P5 I think depending on where you're at SEC/B1G/PAC are equal.
ACC would be next then Big 12 than Big East for obvious reasons.
Then you have the A10-MVC-WCC if it is a West Coast religious school.
AAC-MWC-MAC -the next to are even SBC-CUSA.
Not really rating these they are different categories.

Conference USA has raided the SBC in the past except for Texas St I doubt that will happen again.
Horizon is made up of former Summit schools not sure how many Summit schools would be interested now.

When one conference pays a lot more or has far superior academics or is a lot closer its an easy call.
When a conference picks a school the priorities differ for each situation.

So on average which factors are most important and which ones overrated?

Market
Athletic success
Academics
Facilities
Distance from conference members
Travel partner match
Recruiting

I think recruiting grounds is overrated

C of C leaving the SoCon for CAA seems like added cost?
UMKC to the WAC was an odd move.
Also which schools could benefit from a lateral move.
Like Northern Colorado to Summit Sac St to Big West without football being a factor.
Maybe Oral Roberts to the WAC?

How can you do this without football being a factor, football is the main driver.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(06-21-2017 07:44 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  How can you do this without football being a factor, football is the main driver.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I am assuming the Big Sky splits its football or allows a school like Sac St or UNC to be football only.
The Summit could start football by adding Northern Colorado if they need a baseball team.
No one thought UND would get a MVFC invite.
Maybe Northern Colorado gets a MVFC invite then BSC would have ten/12.
I was thinking below multi-bid or G5 conferences.
Youngstown St being in the Horizon/MVFC is a good example of how FCS doesn't mind an odd fit here or there.

(06-21-2017 07:44 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  How can you do this without football being a factor, football is the main driver.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Agreed, it makes no sense to try and mix the two. For example if any A10, MVC or WCC school decides to go FBS, then the Big East isn't an option. For that matter, if any Big East school decides to go FBS, then viability is limited to AAC or Indy due to geography and related expenses. They really are different animals and can't be equitably compared in any sort of hierarchical structure.

TV market is overrated. Asked C-USA just grabbing schools from large cities, but not grabbing good teams that could draw eyeballs that hurt them.

Most important is relevance

Does a particular school make your conference more relevant, or more irrelevant.

When conferences add the nearby safe school, we all groan and turn away (UC Riverside to the Big West, LUC to the MVC. what does that do?). When they add the one who raises the excitement level, even when it breaks the mold we pay attention (BYU to the WCC, Wichita State to the American, Butler to the Big East, Notre Dame to the ACC, GCU to the Horizon). They make us rethink the conference and how we value it, and it's place in our viewing and rooting habits.

That doesn't mean go insane with it. When it fits and it makes a positive impact, you have done the right thing. When it is simply surprising but doesn't do much for you (Pitt and Syracuse to the ACC) it probably was not the best move to make.

The different priorities are played of each other.

IUPUI just got an invite to the Horizon League because of travel and academics with 30,000 students. They brought absolutely nothing to the table athletically.

As you move to the highest level conferences tradition becomes a factor. The AAC proved this by adding former SWC, SEC and Big East teams, all whom had played in a major bowl before.

That is why the AAC isn't chomping at the bit over UMass or Georgia State. Boise State had to earn its way into the MWC while UNLV was a founding member because it won a national championship in basketball.

And no one moved to the P5 unless they had deep athletic tradition, the exception being Rutgers the land grant school for New Jersey which is pretty important.

Kitt - Unfortunately you are right. Umass has potential (so does Ga State) but that is meaningless in today's "what will you do for me TODAY" world we now live in. You have to prove you can win, not just a lot of games but titles, and you have to overcome the war chests of all the schools who are already anointed..... it is a tough sell for sure.

It is not like there is a hidden gem school out there anymore with some magic formula of untapped recruiting base and TV exposure. All the good ones are taken so to speak.....

In the case of Umass they were late to the dance - which is the same thing as missing the dance. We are going to make an effort, but today it looks like little more that stoking a fire with $100 bills....

(06-22-2017 10:15 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  And no one moved to the P5 unless they had deep athletic tradition, the exception being Rutgers the land grant school for New Jersey which is pretty important.

Rutgers has been playing football since the 1860's, making for a pretty deep tradition. Winning and tradition are two different animals.

I am pretty sure Kitt was referring to the winning part. Rutgers does have an NC under their belt though:

The 1949 Men's Fencing National Championship [Very Impressive ]

Much to the disappointment of many (I am sure) Rutgers did also win a couple of National tournaments that the NCAA does not recognize as an NC:

Womens AIAW Basketball in 1982; and Cheerleading in 1998 and 2009

I think you are right, HAVING sports and WINNING at them are definitely 2 different things

(06-23-2017 10:17 AM)IceJus10 Wrote:  

(06-22-2017 10:15 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  And no one moved to the P5 unless they had deep athletic tradition, the exception being Rutgers the land grant school for New Jersey which is pretty important.

Rutgers has been playing football since the 1860's, making for a pretty deep tradition. Winning and tradition are two different animals.

Tradition that Im thinking is mostly reflected in Final Fours and CFP bowls.

Each of those add a major block of tradtion.

Also a factor is the average amount of wins for a program over the past 5 years. One nice year doesnt say a whole lot because it can be the result of one big star but 4 or 5 in a row starts to.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530AZ using CSNbbs mobile app

(06-21-2017 06:07 PM)MJG Wrote:  P5 I think depending on where you're at SEC/B1G/PAC are equal.

What we have here is a conference hierarchy in college sports.

The SEC and B1G are about equal. The PAC 12 isn't on their level financially or branding. The SEC and B1G are the two top brands and money makers…and it’s not even close. Heck, even the B12 is a bigger football brand than the PAC 12.

ACC would be next then Big 12 than Big East for obvious reasons.

The ACC is on the same level as the PAC 12. The ACC is literally two BCS conferences merged into one. It almost singlehandedly dismantled the old Big East back into a basketball conference. Like the ACC killed old Big East footabll, the PAC had a chance to kill the B12, but wouldn't accept (didn't even vote) OU, OSU, and Texas because the Long Horns wouldn't give up control of the LHN. THE ACCN will likely lift the ACC past the PAC 12 and its struggling network.

The B12 is dysfunctional and in serious trouble when its GOR expires. They took bribe money from the networks not to expand—which was peanuts compared to what they could have received with expansion. Can you imagine the networks trying to bribe the B1G not to take Rutgers, the SEC not to take MIZZOU, the ACC not to take Louisville, and the PAC not to take Utah? This clearly illustrates that certain schools in the B12 are definitely leaving when the GOR expires and how dysfunctional the conference really is.

The AAC is next... All you have to do is look to the conference that had the most potential B12 expansion candidates. Also keep in mind that UC, UConn, and USF were able to dismantle CUSA into the SBC without having a name and being unstable. The AAC also had Boise St and San Diego St from the MWC at one time, but they were reacquire by their commissioner.

Then you have the A10-MVC-WCC if it is a West Coast religious school.
AAC-MWC-MAC -the next to are even SBC-CUSA.
Not really rating these they are different categories.

Conference USA has raided the SBC in the past except for Texas St I doubt that will happen again.
Horizon is made up of former Summit schools not sure how many Summit schools would be interested now.

When one conference pays a lot more or has far superior academics or is a lot closer its an easy call.
When a conference picks a school the priorities differ for each situation.

So on average which factors are most important and which ones overrated?

Market
Athletic success
Academics
Facilities
Distance from conference members
Travel partner match
Recruiting

I think recruiting grounds is overrated

C of C leaving the SoCon for CAA seems like added cost?
UMKC to the WAC was an odd move.
Also which schools could benefit from a lateral move.
Like Northern Colorado to Summit Sac St to Big West without football being a factor.
Maybe Oral Roberts to the WAC?

(06-22-2017 12:08 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Most important is relevance

Does a particular school make your conference more relevant, or more irrelevant.

When conferences add the nearby safe school, we all groan and turn away (UC Riverside to the Big West, LUC to the MVC. what does that do?). When they add the one who raises the excitement level, even when it breaks the mold we pay attention (BYU to the WCC, Wichita State to the American, Butler to the Big East, Notre Dame to the ACC, GCU to the Horizon). They make us rethink the conference and how we value it, and it's place in our viewing and rooting habits.

That doesn't mean go insane with it. When it fits and it makes a positive impact, you have done the right thing. When it is simply surprising but doesn't do much for you (Pitt and Syracuse to the ACC) it probably was not the best move to make.

Wait, your theory is that Pitt and SU were bad adds? Bold move.

(06-23-2017 08:39 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  Kitt - Unfortunately you are right. Umass has potential (so does Ga State) but that is meaningless in today's "what will you do for me TODAY" world we now live in. You have to prove you can win, not just a lot of games but titles, and you have to overcome the war chests of all the schools who are already anointed..... it is a tough sell for sure.

It is not like there is a hidden gem school out there anymore with some magic formula of untapped recruiting base and TV exposure. All the good ones are taken so to speak.....

In the case of Umass they were late to the dance - which is the same thing as missing the dance. We are going to make an effort, but today it looks like little more that stoking a fire with $100 bills....

Yup, just win baby. We are only scheduling 3 P5 teams on average now and there seems to be no such thing as moral victories. Winning 2 out of the first 3 games will be huge in waking up the casual fan. Winning is everything now.

(06-23-2017 10:22 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(06-23-2017 08:39 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  Kitt - Unfortunately you are right. Umass has potential (so does Ga State) but that is meaningless in today's "what will you do for me TODAY" world we now live in. You have to prove you can win, not just a lot of games but titles, and you have to overcome the war chests of all the schools who are already anointed..... it is a tough sell for sure.

It is not like there is a hidden gem school out there anymore with some magic formula of untapped recruiting base and TV exposure. All the good ones are taken so to speak.....

In the case of Umass they were late to the dance - which is the same thing as missing the dance. We are going to make an effort, but today it looks like little more that stoking a fire with $100 bills....

Yup, just win baby. We are only scheduling 3 P5 teams on average now and there seems to be no such thing as moral victories. Winning 2 out of the first 3 games will be huge in waking up the casual fan. Winning is everything now.

UMass. came close on beating some P5 schools the last couple of years, and totally suck against G5 schools.

(06-24-2017 04:27 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(06-23-2017 10:22 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  

(06-23-2017 08:39 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  Kitt - Unfortunately you are right. Umass has potential (so does Ga State) but that is meaningless in today's "what will you do for me TODAY" world we now live in. You have to prove you can win, not just a lot of games but titles, and you have to overcome the war chests of all the schools who are already anointed..... it is a tough sell for sure.

It is not like there is a hidden gem school out there anymore with some magic formula of untapped recruiting base and TV exposure. All the good ones are taken so to speak.....

In the case of Umass they were late to the dance - which is the same thing as missing the dance. We are going to make an effort, but today it looks like little more that stoking a fire with $100 bills....

Yup, just win baby. We are only scheduling 3 P5 teams on average now and there seems to be no such thing as moral victories. Winning 2 out of the first 3 games will be huge in waking up the casual fan. Winning is everything now.

UMass. came close on beating some P5 schools the last couple of years, and totally suck against G5 schools.

Yes, when you play quality P5 teams like we did, they beat the sh-t out of the players. The rest of the season, we are play with the walking wounded. No moral victories, schedule smarter and learning how to win is a must.

Last year after Florida and Mississippi State, the home game against Tulane and away game against ODU were especially painful. Like you said, we were crap against the remainder of the season playing G5 teams. The last game against Hawaii was a shoot out, losing in the middle of the Pacific 40-46. We've parted ways with the defensive coordinator, but not sure how much can be expected learning a new system.