in-state schools (unlike, say, the Birmingham market). For a market that large, you need a lot larger base of schools to pool from, which the out-of-state Pac-12 schools provide to a certain extent. It might not be as concentrated as SEC alums in Atlanta, Big 12 alums in Dallas or Big Ten alums in Chicago, but it's still pretty large (and the LA market is a lot bigger).

If what we want are good schools whose alumni call the LA metro area home then pretty much every UC fits the bill. UCI Anteaters pretty much all live here. As do UCR Highlanders and UCSB Gauchos. And I imagine a huge percentage of UCSD, UC Davis and UC Santa Cruz alumni do too. In numbers far greater than the expats that headed to out-of-state Pac-12 schools like UC Eugene.

San Diego and Sacramento, I feel like are at least somewhat separate population centers with some money. In that sense, it's almost too bad that SD St and to a smaller extent Sac St are established DI schools with FBS and FCS football respectively. If UC SD and UC Davis could've been DI with football from the start, who knows. Maybe they'd be in the PAC already.

If U Idaho had been in Boise, with no Boise St, and if U Nevada had been in Vegas, with no UNLV, those could've possibly been others under consideration, if their research was at a U Utah level.

(01-04-2017 04:53 PM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 01:50 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 07:16 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  You forgot Hartford. 1.5 mil (AAC)

You can't have it both ways. You guys always want to claim that Metro NYC is part of your market. Therefore The Giants and Jets...

(01-03-2017 11:50 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Thank you. I keep adding more and more. My point was to highlight that San Diego would be the biggest metro with no NFL team that has FBS football and show other big places like Orlando and SA etc. apparently, I pissed you off.
Cheers!

You know an area that is also underserved, that could probably allow an FBS school to thrive, is the Inland Empire (Riverside)? It is its won own metropolitan area, over 4 million people, and is the largest by far with no pro sports team of its own. But since UC Riverside shuttered its program about 40 years ago, I am guessing not...

As someone with friends and family that graduated from UC Riverside I would love for them to carry that IE banner in the FBS. Hell, I'd probably go to at least one game every season.

But the Inland Empire is still largely a gigantic pool of commuters into LA and Orange counties. It identifies as part of the LA metro and is infested with USC fans. UCLA is trying to get in on the IE action by locating its training camp in Cal State San Bernardino each summer. They'll need better results than this year for the effort to be worthwhile.

Given the well-documented tough spot the Pac-12 finds itself in regarding eastward expansion I'd almost rather see the conference make a long-term effort to bring in four more UC campuses and try to unlock and/or create fan intensity in CA that mirrors that of the midwest and southeast. We certainly have the population for it. But were we to go this route there are already four other UC campuses with more prestige than UCR; UC San Diego, UC Davis, UC Santa Barbara and UC Irvine are all ranked higher. But even UCR ranks higher still than four of the Pac's current members: Wazzu, Oregon State, and both Arizona schools. Perhaps therein lies the solution. We should trade in the * State schools for more UC campuses.

This highlights the Pacs problem. More focused on elite snobbery in undergraduate sports than TV ratings. The largest system in the country is the Cal State System and they have no P5 representative. The UC's you mention all fit in the top 100 exclusive schools. The PAC12 needs schools in CA a merely good student can attend. Fresno State and San Diego State are the two schools you should invite along with UNLV and BYU.

(01-05-2017 11:57 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  From some of the stats that I've seen, other Pac-12 schools (particularly Oregon, Oregon State, Arizona, Arizona State and Colorado) are getting inundated with California students because of how much competition there is to get into the UC system (especially Berkeley and UCLA). We see a similar situation in Illinois where the in-state demand to get into the University of Illinois flagship is so high that those that don't get accepted here (but still have pretty good grades and test scores) enroll in very large numbers at neighboring Big Ten schools like Indiana, Purdue and Iowa.

From the perspective of the Big Ten or Pac-12, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Chicago isn't a "Big Ten market" just based on Illinois and Northwestern fans, but rather that there's a huge cross section of Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Purdue, Iowa and other Big Ten alums that all live there. I could see how the Pac-12 would look at the LA and Bay Area markets in a similar fashion - it's not just about the California-based schools that drive *conference* interest, but rather the fact that you're adding in all of those Oregon, Arizona, Arizona State, et. al grads on top of them. In particular, the LA market is so large by itself that it's unrealistic to have a marketing plan for a conference that's based on direct alumni connections for only the in-state schools (unlike, say, the Birmingham market). For a market that large, you need a lot larger base of schools to pool from, which the out-of-state Pac-12 schools provide to a certain extent. It might not be as concentrated as SEC alums in Atlanta, Big 12 alums in Dallas or Big Ten alums in Chicago, but it's still pretty large (and the LA market is a lot bigger).

The other PAC schools are inundated with California kids because California's public education system is ridiculously tiny.

Let's put it this way: Ohio has 29% the population of California, but has 42% the number of students at 4-year public colleges. If California's system was scaled down to a state with 11.6 million people (like Ohio), it would be the same size and quality as Ohio's system if Ohio shut down Cincinnati, Miami, and Ohio U (the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th best schools in Ohio).

I think this small size (a problem that also afflict Illinois, New York, and most of New England) causes people to lack a commitment to higher education in general. They're not going to support the local college sports team because they don't support their local college - and that's because they know they probably won't be going to their local college.

(01-06-2017 12:13 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-05-2017 11:57 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  From some of the stats that I've seen, other Pac-12 schools (particularly Oregon, Oregon State, Arizona, Arizona State and Colorado) are getting inundated with California students because of how much competition there is to get into the UC system (especially Berkeley and UCLA). We see a similar situation in Illinois where the in-state demand to get into the University of Illinois flagship is so high that those that don't get accepted here (but still have pretty good grades and test scores) enroll in very large numbers at neighboring Big Ten schools like Indiana, Purdue and Iowa.

From the perspective of the Big Ten or Pac-12, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Chicago isn't a "Big Ten market" just based on Illinois and Northwestern fans, but rather that there's a huge cross section of Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Purdue, Iowa and other Big Ten alums that all live there. I could see how the Pac-12 would look at the LA and Bay Area markets in a similar fashion - it's not just about the California-based schools that drive *conference* interest, but rather the fact that you're adding in all of those Oregon, Arizona, Arizona State, et. al grads on top of them. In particular, the LA market is so large by itself that it's unrealistic to have a marketing plan for a conference that's based on direct alumni connections for only the in-state schools (unlike, say, the Birmingham market). For a market that large, you need a lot larger base of schools to pool from, which the out-of-state Pac-12 schools provide to a certain extent. It might not be as concentrated as SEC alums in Atlanta, Big 12 alums in Dallas or Big Ten alums in Chicago, but it's still pretty large (and the LA market is a lot bigger).

The other PAC schools are inundated with California kids because California's public education system is ridiculously tiny.

Let's put it this way: Ohio has 29% the population of California, but has 42% the number of students at 4-year public colleges. If California's system was scaled down to a state with 11.6 million people (like Ohio), it would be the same size and quality as Ohio's system if Ohio shut down Cincinnati, Miami, and Ohio U (the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th best schools in Ohio).

I think this small size (a problem that also afflict Illinois, New York, and most of New England) causes people to lack a commitment to higher education in general. They're not going to support the local college sports team because they don't support their local college - and that's because they know they probably won't be going to their local college.

They aren't just going to PAC12 schools. Many of them are going to other schools outside the PAC12. ~1/3 of TCUs freshman class comes from CA. More importantly it means their kids probably won't be going to their local college. Parents who in many cases went to the PAC12 schools have kids with 4.xx grade point averages who can't get in. Many of those go to Fresno, SDSU, SJSU, Long Beach or out of state.

Frank talks about Illinois. At 59% acceptance rate the Illini don't even make the list of top 350 while all 4 PAC12 schools are in the top 75 with UCLA ( the easiest of the 4) at 27% acceptance rate being more than 50% below the Illini. Nor does that account for 30% of Cal and UCLA students being from out of state/country. USC and Stanford have even lower acceptance rates and higher percentages of out of state/country students. Illinois isnt even close to a similar comparison and demonstrates how people out of state don't get it. Only Northwestern in the Big 10 is in the same neighborhood.

It makes the Pac12 irrelevant in much of the state. I live in Sac and you rarely see PAC12 articles in the paper or hear PAC12 on sportstalk radio. It's all Pro or High School.

You think California is bad, try Texas. There's only three schools worth anything by design. And one of them is Rice. Houston will get there BTW.

(01-03-2017 11:39 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Raleigh North Carolina is North of 1 million metro.

Great point. No one really considers NC State, UNC, and Duke FBS college football teams.

(01-05-2017 11:54 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Fresno State and San Diego State are the two schools you should invite along with UNLV and BYU.

PAC's response: Fresno, San Diego, Las Vegas, and SLC are already PAC markets, covered by schools in our academic & research peer group, which aren't any of those four.

(01-06-2017 12:13 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Let's put it this way: Ohio has 29% the population of California, but has 42% the number of students at 4-year public colleges.

Two points to make:

1) obviously population alone is a terrible metric, because there are so many different age groups. And especially in California, many people move there after college. So what I'm saying is, what's the point of including millions of people who have already finished undergrad??

It'd be better to use the number of high school seniors in OH and CA. Obviously CA will still have significantly more.


2) You're counting all students enrolled in OH public universities ... not just those that graduated from OH high schools. Worded another way: look at Louisiana's higher ed. They have a ridiculous number of public four-year universities, that obviously have much more capacity than the number of LA high school seniors. So they're pulling in a lot of kids from out of state.

(01-06-2017 01:21 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Parents who in many cases went to the PAC12 schools have kids with 4.xx grade point averages who can't get in. Many of those go to Fresno, SDSU, SJSU, Long Beach or out of state.

Frank talks about Illinois. At 59% acceptance rate the Illini don't even make the list of top 350 while all 4 PAC12 schools are in the top 75 with UCLA ( the easiest of the 4) at 27% acceptance rate being more than 50% below the Illini. Nor does that account for 30% of Cal and UCLA students being from out of state/country. USC and Stanford have even lower acceptance rates and higher percentages of out of state/country students. Illinois isnt even close to a similar comparison and demonstrates how people out of state don't get it. Only Northwestern in the Big 10 is in the same neighborhood.

- that's because Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, and USC are globally competitive research universities. So they're pulling in a lot o the top talent from China, India, Europe, Middle East, etc, in addition to top talent from all over the country. Even at the undergrad level!

- acceptance can be easily skewed by the number of applicants. If you only have 1000 slots, and suddenly an extra 10,000 people who had zero chance to get in apply ... that jacks up the "selectivity" metric. That's BS in my opinion.

(01-06-2017 01:21 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(01-06-2017 12:13 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-05-2017 11:57 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  From some of the stats that I've seen, other Pac-12 schools (particularly Oregon, Oregon State, Arizona, Arizona State and Colorado) are getting inundated with California students because of how much competition there is to get into the UC system (especially Berkeley and UCLA). We see a similar situation in Illinois where the in-state demand to get into the University of Illinois flagship is so high that those that don't get accepted here (but still have pretty good grades and test scores) enroll in very large numbers at neighboring Big Ten schools like Indiana, Purdue and Iowa.

From the perspective of the Big Ten or Pac-12, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Chicago isn't a "Big Ten market" just based on Illinois and Northwestern fans, but rather that there's a huge cross section of Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Purdue, Iowa and other Big Ten alums that all live there. I could see how the Pac-12 would look at the LA and Bay Area markets in a similar fashion - it's not just about the California-based schools that drive *conference* interest, but rather the fact that you're adding in all of those Oregon, Arizona, Arizona State, et. al grads on top of them. In particular, the LA market is so large by itself that it's unrealistic to have a marketing plan for a conference that's based on direct alumni connections for only the in-state schools (unlike, say, the Birmingham market). For a market that large, you need a lot larger base of schools to pool from, which the out-of-state Pac-12 schools provide to a certain extent. It might not be as concentrated as SEC alums in Atlanta, Big 12 alums in Dallas or Big Ten alums in Chicago, but it's still pretty large (and the LA market is a lot bigger).

The other PAC schools are inundated with California kids because California's public education system is ridiculously tiny.

Let's put it this way: Ohio has 29% the population of California, but has 42% the number of students at 4-year public colleges. If California's system was scaled down to a state with 11.6 million people (like Ohio), it would be the same size and quality as Ohio's system if Ohio shut down Cincinnati, Miami, and Ohio U (the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th best schools in Ohio).

I think this small size (a problem that also afflict Illinois, New York, and most of New England) causes people to lack a commitment to higher education in general. They're not going to support the local college sports team because they don't support their local college - and that's because they know they probably won't be going to their local college.

They aren't just going to PAC12 schools. Many of them are going to other schools outside the PAC12. ~1/3 of TCUs freshman class comes from CA. More importantly it means their kids probably won't be going to their local college. Parents who in many cases went to the PAC12 schools have kids with 4.xx grade point averages who can't get in. Many of those go to Fresno, SDSU, SJSU, Long Beach or out of state.

Frank talks about Illinois. At 59% acceptance rate the Illini don't even make the list of top 350 while all 4 PAC12 schools are in the top 75 with UCLA ( the easiest of the 4) at 27% acceptance rate being more than 50% below the Illini. Nor does that account for 30% of Cal and UCLA students being from out of state/country. USC and Stanford have even lower acceptance rates and higher percentages of out of state/country students. Illinois isnt even close to a similar comparison and demonstrates how people out of state don't get it. Only Northwestern in the Big 10 is in the same neighborhood.

It makes the Pac12 irrelevant in much of the state. I live in Sac and you rarely see PAC12 articles in the paper or hear PAC12 on sportstalk radio. It's all Pro or High School.

Illinois is a bad example. My brother was Salutatorian of his his high school of 2500 kids. 4.0. Had every possible academic achievement there is. Offered a full ride by a couple of state flagship schools. But not one PAC school even accepted him. Stubborn to get in, he went to Saddleback CC in (California) with the hopes of eventually getting in to one of the Cali schools. 4.0 GPA there. Still no. So he went to Iowa. Straight A's at Iowa. Most of his buddies were fellow out of staters (they were from Illinois) so Frank is right that a lot of good students in Illinois can't get into their state flagship and have to go somewhere else, But Frank the Tank: Not sure where you are getting your info from but comparing Illinois with the California schools is like saying Camaros and Jaguars are both expensive sports cars. Both are, one is just a lot more than the other.


Cheers!

If I had to guess, at places like UCLA and Berkeley, they reserve undergrad admissions slots like this:

25% have to come from California high school grads
25% have to come from the top 1% nationally
25% have to come from the top 1% in China & India
25% have to come from the top 1% in the rest of the world

At Stanford, it's probably just 1/3rd each for the latter three.


And they all receive 5X the applications as they have slots for new students.

(01-06-2017 02:22 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  If I had to guess, at places like UCLA and Berkeley, they reserve undergrad admissions slots like this:

25% have to come from California high school grads
25% have to come from the top 1% nationally
25% have to come from the top 1% in China & India
25% have to come from the top 1% in the rest of the world

And at Stanford, it's probably just 1/3rd each for the latter three.

Frank went to Illinois and is loyal to his school, but he's mission to make the big 10 some kind of Ivy League equal is ridiculous. Yes, the Big ten has great schools. I grew up at one of them (Iowa) But he makes statements like people brag about going to a big ten university...like that's a thing. It's not. I went to Harvard, Yale. Princeton and even Stanford---that's a thing. Not this generic idea that people brag up going to a big ten school when getting a job, or are at a fancy dinner party trying to show they have class.
Person #1: I went to Harvard
Person#2: I went to Minnesota.
Person#1: oh that's cool I knew some kids that went there too, or was it Michigan St? Some midwestern state school
Person #2: it's a big 10 school. Not just some state school like an SEC school. Great football & academics
Person #1: Oh, uh well I like football too! I'm a Patriots fan!
OR
Caddy Shack 2:
Girl: I went to Michigan.
Guy: Cool! Our maid went to Michigan!
Cheers!