(02-21-2018 11:50 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 09:22 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

This looks like one of those graphics that gets circulated on the internet and looks superficially appealing (people are more enthusiastic about CFB in Birmingham than NYC, duh) but doesn't hold up under close inspection.

According to this graphic, almost no one in Lincoln, Nebraska (or Omaha) is a college football fan, and people in the south and in Texas outside the large metro areas don't care about college football either.

Believe it if you really want to. I'll pass.

This map is only the top 75 DMAs. Anything in light gray is outside one of those DMAs. It would be better if the legend included that info. The data is straight from Nielsen showing the percentage of people within each of those top 75 DMAs that watch college football games. It’s a few years old but it’s the least biased representation out there for college football viewing habits.

(02-21-2018 11:32 AM)YNot Wrote:  The low percentages in California still lead to a massive number. There are millions of college football fans in California.

17-28% of 35 million (California) is similar to 28-39% of 22 million (Texas).

6-9.8 million (California) versus 6-8.5 million (Texas).

This doesn't mean that the PAC 12 should expand with UCSD or UC-Davis. I absolutely agree that Texas and Oklahoma would be the ideal additions for the PAC. But, I don't know that the PAC is the ideal conference for Texas or Oklahoma.

Absolute numbers and relative numbers are both important. If the content were being distributed by a provider like amazon or google or YouTube which is (currently) the same product no matter where you are in the country, then total numbers are what matters.

But in the DMA-based cable and satellite model (and potentially in future regionally weighted streaming models) then the percent of users matter. In those DMA-based models where everyone pays for carriage regardless of use, the provider needs a high percentage of interested users within the DMA because raising the price of the bundled product will cause a certain percentage of users to drop the service.

The PAC Networks failure to get on DTV was due to the low percentage of dedicated users within the largest DMAs in California. The PAC managed to get in footprint cable rates in Nevada, Idaho, New Mexico, and Hawaii so I think that says how the appeal of CFB in California is lower than the appeal for those same schools in more enthusiastic regional markets.

(02-21-2018 12:43 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(02-21-2018 11:50 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 09:22 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

This looks like one of those graphics that gets circulated on the internet and looks superficially appealing (people are more enthusiastic about CFB in Birmingham than NYC, duh) but doesn't hold up under close inspection.

According to this graphic, almost no one in Lincoln, Nebraska (or Omaha) is a college football fan, and people in the south and in Texas outside the large metro areas don't care about college football either.

Believe it if you really want to. I'll pass.

Would definitely like to see a source on this before lending it even an iota of credibility.

That being said, the light-gray areas don't show up on the legend, so in all likelihood it means that there's not enough data to include on the map. It doesn't help that rose pink and dark gray are on the legend with the implication that light gray would be in the middle. Actually, that whole legend is a mess. From medium red to dark red to light red to rose to dark gray? First rule of infographics: Never make the reader do more work than is necessary.

The legend is an atrocity. 1) Intuitively the burgundy should have more viewers than the pink. 2) it doesn’t label the light gray as >75 DMA areas.

It’s from Nielson’s “Year in Sports Media” 2015 Annual Report. I have the whole report saved somewhere, but you have register to get it.

Footballscoop broke down the interesting parts though:
http://footballscoop.com/news/charts-wha...-ever/amp/

(02-21-2018 02:54 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(02-21-2018 12:43 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(02-21-2018 11:50 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 09:22 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

This looks like one of those graphics that gets circulated on the internet and looks superficially appealing (people are more enthusiastic about CFB in Birmingham than NYC, duh) but doesn't hold up under close inspection.

According to this graphic, almost no one in Lincoln, Nebraska (or Omaha) is a college football fan, and people in the south and in Texas outside the large metro areas don't care about college football either.

Believe it if you really want to. I'll pass.

Would definitely like to see a source on this before lending it even an iota of credibility.

That being said, the light-gray areas don't show up on the legend, so in all likelihood it means that there's not enough data to include on the map. It doesn't help that rose pink and dark gray are on the legend with the implication that light gray would be in the middle. Actually, that whole legend is a mess. From medium red to dark red to light red to rose to dark gray? First rule of infographics: Never make the reader do more work than is necessary.

The legend is an atrocity. 1) Intuitively the burgundy should have more viewers than the pink. 2) it doesn’t label the light gray as >75 DMA areas.

It’s from Nielson’s “Year in Sports Media” 2015 Annual Report. I have the whole report saved somewhere, but you have register to get it.

Footballscoop broke down the interesting parts though:
http://footballscoop.com/news/charts-wha...-ever/amp/

Yeah, ideally you stick with one color and have it taper from dark shades (most/highest) to light (least/lowest). Gray should have ONLY been for the areas outside the top 75 DMA, because the reader's eye will see dark gray meaning areas with 17.5 to 28.2 percent college football fans and assume that since light gray is an adjacent color, it represents an adjacent number range when in fact it's something completely different.

Also, if such a large portion of the country isn't included, maybe a national map isn't the best way of visualizing the data.

The source is legit; fair play there. I do wonder exactly what their metric for "college football fans" is, since the site linked doesn't go into further detail than what the map provides. Is it anyone who watched a college football game last year? Watched every week? Self-identify as such in a survey?

(02-21-2018 03:35 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  The source is legit; fair play there. I do wonder exactly what their metric for "college football fans" is, since the site linked doesn't go into further detail than what the map provides. Is it anyone who watched a college football game last year? Watched every week?

I’m pretty sure they measured the percent of households that watched a CFB game each week and then averaged the % from each week over the season. So roughly the percent of households within each top 75 market that watch a CFB game any given week of the season.

(02-21-2018 03:35 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(02-21-2018 02:54 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(02-21-2018 12:43 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(02-21-2018 11:50 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 09:22 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

This looks like one of those graphics that gets circulated on the internet and looks superficially appealing (people are more enthusiastic about CFB in Birmingham than NYC, duh) but doesn't hold up under close inspection.

According to this graphic, almost no one in Lincoln, Nebraska (or Omaha) is a college football fan, and people in the south and in Texas outside the large metro areas don't care about college football either.

Believe it if you really want to. I'll pass.

Would definitely like to see a source on this before lending it even an iota of credibility.

That being said, the light-gray areas don't show up on the legend, so in all likelihood it means that there's not enough data to include on the map. It doesn't help that rose pink and dark gray are on the legend with the implication that light gray would be in the middle. Actually, that whole legend is a mess. From medium red to dark red to light red to rose to dark gray? First rule of infographics: Never make the reader do more work than is necessary.

The legend is an atrocity. 1) Intuitively the burgundy should have more viewers than the pink. 2) it doesn’t label the light gray as >75 DMA areas.

It’s from Nielson’s “Year in Sports Media” 2015 Annual Report. I have the whole report saved somewhere, but you have register to get it.

Footballscoop broke down the interesting parts though:
http://footballscoop.com/news/charts-wha...-ever/amp/

Yeah, ideally you stick with one color and have it taper from dark shades (most/highest) to light (least/lowest). Gray should have ONLY been for the areas outside the top 75 DMA, because the reader's eye will see dark gray meaning areas with 17.5 to 28.2 percent college football fans and assume that since light gray is an adjacent color, it represents an adjacent number range when in fact it's something completely different.

Also, if such a large portion of the country isn't included, maybe a national map isn't the best way of visualizing the data.

The source is legit; fair play there. I do wonder exactly what their metric for "college football fans" is, since the site linked doesn't go into further detail than what the map provides. Is it anyone who watched a college football game last year? Watched every week? Self-identify as such in a survey?

Although, the top 75 DMAs make up over 80% of the TV households in the United States.

The map shows nice regional trends (would show them better with a better color scheme).

To show the bottom 20% DMAs might actually skew the map visual to make one think that college football is more popular in certain regions than it really is. For instance, if the counties around Rochester and Syracuse, NY, Springfield-Holyoke, and Portland, ME are higher than NYC, Boston, and Philly, it might make the Northeast look higher.

(02-21-2018 08:19 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(02-21-2018 03:23 AM)joeben69 Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 05:05 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 03:16 PM)joeben69 Wrote:  

(02-20-2018 01:48 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  If UCSD had Football, then the P12 could look at UC Davis and UC San Diego as potential additions that keep the geographic balance. But they don't, so it wont happen.

It's great to see UCSD expand. I'd like to see Davis do likewise. That would ease some of the pressure on the UC system. It would be even better if Engineering slots were doubled, given the tens of thousands we import from out of State and Internationally for business here. We should develop that talent internally.

As for the Big West. It's a California conference, for California public schools. Whatever it was in the past it is no more. And it is very popular with the students and faculty, so that is not changing. I think the Big West would have preferred Sac State to CSUB, but Sac State was not ready to move.

the uc/csu balancing act in the bwc reminds me of the analogy of CSUs not being able to get into the pac-12 because the UCs will not allow it...

sdsu is nationally ranked university with a "Doctoral University" with "Higher Research Activity" (R2) status...sdsu also has pretty good athletics...what if sdsu gains membership in the Association of American Universities (AAU)...would that be a knock on the door of the pac-12???...or more like a kick???...just asking...

SDSU won’t—cannot—get into the AAU. The AAU would never invite a non-Research University in its ranks. There are several R1 research universities like Utah, New Mexico, Hawaii and Colorado St that aren’t even in the AAU and they are light years ahead of San Diego st in research.
San Diego st is also not a historically athletic school. It took the best MWC schools to leave the conference for SDSU to start making Bowl games again after making a couple in the 80’s and 90’s. No football stadium. Similarly, SDSU was awful in basketball until about 15 years ago. The worst team in the WAC for 20 years.
So, no, SDSU looks unlikely to get into the PAC...ever.

it may be several years down the road for sdsu to achieve a "Doctoral University" with "Highest Research Activity" (R1) status...but that's where they're headed...

Utah is a R1 research university that's not in the AAU but IS in the Pac-12...so AAU membership is not necessarily are a requirement for entry into the Pac-12...so it's a plus but not a must...

it wasn't until Utah had success in the mwc during the early 2000s that it was considered for the pac-12...also they where not invited to the pac-12 until the pac-12 did not get tx & ok in the pac-16 project...

sdsu football has made 8 consecutive bowl since 2010...
sdsu basketball has made 6 ncaa tournament appearances since 2010...
sdsu baseball has made 4 ncaa tournament appearances since 2010...

sdsu is also working on the sdsu west initiative which has been put on the ballot for November 2018...this includes 35,000-seat sports stadium to start...which is larger than WA state's stadium at 32,740...WA state is in the pac-12...

in the current state of the pac-12...sdsu won't get in due to the fact it's a csu...the question was meant to be a hypothetical situation where the UCs wouldn't block a CSU from getting invited to the pac-12...plus where sdsu checked most if not all the boxes required for membership...it seems that's where sdsu is heading as a whole...

So you are saying SDSU will be R1 in research in 20 years?--I don't see that happening.
There will be a 35,000 seat OCS on a brand new Western campus--I don't see that happening. (Who's going to pay for that?)
You said if those 2 things happen SDSU can be a PAC member with Research Activity like one of the PAC's non AAU schools, Utah.
That if those 2 things happen, SDSU wil have a bigger stadium than PAC member Washington St.
Finding the worst 2 examples in the PAC in select categories as something that SDSU CAN MAYBE pass in 20 years is a horrible way to present your school as a conference candidate.

whether SDSU will be R1 in research university happens in 20 minutes or 20 years...the question is what if SDSU meets the requirements for an R1 University as a selling point for the pac-12...more likely the latter...you are the one saying 20 years...it'll probably be at least that time...it was you that first brought up utah as an example of an R1 university...granted utah is light years ahead of sdsu in research activity and closer to aau membership but the came from the mwc & wac just like SDSU...so utah shows that path is possible...

the SDSU West campus with a 35K stadium is a starter...with a possibility to expand to 40K...thank goodness it's not up to you...i'll leave it in the hands of san diego voters...if renovating sdccu stadium at 70K was a viable option then SDSU would've considered it...that would've put SDSU more in-line with WA stadium wise...WSU is the back of the pack stadium size wise in the pac-12 but they're still in the pac-12...SDSU can't compare to the top echelon of the pac-12...they're in a different class in the pac-12...again hypothetical point being SDSU becoming more compatible to pac-12 institutions to make SDSU more enticing for pac-12 acceptance...

"SDSU Interim President Sally Roush and JMI Realty CEO John Kratzer said the project would be mostly funded by public-private partnerships, and wouldn't rely on taxpayer financing. The main exception would be the stadium, which would be funded by bonds that are paid back by future revenues."
http://www.cbs8.com/story/36951317/sdsu-...adium-site

UCSD coaches map out future in transition to Big West, Division I
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/spor...t12aH-1gp2

UC San Diego Athletics Wraps Up Historic Year
https://timesofsandiego.com/sports/2018/...oric-year/

(11-26-2017 04:12 PM)Jet915 Wrote:  As a UCSD alum, this is great news. UCSD is one of the top academic schools in the nation but has very little school spirit or identity. Going to D1 will help with this aspect.

I can see it now. 2026, UCSD signs a 2-for-1 with Creighton.

(06-09-2018 01:52 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(11-26-2017 04:12 PM)Jet915 Wrote:  As a UCSD alum, this is great news. UCSD is one of the top academic schools in the nation but has very little school spirit or identity. Going to D1 will help with this aspect.

I can see it now. 2026, UCSD signs a 2-for-1 with Creighton.

A 2-for-1 with Creighton would be a good get for any of the Big West schools.

Joining the California State School Conference likely will be good for UCSD's alumni engagement and marketing, though. They were very smart to specify that the AD had permission to talk only with the Big West, that's the only conference that truly made sense.

(06-10-2018 12:52 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(06-09-2018 01:52 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(11-26-2017 04:12 PM)Jet915 Wrote:  As a UCSD alum, this is great news. UCSD is one of the top academic schools in the nation but has very little school spirit or identity. Going to D1 will help with this aspect.

I can see it now. 2026, UCSD signs a 2-for-1 with Creighton.

A 2-for-1 with Creighton would be a good get for any of the Big West schools.

Joining the California State School Conference likely will be good for UCSD's alumni engagement and marketing, though. They were very smart to specify that the AD had permission to talk only with the Big West, that's the only conference that truly made sense.

I know that you're referring to the Big West that way to differentiate them from the WAC or any other D1 conference that has more than one non-California member. But it's a little funny because UCSD is leaving the CCAA, a conference made up of UCSD plus 12 members of the California State University system. So if anyone is the California State School Conference, it's their current D2 home.

(06-10-2018 02:19 PM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote:  

(06-10-2018 12:52 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(06-09-2018 01:52 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(11-26-2017 04:12 PM)Jet915 Wrote:  As a UCSD alum, this is great news. UCSD is one of the top academic schools in the nation but has very little school spirit or identity. Going to D1 will help with this aspect.

I can see it now. 2026, UCSD signs a 2-for-1 with Creighton.

A 2-for-1 with Creighton would be a good get for any of the Big West schools.

Joining the California State School Conference likely will be good for UCSD's alumni engagement and marketing, though. They were very smart to specify that the AD had permission to talk only with the Big West, that's the only conference that truly made sense.

I know that you're referring to the Big West that way to differentiate them from the WAC or any other D1 conference that has more than one non-California member. But it's a little funny because UCSD is leaving the CCAA, a conference made up of UCSD plus 12 members of the California State University system. So if anyone is the California State School Conference, it's their current D2 home.

Well, in this particular instance I'm lumping both the UC and Cal State systems under the umbrella of "California State School", not referring specifically to the Cal State system, as they have total control over the Big West and it's run for the collective benefit of California Publics (granted, with two sometimes-competing factions). It's not a bad thing, as it guarantees a stable home for all the schools with minimized travel costs and accessible away games for alums (many of whom likely live closer to a conference opponent than their alma mater) and they get a decent number of the really late ESPN slots that are only kinda-late on the west coast.

Hawaii's flagship is there as well, which is fine because it's a good name for the conference to include/the schools to associate with and it's not super-hard to get flights to Hawaii from the major California airports. It's really the on in-conference school you have to fly to, although granted UCSD-UC Davis is going to be a real hike that'll probably be flown to the majority of the time. Probably doesn't actively hurt recruiting that the kids get an occasional expenses-paid trip to Hawaii, either.

My big thing is that if you're not a conference that's getting millions upon millions of dollars per school in media rights and other payouts, I really like conferences that make sense. I think America East is a great conference for its members for most of the same reasons I think the Big West makes tons of sense.

(06-10-2018 02:54 PM)Bogg Wrote:  Hawaii's flagship is there as well, which is fine because it's a good name for the conference to include/the schools to associate with and it's not super-hard to get flights to Hawaii from the major California airports. It's really the on in-conference school you have to fly to, although granted UCSD-UC Davis is going to be a real hike that'll probably be flown to the majority of the time. Probably doesn't actively hurt recruiting that the kids get an occasional expenses-paid trip to Hawaii, either.

Obviously the geographic factor works both ways. The Big West is the only conference that makes sense for Hawaii from a travel perspective.

Also the conference fits Hawaii perfectly with respect to niche sports. Hawaii has top-5 programs nationally in men's volleyball, beach volleyball and women's water polo. The Big West sponsors and offers elite competition in these sports whereas the MWC doesn't sponsor them.

In baseball, although Hawaii isn't a powerhouse the sport is popular and well supported (third-highest home attendance in the western U.S. after Arizona and Oregon State), and the Big West is a quality baseball conference.

Split conference membership isn't ideal for almost any school, but in Hawaii's case I think we landed in the best possible situation. The only regret is not playing men's basketball in the MWC. Back in the 1990s we had home games every season against BYU, San Diego State, Fresno State, New Mexico and (for three years) UNLV. That was great competition and enormously fun for fans to watch.

(06-10-2018 02:19 PM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote:  

(06-10-2018 12:52 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(06-09-2018 01:52 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(11-26-2017 04:12 PM)Jet915 Wrote:  As a UCSD alum, this is great news. UCSD is one of the top academic schools in the nation but has very little school spirit or identity. Going to D1 will help with this aspect.

I can see it now. 2026, UCSD signs a 2-for-1 with Creighton.

A 2-for-1 with Creighton would be a good get for any of the Big West schools.

Joining the California State School Conference likely will be good for UCSD's alumni engagement and marketing, though. They were very smart to specify that the AD had permission to talk only with the Big West, that's the only conference that truly made sense.

I know that you're referring to the Big West that way to differentiate them from the WAC or any other D1 conference that has more than one non-California member. But it's a little funny because UCSD is leaving the CCAA, a conference made up of UCSD plus 12 members of the California State University system. So if anyone is the California State School Conference, it's their current D2 home.

ucsd's rebranding from ucsd to uc san diego in October 2016 was related to it's move to d1 from d2 and to market more nationally...also they outgrew the ccaa and became more inline with universities in the bwc...ucsd wanted to be with more like institutions i.e. other uc schools...in the ccaa ucsd was the only uc school among csu schools and even had another san diego school csu san marcos in the same conference...

“UC San Diego” not “UCSD”
Using UC San Diego in place of the UCSD acronym better identifies our campus both locally and nationally. There’s confusion among San Diego higher education institutions because of similar acronyms—UCSD, USD, and SDSU—which we eliminate by using UC San Diego. Additionally, this naming convention is consistent with other campuses in the University of California system, such as UC Irvine, UC Riverside, UC Santa Barbara, UC Davis, and so on.
https://ucpa.ucsd.edu/brand/story/use-of...sity-name/

"A school is known to the world by its name, and the university knows how important that is."
http://triton.news/2017/11/4225/

Brand New
UC San Diego breaks boundaries in new branding campaign
https://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/feature/brand_new

Move to Division I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_San_Die...Division_I

(06-10-2018 04:45 PM)joeben69 Wrote:  

(06-10-2018 02:19 PM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote:  

(06-10-2018 12:52 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(06-09-2018 01:52 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(11-26-2017 04:12 PM)Jet915 Wrote:  As a UCSD alum, this is great news. UCSD is one of the top academic schools in the nation but has very little school spirit or identity. Going to D1 will help with this aspect.

I can see it now. 2026, UCSD signs a 2-for-1 with Creighton.

A 2-for-1 with Creighton would be a good get for any of the Big West schools.

Joining the California State School Conference likely will be good for UCSD's alumni engagement and marketing, though. They were very smart to specify that the AD had permission to talk only with the Big West, that's the only conference that truly made sense.

I know that you're referring to the Big West that way to differentiate them from the WAC or any other D1 conference that has more than one non-California member. But it's a little funny because UCSD is leaving the CCAA, a conference made up of UCSD plus 12 members of the California State University system. So if anyone is the California State School Conference, it's their current D2 home.

ucsd's rebranding from ucsd to uc san diego in October 2016 was related to it's move to d1 from d2 and to market more nationally...also they outgrew the ccaa and became more inline with universities in the bwc...ucsd wanted to be with more like institutions i.e. other uc schools...in the ccaa ucsd was the only uc school among csu schools and even had another san diego school csu san marcos in the same conference...

“UC San Diego” not “UCSD”
Using UC San Diego in place of the UCSD acronym better identifies our campus both locally and nationally. There’s confusion among San Diego higher education institutions because of similar acronyms—UCSD, USD, and SDSU—which we eliminate by using UC San Diego. Additionally, this naming convention is consistent with other campuses in the University of California system, such as UC Irvine, UC Riverside, UC Santa Barbara, UC Davis, and so on.
https://ucpa.ucsd.edu/brand/story/use-of...sity-name/

"A school is known to the world by its name, and the university knows how important that is."
http://triton.news/2017/11/4225/

Brand New
UC San Diego breaks boundaries in new branding campaign
https://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/feature/brand_new

Move to Division I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_San_Die...Division_I

I didn't think this change in emphasis was necessary. Growing up all my peers already thought of UC San Diego as the next-best UC after Berkeley and LA, and more than deserving of a place among UCI, UCR, UCSB, and UC Davis. But if the UCSD people think the longer name will be useful to them, then by all means I'll try my best to use it.

(06-10-2018 05:01 PM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote:  

(06-10-2018 04:45 PM)joeben69 Wrote:  

(06-10-2018 02:19 PM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote:  

(06-10-2018 12:52 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(06-09-2018 01:52 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  I can see it now. 2026, UCSD signs a 2-for-1 with Creighton.

A 2-for-1 with Creighton would be a good get for any of the Big West schools.

Joining the California State School Conference likely will be good for UCSD's alumni engagement and marketing, though. They were very smart to specify that the AD had permission to talk only with the Big West, that's the only conference that truly made sense.

I know that you're referring to the Big West that way to differentiate them from the WAC or any other D1 conference that has more than one non-California member. But it's a little funny because UCSD is leaving the CCAA, a conference made up of UCSD plus 12 members of the California State University system. So if anyone is the California State School Conference, it's their current D2 home.

ucsd's rebranding from ucsd to uc san diego in October 2016 was related to it's move to d1 from d2 and to market more nationally...also they outgrew the ccaa and became more inline with universities in the bwc...ucsd wanted to be with more like institutions i.e. other uc schools...in the ccaa ucsd was the only uc school among csu schools and even had another san diego school csu san marcos in the same conference...

“UC San Diego” not “UCSD”
Using UC San Diego in place of the UCSD acronym better identifies our campus both locally and nationally. There’s confusion among San Diego higher education institutions because of similar acronyms—UCSD, USD, and SDSU—which we eliminate by using UC San Diego. Additionally, this naming convention is consistent with other campuses in the University of California system, such as UC Irvine, UC Riverside, UC Santa Barbara, UC Davis, and so on.
https://ucpa.ucsd.edu/brand/story/use-of...sity-name/

"A school is known to the world by its name, and the university knows how important that is."
http://triton.news/2017/11/4225/

Brand New
UC San Diego breaks boundaries in new branding campaign
https://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/feature/brand_new

Move to Division I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_San_Die...Division_I

I didn't think this change in emphasis was necessary. Growing up all my peers already thought of UC San Diego as the next-best UC after Berkeley and LA, and more than deserving of a place among UCI, UCR, UCSB, and UC Davis. But if the UCSD people think the longer name will be useful to them, then by all means I'll try my best to use it.

At least among academics, their name was fine. They would get mentioned with Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Texas, UNC, UVA, etc.

(06-10-2018 05:01 PM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote:  

(06-10-2018 04:45 PM)joeben69 Wrote:  

(06-10-2018 02:19 PM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote:  

(06-10-2018 12:52 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(06-09-2018 01:52 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  I can see it now. 2026, UCSD signs a 2-for-1 with Creighton.

A 2-for-1 with Creighton would be a good get for any of the Big West schools.

Joining the California State School Conference likely will be good for UCSD's alumni engagement and marketing, though. They were very smart to specify that the AD had permission to talk only with the Big West, that's the only conference that truly made sense.

I know that you're referring to the Big West that way to differentiate them from the WAC or any other D1 conference that has more than one non-California member. But it's a little funny because UCSD is leaving the CCAA, a conference made up of UCSD plus 12 members of the California State University system. So if anyone is the California State School Conference, it's their current D2 home.

ucsd's rebranding from ucsd to uc san diego in October 2016 was related to it's move to d1 from d2 and to market more nationally...also they outgrew the ccaa and became more inline with universities in the bwc...ucsd wanted to be with more like institutions i.e. other uc schools...in the ccaa ucsd was the only uc school among csu schools and even had another san diego school csu san marcos in the same conference...

“UC San Diego” not “UCSD”
Using UC San Diego in place of the UCSD acronym better identifies our campus both locally and nationally. There’s confusion among San Diego higher education institutions because of similar acronyms—UCSD, USD, and SDSU—which we eliminate by using UC San Diego. Additionally, this naming convention is consistent with other campuses in the University of California system, such as UC Irvine, UC Riverside, UC Santa Barbara, UC Davis, and so on.
https://ucpa.ucsd.edu/brand/story/use-of...sity-name/

"A school is known to the world by its name, and the university knows how important that is."
http://triton.news/2017/11/4225/

Brand New
UC San Diego breaks boundaries in new branding campaign
https://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/feature/brand_new

Move to Division I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_San_Die...Division_I

I didn't think this change in emphasis was necessary. Growing up all my peers already thought of UC San Diego as the next-best UC after Berkeley and LA, and more than deserving of a place among UCI, UCR, UCSB, and UC Davis. But if the UCSD people think the longer name will be useful to them, then by all means I'll try my best to use it.

I mean, UCSD is just shorthand for UC San Diego, which is again shorthand for University of California, San Diego. They all mean the same thing, it's just about how it's spelled out on signs and letterhead. It's like talking about UConn/Connecticut/University of Connecticut - they all mean the same thing, it's not really a rebranding.

(06-10-2018 05:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-10-2018 05:01 PM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote:  

(06-10-2018 04:45 PM)joeben69 Wrote:  

(06-10-2018 02:19 PM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote:  

(06-10-2018 12:52 PM)Bogg Wrote:  A 2-for-1 with Creighton would be a good get for any of the Big West schools.

Joining the California State School Conference likely will be good for UCSD's alumni engagement and marketing, though. They were very smart to specify that the AD had permission to talk only with the Big West, that's the only conference that truly made sense.

I know that you're referring to the Big West that way to differentiate them from the WAC or any other D1 conference that has more than one non-California member. But it's a little funny because UCSD is leaving the CCAA, a conference made up of UCSD plus 12 members of the California State University system. So if anyone is the California State School Conference, it's their current D2 home.

ucsd's rebranding from ucsd to uc san diego in October 2016 was related to it's move to d1 from d2 and to market more nationally...also they outgrew the ccaa and became more inline with universities in the bwc...ucsd wanted to be with more like institutions i.e. other uc schools...in the ccaa ucsd was the only uc school among csu schools and even had another san diego school csu san marcos in the same conference...

“UC San Diego” not “UCSD”
Using UC San Diego in place of the UCSD acronym better identifies our campus both locally and nationally. There’s confusion among San Diego higher education institutions because of similar acronyms—UCSD, USD, and SDSU—which we eliminate by using UC San Diego. Additionally, this naming convention is consistent with other campuses in the University of California system, such as UC Irvine, UC Riverside, UC Santa Barbara, UC Davis, and so on.
https://ucpa.ucsd.edu/brand/story/use-of...sity-name/

"A school is known to the world by its name, and the university knows how important that is."
http://triton.news/2017/11/4225/

Brand New
UC San Diego breaks boundaries in new branding campaign
https://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/feature/brand_new

Move to Division I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_San_Die...Division_I

I didn't think this change in emphasis was necessary. Growing up all my peers already thought of UC San Diego as the next-best UC after Berkeley and LA, and more than deserving of a place among UCI, UCR, UCSB, and UC Davis. But if the UCSD people think the longer name will be useful to them, then by all means I'll try my best to use it.

At least among academics, their name was fine. They would get mentioned with Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Texas, UNC, UVA, etc.

And it's an equally silly name change for sports fans.

"UC San Diego" risks confusing them with "University of San Diego" and "San Diego State." Neither of those are national brands so all three just melt together in most people's minds.

By the way, most people outside of California have no idea that there's a "UC system" and a "Cal State system" where the members of each system are mostly peers. If they hear "UCSD" they'll think it's similar to "UW-Milwaukee" or "UAB."

(06-10-2018 09:04 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  By the way, most people outside of California have no idea that there's a "UC system" and a "Cal State system" where the members of each system are mostly peers. If they hear "UCSD" they'll think it's similar to "UW-Milwaukee" or "UAB."

The misconceptions go in the other direction, too. At first blush I wouldn't have thought that Texas A&M was a better school than UTEP or UTSA.