(08-02-2017 01:25 AM)lance99 Wrote:  

(08-02-2017 12:55 AM)dunstvangeet Wrote:  

(07-12-2017 05:35 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  I doubt the Power 5 will take anyone. If Boise St wasn't upgraded to the PAC 12, upgrading anyone else is dreaming.

Boise State has several problems with being upgraded into the PAC-12.

1. Academics - All PAC-12 schools are National Universities (USA Today) in academics. Boise State is not. Under the Carnegie System, All PAC-12 schools are Tier 1 ("Very High Research") Research Universities. Boise State is a Tier 3 ("Moderate Research Activities") under the Carnegie classification system.

2. Market Size - Every other team either has, or shares, a top 35 national market (#2 Los Angeles, #6 San Francisco, #12 Phoenix, #14 Seattle, #17 Denver, #25 Portland, #34 Salt Lake City) as the primary market in their state. Boise State has Boise, which is #106.

3. Divisional. The PAC-12 would never really expand, because their football divisions already take them away southern California as much as possible. In order to expand, the PAC-12 would need to really go into the PAC-16, with a population and recruiting center to counteract the population center of California. Ultimately, the PAC-12, if it would expand, would want to goto 16 teams, with an east-west split, therefore reuniting the old PAC-8 as one division. Boise State does not bring anything towards that goal.

PAC-12 would never really consider Boise State.

Academics would be the only reason. IMHO you have automatic no votes form the following: USC, UCLA, Stanford and the Arizona Schools(assuming they went to a East-west alignment). The snobs in that Conference would feel that they are lowering themselves to add them....

It would never get to a vote. USC, UCLA, Stanford, California, and Washington wouldn't do the academics. Oregon, Oregon State, Washington State, and Washington wouldn't do the alignment (without an east-west split) (they are not going to give up more games in Southern California for a game in Boise). And Larry Scott wouldn't even propose it because of the Media Market.

Like I said, it wouldn't ever get a vote.

(08-03-2017 12:20 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-02-2017 11:22 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Tulane would need $500m just in facilities to catch up to Wake Forest. The horrid sight lines on TV for Tulane's new stadium when it opened showed a SEVERE lack of vision and leadership in the athletic department. You finally go back to playing in an on campus stadium .... and nobody bothered to ask about TV angles?

I like the idea of Tulane. I like the foothold it would give in SEC country. But that is a really heavy investment just to break even with Wake just in facilities. Tulane would essentially need a $1b capital campaign to endow scholarships and build facilities and pay for coaches. Most schools -- even academic heavy hitters -- take a decade or two of concerted effort to raise $1b for academic purposes. And because it's academic, that usually comes with all kinds of grant and matching help. It is difficult to see this as practical without a huge undertaking on Tulane's part. And they show incompetence in the athletic department right now ... not incredible drive and vision.

TV is just a ***** unless you got lucky with an older stadium or built with TV in mind.

Accommodating ESPN is a mess. They demanded to set up in a spot that would require relocating several season ticket holders and the AD was about to bless it until someone reminded him the governor would be one of the people relocated. He opted to relocate ESPN instead.

The challenge Tulane faced with the residents across the street from the stadium during its planning would have been enough to distract many from the overall logistics. "Nimby."

Granted, I don't think it's a wash for Tulane. It's an expandable stadium, and maybe there is where the media-friendly component rests. But, you have to get Tulane to actually commit to that expansion.

Still, their consideration for a spot in the Big East, even if the hair to break the camel's back; they're considered. Maybe not by non-fb schools...I get the impression the ACC would have them, if they ever demonstrated consistency or commitment to the major revenue sports, and not just spend money on facilities to "keep up with appearances."

(07-09-2017 05:11 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  the only schools that help SEC & B-10 are Va & NC
unless B-10 thinks Conn would help cultavate NYC along with Kansas

ACC would need a power FB program to keep FB schools from balking
you would play ND less & have to worry about FB schools jumping to B-12

Pac-12 ony hope for state of Tex is Hous, along with Haw
15 & 16: how about NM & u of British Columbia

B-12 has to double thier market size & turn LHN into quasi conf network
BYU, Conn, UCF, USF, Cin, Memphis, Temple, Buffalo for 18

IMO, neither UVa nor UNC really help the SEC that much unless you are looking at UNC basketball. And both of them are waaay too much in academic arrogance to consider joining the SEC, unfortunately. NC State is just as big into academic arrogance as UNC and UVa are, IMO. It's going to take NC State getting a chancellor like R. Bowen Loftin (former TAMU chancellor & current Mizzou chancellor) to see that it may be in NCSU's best interest to leave the ACC, IMO. That's also why I think Texas will never join the SEC: academic arrogance. That's why I look at ECU as being a little more realistic option.

As for the Big 12, they have to get a conference network. That is going to be imperative for them. I don't know why they foolishly went after a conference championship game when their real need was a conference network. But there's going to be very little interest in a Big 12 conference network sans the Longhorns, so, like it or hate it, the Big 12 is going to have to wheel & deal with Texas to put something together that would garner a tv partner's interest in getting a Big 12 network going, and I'm not quite sure what all that would entail. That's one thing Oklahoma's president has really been pushing for, and it's true that the Big 12 needs it, but he needs to sit down and talk with his peer at his rival institution (Texas) to see how to go about it, what concessions need to be made, etc. Once everything with the Longhorns is hashed out, then the Big 12 conference can go forward and really work on some long term stability. I don't think that coming to an agreement with Texas will be impossible, but I don't think it's going to be done anytime soon either because of the complexity of the issue.

(07-12-2017 09:07 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(07-12-2017 08:23 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(07-12-2017 08:10 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  The Ivy would consider a bowl game, perhaps with a Patriot League team. That's about it.

I know you said "consider" instead of "agree to," but I'd be amazed if the Ivy League agreed to a bowl game against anyone ever. The conference makes way too much money not playing in bowls to change their stance. Being able to use the "we don't care about football" line enhances the academic reputation of the conference, which is extremely valuable to the member schools, and it directly impacts donations and student recruitment.

I think they lost their mojo when many like minded schools dropped to lower levels. As it is, I am surprised that a couple of D3 conferences agreed to play in a new bowl at that level.

Well, they were actually forced down to FCS. They tried to get an exemption (stadium size for almost 1/2 the conference) but the NCAA denied them and sent them off to 1-AA in 1982.

(08-04-2017 08:53 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(07-09-2017 05:11 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  the only schools that help SEC & B-10 are Va & NC
unless B-10 thinks Conn would help cultavate NYC along with Kansas

ACC would need a power FB program to keep FB schools from balking
you would play ND less & have to worry about FB schools jumping to B-12

Pac-12 ony hope for state of Tex is Hous, along with Haw
15 & 16: how about NM & u of British Columbia

B-12 has to double thier market size & turn LHN into quasi conf network
BYU, Conn, UCF, USF, Cin, Memphis, Temple, Buffalo for 18

IMO, neither UVa nor UNC really help the SEC that much unless you are looking at UNC basketball. And both of them are waaay too much in academic arrogance to consider joining the SEC, unfortunately. NC State is just as big into academic arrogance as UNC and UVa are, IMO. It's going to take NC State getting a chancellor like R. Bowen Loftin (former TAMU chancellor & current Mizzou chancellor) to see that it may be in NCSU's best interest to leave the ACC, IMO. That's also why I think Texas will never join the SEC: academic arrogance. That's why I look at ECU as being a little more realistic option.

As for the Big 12, they have to get a conference network. That is going to be imperative for them. I don't know why they foolishly went after a conference championship game when their real need was a conference network. But there's going to be very little interest in a Big 12 conference network sans the Longhorns, so, like it or hate it, the Big 12 is going to have to wheel & deal with Texas to put something together that would garner a tv partner's interest in getting a Big 12 network going, and I'm not quite sure what all that would entail. That's one thing Oklahoma's president has really been pushing for, and it's true that the Big 12 needs it, but he needs to sit down and talk with his peer at his rival institution (Texas) to see how to go about it, what concessions need to be made, etc. Once everything with the Longhorns is hashed out, then the Big 12 conference can go forward and really work on some long term stability. I don't think that coming to an agreement with Texas will be impossible, but I don't think it's going to be done anytime soon either because of the complexity of the issue.

NC State does not have it's own Board of Governors. Its Board of Trustees works under the UNC System BOG, which is a creature of the NC General Assembly. In short, NC State has the least unilateral discretionary power of any school in the P-5. UNC-Ch would have to okay with NC State moving anywhere and the decision would not be made by any Chancellor even if the Chancellor was Jesus Christ.

The faculty would not accept a move to the SEC because of the perceived need to turn a blind eye to football shenanigans. The B10 is a better "academic" match, but culturally NC State is southern, and a move to the B10 does not help NC State football because long term competitions with PSU, Ohio State, and Michigan means competing against football stadiums with capacities of 110K. NC State could add capacity to 72K-75K and fill it up, but that's still not close to what would be needed. It would take an estimated additional $50 million a year to compete on top of what additional B10 money they would receive.

It's just not happening.

Any trading of schools between the SEC and ACC has to be financed by ESPN. You can make cases regarding certain trades between the two conferences that might include NC State, Wake Forest, and perhaps VT, in conjunction with the dissolution of the B12, but no one is going to volunteer for that. NC State and WF for Auburn and Vandy is just about the only thing that makes any sense, but what do WF and Vandy really gain? Other than getting out of the direct shadow of Alabama and NC politics what do NC State and Auburn gain?