(09-08-2020 08:42 AM)bullet Wrote:  No. UCF is not a power school. Pitt was a regular contender for the MNC in the early 80s. Syracuse revived their program in the late 80s. They played major colleges. Boise and UCF are playing in the G5. UCF went winless one of those years. You are also comparing wins in 11 game schedules vs. wins in 12 games + ccg schedules.

That's an interesting point about schedules, so I went back and looked at Syracuse's 1982 schedule, randomly chosen for when they were "in the wilderness" between their 1960s success and the late 1980s revival. This was the schedule:

Rutgers
Temple
Illinois
Indiana
Maryland
Penn State
Pitt
Colgate
Navy
BC
West Virginia

Even for 1982, when "power" was much more about programs than conferences (e.g. Rutgers was definitely not a power program at that time, neither was Indiana), that is still what would be regarded as a "major college" schedule. Not as "major" as what Notre Dame and Penn State were playing, but still indicative of major-level football.

As you note, no G5 school has such a schedule today.

As for BSU, Boise is not a Power program because they aren't in a Power conference, but they have definitely performed at a Power-level on the field the past 15 years.

(09-08-2020 09:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-08-2020 08:42 AM)bullet Wrote:  No. UCF is not a power school. Pitt was a regular contender for the MNC in the early 80s. Syracuse revived their program in the late 80s. They played major colleges. Boise and UCF are playing in the G5. UCF went winless one of those years. You are also comparing wins in 11 game schedules vs. wins in 12 games + ccg schedules.

That's an interesting point about schedules, so I went back and looked at Syracuse's 1982 schedule, randomly chosen for when they were "in the wilderness" between their 1960s success and the late 1980s revival. This was the schedule:

Rutgers
Temple
Illinois
Indiana
Maryland
Penn State
Pitt
Colgate
Navy
BC
West Virginia

Even for 1982, when "power" was much more about programs than conferences (e.g. Rutgers was definitely not a power program at that time, neither was Indiana), that is still what would be regarded as a "major college" schedule. Not as "major" as what Notre Dame and Penn State were playing, but still indicative of major-level football.

As you note, no G5 school has such a schedule today.

As for BSU, Boise is not a Power program because they aren't in a Power conference, but they have definitely performed at a Power-level on the field the past 15 years.

Cincinnati was definitely not a major school in the early 1980s. In 1983, the NCAA tried to kick UC down to D-1aa (Cincinnati successfully sued). Here is UC's schedule that year:

@ Penn State (defending national champs)
Oklahoma State
@ Louisville
Cornell (FCS-level)
Temple
@ Florida State
Miami (FL) (would win their first national title this year)
@ Kentucky
Rutgers
Memphis
@ Miami (OH)

(09-08-2020 08:42 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-07-2020 11:07 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  CONCLUSIONS:

It is doubtful whether Syracuse and Pitt - - having averaged only 6.6 wins and 3 AP Final Top 25 rankings per season - - can be accurately described as "power schools" throughout the decade before they were admitted to P5 conferences.

A much stronger case can be made that UCF and Boise State - - having averaged 9.75 wins and 6.5 AP Final Top 25 rankings per season - - have been "power schools" in the past decade.

Very few programs (ND, Penn State, FSU, & Miami) were ranked in the Final AP top 25 more than half of the seasons in the decade before they were admitted to P5 conferences. Most of the schools that were admitted to P5 conferences, such as Rutgers, Maryland, BC, Utah, Syracuse, VT, and Pitt didn't meet that criterion.

No. UCF is not a power school. Pitt was a regular contender for the MNC in the early 80s. Syracuse revived their program in the late 80s. They played major colleges. Boise and UCF are playing in the G5. UCF went winless one of those years. You are also comparing wins in 11 game schedules vs. wins in 12 games + ccg schedules.

Boise isn't a "power" school, but they are a very good program. Some of their wins came against the weak bottom of the WAC and MWC.

The AP poll was also only a top 20 until 1989.

(09-08-2020 09:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-08-2020 08:42 AM)bullet Wrote:  No. UCF is not a power school. Pitt was a regular contender for the MNC in the early 80s. Syracuse revived their program in the late 80s. They played major colleges. Boise and UCF are playing in the G5. UCF went winless one of those years. You are also comparing wins in 11 game schedules vs. wins in 12 games + ccg schedules.

That's an interesting point about schedules, so I went back and looked at Syracuse's 1982 schedule, randomly chosen for when they were "in the wilderness" between their 1960s success and the late 1980s revival. This was the schedule:

Rutgers
Temple
Illinois
Indiana
Maryland
Penn State
Pitt
Colgate
Navy
BC
West Virginia

Even for 1982, when "power" was much more about programs than conferences (e.g. Rutgers was definitely not a power program at that time, neither was Indiana), that is still what would be regarded as a "major college" schedule. Not as "major" as what Notre Dame and Penn State were playing, but still indicative of major-level football.

As you note, no G5 school has such a schedule today.

As for BSU, Boise is not a Power program because they aren't in a Power conference, but they have definitely performed at a Power-level on the field the past 15 years.

To clarify, by "reviving" their program, I was saying they were no longer a homecoming opponent. I don't think they were ever as bad as Northwestern or Kansas St. in the era, but they were pretty bad. Just like NW and KSU, they played a major schedule. They just didn't win very often.

(09-07-2020 08:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-07-2020 07:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  When I started watching football in the 1970s, schools like Miami and FSU were definitely not "power" status. They are great examples of schools that built themselves up to power status in the 1980s by winning. VT, WV, Rutgers and Temple were also not power-level back then either.

...ND, PS, Syracuse, schools ... had a history of power-level status as independents that pre-dated the 1980s.

Agreed. Miami and FSU were more like Louisville and Tulsa than the Big 10/SEC/SWC/Pac 10 schools. Miami seriously considered dropping football in the 70s.

Four types of schools have made the transition from independents or non-major conferences to power conferences:

Type I: Schools with a long history of power-level FB status (with multiple nationally ranked teams in the past decade and in a total of 2+ prior decades, dating back to 1960 or earlier), such as ND and Penn State and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Syracuse and Pitt.

Type II: Schools that attained "power level" status (with multiple nationally-ranked teams over the prior 10-15 years), such as FSU, Miami, West Virginia, Arizona State, Utah, GT, Boston College, & TCU.*

*Some of these schools, such as Boston College (independent), GT, and TCU (former members of high-major conferences), had multiple nationally ranked teams in 2+ prior decades.

Type III: Schools with 1 or 2 nationally ranked teams in the previous decade and nationally ranked teams in prior decades., such as Arizona, Louisville, and Virginia Tech.

Type IV: Schools that were admitted to high major conferences despite having no nationally ranked teams in the prior decade, such as Rutgers (Big East) and Colorado (Big 8).*

*Some Type IV schools, such as Colorado, either had mid-season Top 25 rankings within the prior decade, and/or Final AP Top 25 teams in prior decades.

.

Of the four types of FB schools that were considered worthy of admission to "power-level conferences," which of the current G5/independent FB schools would meet those criteria today?

Type I: Navy and Houston have both had (multiple nationally ranked teams in the past decade and in 2+ prior decades, dating back to 1960 or earlier).

NOTE: Navy and Houston have had a total of 27 AP Final Top 20 teams. In comparison, Syracuse and Pitt had a total of 24 AP Final Top 20 teams, prior to joining a "power" level conference.

Type II: BYU, Cincinnati, UCF, Memphis, and Boise State have all had (multiple nationally ranked teams over the past 10-15 years).

In addition, BYU has had multiple nationally ranked teams in 2+ prior decades

NOTE: BYU and Boise State have both had more AP Final Top 20 and Top 25 teams than Syracuse had before joining the Big East power conference.

Type III: Army, Air Force, San Diego State, Marshall, Utah State, Tulsa, and Fresno State have had nationally ranked teams in the past decade and in prior decades.

NOTE: Army, Air Force and Tulsa have had 15, 7, and 8 AP Final Top 20 or Top 25 teams, respectively.

Type IV: Appalachian State, WKU, San Jose State, SMU, Temple, and Tulane [i] have had Final AP Top 25 teams in the past decade, or Final AP Top 25 teams in prior decades, but not both.*

*Temple, SMU, and Tulane - - former members of the Big East, SWC, and SEC, respectively - - are all former members of power conferences, which had mid-season Top 25 rankings within the prior decade, and/or Final AP Top 25 teams in prior decades.

NOTE: Tulane and SMU have had 7 and 11 AP Final Top 25 teams, respectively.

(09-09-2020 02:56 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(09-07-2020 08:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-07-2020 07:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  When I started watching football in the 1970s, schools like Miami and FSU were definitely not "power" status. They are great examples of schools that built themselves up to power status in the 1980s by winning. VT, WV, Rutgers and Temple were also not power-level back then either.

...ND, PS, Syracuse, schools ... had a history of power-level status as independents that pre-dated the 1980s.

Agreed. Miami and FSU were more like Louisville and Tulsa than the Big 10/SEC/SWC/Pac 10 schools. Miami seriously considered dropping football in the 70s.

Made a slight revision for you

Four types of schools have made the transition from independents or non-major conferences to power conferences:

Type I: Schools with a long history of power-level FB status (with multiple nationally ranked teams in the past decade and in a total of 2+ prior decades, dating back to 1960 or earlier), such as ND and Penn State and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Syracuse and Pitt.

Type II: Schools that attained "power level" status (with multiple nationally-ranked teams over the prior 10-15 years), such as FSU, Miami, West Virginia, Arizona State, Utah, GT, Boston College, & TCU.*

*Some of these schools, such as Boston College (independent), GT, and TCU (former members of high-major conferences), had multiple nationally ranked teams in 2+ prior decades.

Type IIIa: Schools with 1 or 2 nationally ranked teams in the previous decade and nationally ranked teams in prior decades., such as Arizona and Virginia Tech.

Type IIIb: School with 1 or 2 nationally ranked teams in the previous decade and nationally ranked teams in prior decades. Also has a top 10 all time basketball program, a top 20 baseball program, top 20 olympic sports, top 20 women's basketball, top 20 athletic budget greater than 75% of power teams at time of admission, #1 most profitable men's basketball team with revenue over 30 million at time of admission, etc, etc Grew up in Louisville. They don't deserve to be in a category with Va Tech and Arizona. When you get all myopic about football sometimes you miss the bigger picture.

Type IV: Schools that were admitted to high major conferences despite having no nationally ranked teams in the prior decade, such as Rutgers (Big East) and Colorado (Big 8).*

*Some Type IV schools, such as Colorado, either had mid-season Top 25 rankings within the prior decade, and/or Final AP Top 25 teams in prior decades.

.

Of the four types of FB schools that were considered worthy of admission to "power-level conferences," which of the current G5/independent FB schools would meet those criteria today?

Type I: Navy and Houston have both had (multiple nationally ranked teams in the past decade and in 2+ prior decades, dating back to 1960 or earlier).

NOTE: Navy and Houston have had a total of 27 AP Final Top 20 teams. In comparison, Syracuse and Pitt had a total of 24 AP Final Top 20 teams, prior to joining a "power" level conference.

Type II: BYU, Cincinnati, UCF, Memphis, and Boise State have all had (multiple nationally ranked teams over the past 10-15 years).

In addition, BYU has had multiple nationally ranked teams in 2+ prior decades

NOTE: BYU and Boise State have both had more AP Final Top 20 and Top 25 teams than Syracuse had before joining the Big East power conference.

Type III: Army, Air Force, San Diego State, Marshall, Utah State, Tulsa, and Fresno State have had nationally ranked teams in the past decade and in prior decades.

NOTE: Army, Air Force and Tulsa have had 15, 7, and 8 AP Final Top 20 or Top 25 teams, respectively.

Type IV: Appalachian State, WKU, San Jose State, SMU, Temple, and Tulane [i] have had Final AP Top 25 teams in the past decade, or Final AP Top 25 teams in prior decades, but not both.*

*Temple, SMU, and Tulane - - former members of the Big East, SWC, and SEC, respectively - - are all former members of power conferences, which had mid-season Top 25 rankings within the prior decade, and/or Final AP Top 25 teams in prior decades.

NOTE: Tulane and SMU have had 7 and 11 AP Final Top 25 teams, respectively.

(09-09-2020 09:28 AM)BatonRougeEscapee Wrote:  Made a slight revision for you

Type IIIa: Schools with 1 or 2 nationally ranked teams in the previous decade and nationally ranked teams in prior decades., such as Arizona and Virginia Tech.

Type IIIb: School with 1 or 2 nationally ranked teams in the previous decade and nationally ranked teams in prior decades. Also has a top 10 all time basketball program, a top 20 baseball program, top 20 olympic sports, top 20 women's basketball, top 20 athletic budget greater than 75% of power teams at time of admission, #1 most profitable men's basketball team with revenue over 30 million at time of admission, etc, etc Grew up in Louisville. They don't deserve to be in a category with Va Tech and Arizona. When you get all myopic about football sometimes you miss the bigger picture.

Your larger point - which I would agree with - is that, in order to develop a better description of the characteristics of schools before they were admitted to power conferences, it's necessary - at least - to include their basketball programs.

The categories above refer only to schools' FB programs.

Let's see - - how would the groupings change?

Most of the schools would probably remain in the same four tiers, but schools with very strong or mediocre basketball programs, would move up a notch or two.

The four tiers could simply be subdivided into Type IVa, Type IVb, etc.

A few examples:

ND, Syracuse and Pitt be Type Ia schools. Penn State, Houston, and Navy would be Type Ib.

FSU, WVA, Miami, Memphis, and Cincy would be Type IIa schools. BC, GT, TCU, UCF, and Utah would be Type IIb.

Louisville and Arizona would move up from Type III to Type II.

San Diego State, and Utah State would be Type IIIa. Army, Air Force, and Marshall would be Type IIIb schools.

Rutgers, Colorado, Appalachian State, and Tulane would drop down half a notch, to Type IVb. Temple, WKU, and SMU might move up half a notch, to Type IVa.

(09-09-2020 09:28 AM)BatonRougeEscapee Wrote:  Type IIIa: Schools with 1 or 2 nationally ranked teams in the previous decade and nationally ranked teams in prior decades., such as Arizona and Virginia Tech.

Type IIIb: School with 1 or 2 nationally ranked teams in the previous decade and nationally ranked teams in prior decades. Also has a top 10 all time basketball program, a top 20 baseball program, top 20 olympic sports, top 20 women's basketball, top 20 athletic budget greater than 75% of power teams at time of admission, #1 most profitable men's basketball team with revenue over 30 million at time of admission, etc, etc Grew up in Louisville. They don't deserve to be in a category with Va Tech and Arizona. When you get all myopic about football sometimes you miss the bigger picture.

The "bigger picture" - from someone who has zero connections to any of these schools - is that while Louisville gained power status in 2005, and only as backfill when schools like VT left the Big East, VT has been in a power conference since 1992, and was pro-actively head-hunted to an even stronger power conference in 2003.

As for Arizona, they have been in a power conference since 1978 and are a state flagship, so totally not comparable to Louisville.

IOW's, you are correct that ASU and VT should not be compared to Louisville. The market for schools in power conferences passed judgment on all three, and Louisville was judged far and away the least valuable, which is why they became "power" much later and attained power conference status only via backfill (both the Big East and ACC), whereas the other two were pro-actively invited to join by power conferences not under any dire need to fill gaps left by raids.





PS - If what i quoted above is not what you posted, my apologies. Your response to "Jed" was hard for me to decipher.

Things like "top 20 baseball program", "top 20 olympic sports", & "top 20 women's basketball" aren't worth a lick in P5 realignment.

Arizona's a flagship, AAU, $1B+ endowment, etc.

Virginia Tech has a $1B+ endowment, played for a FB national title, and received interest from the SEC.

The notion VT and Arizona aren't worthy enough to be mentioned alongside Louisville is utterly laughable.

(09-10-2020 09:47 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Things like "top 20 baseball program", "top 20 olympic sports", & "top 20 women's basketball" aren't worth a lick in P5 realignment.

Arizona's a flagship, AAU, $1B+ endowment, etc.

Virginia Tech has a $1B+ endowment, played for a FB national title, and received interest from the SEC.

The notion VT and Arizona aren't worthy enough to be mentioned alongside Louisville is utterly laughable.

Yes, that's why Louisville was the sixth and very last Big East team to get a life-raft to power status. They were only the sixth most-valuable Big East team so not comparable to schools like VT and Arizona whose "power" status was never in doubt.

Basically, Louisville should pay Maryland some kind of fee each year as a "thank you" for joining the B1G, because if that doesn't happen, UofL is in the AAC right now.

And I am a big admirer of Louisville, btw, circa 2005, USF and Louisville were in the same situation, and Louisville managed to build themselves up to get that last power invite while we didn't.

(09-10-2020 09:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-09-2020 09:28 AM)BatonRougeEscapee Wrote:  Type IIIa: Schools with 1 or 2 nationally ranked teams in the previous decade and nationally ranked teams in prior decades., such as Arizona and Virginia Tech.

Type IIIb: School with 1 or 2 nationally ranked teams in the previous decade and nationally ranked teams in prior decades. Also has a top 10 all time basketball program, a top 20 baseball program, top 20 olympic sports, top 20 women's basketball, top 20 athletic budget greater than 75% of power teams at time of admission, #1 most profitable men's basketball team with revenue over 30 million at time of admission, etc, etc Grew up in Louisville. They don't deserve to be in a category with Va Tech and Arizona. When you get all myopic about football sometimes you miss the bigger picture.

The "bigger picture" - from someone who has zero connections to any of these schools - is that while Louisville gained power status in 2005, and only as backfill when schools like VT left the Big East, VT has been in a power conference since 1992, and was pro-actively head-hunted to an even stronger power conference in 2003.

As for Arizona, they have been in a power conference since 1978 and are a state flagship, so totally not comparable to Louisville.

IOW's, you are correct that ASU and VT should not be compared to Louisville. The market for schools in power conferences passed judgment on all three, and Louisville was judged far and away the least valuable, which is why they became "power" much later and attained power conference status only via backfill (both the Big East and ACC), whereas the other two were pro-actively invited to join by power conferences not under any dire need to fill gaps left by raids.





PS - If what i quoted above is not what you posted, my apologies. Your response to "Jed" was hard for me to decipher.

Louisville is an anomaly. They had Unitas in the 50s but definitely midmajor, they finished in the Top 20 under Corso in 1972 but was still like a MAC program. They declined after that...then Schnellenberger arrived and went to NY Day Bowl in the early 90s and won a few other bowls. He grew them into a midmajor power. Remember the basketball team was a power team back in the 70's and 80s but Schnellenberger made them a FB school too. The early aughts I'd call them a power team for everything save the league (kinda like Boise and UCF). The NBE admission was just a crowning for them.

(09-10-2020 10:49 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(09-10-2020 09:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  [quote='BatonRougeEscapee' pid='16983677' dateline='1599661695']
Type IIIa: Schools with 1 or 2 nationally ranked teams in the previous decade and nationally ranked teams in prior decades., such as Arizona and Virginia Tech.

Type IIIb: School with 1 or 2 nationally ranked teams in the previous decade and nationally ranked teams in prior decades. Also has a top 10 all time basketball program, a top 20 baseball program, top 20 olympic sports, top 20 women's basketball, top 20 athletic budget greater than 75% of power teams at time of admission, #1 most profitable men's basketball team with revenue over 30 million at time of admission, etc, etc Grew up in Louisville. They don't deserve to be in a category with Va Tech and Arizona. When you get all myopic about football sometimes you miss the bigger picture.

The "bigger picture" - from someone who has zero connections to any of these schools - is that while Louisville gained power status in 2005, and only as backfill when schools like VT left the Big East, VT has been in a power conference since 1992, and was pro-actively head-hunted to an even stronger power conference in 2003.

As for Arizona, they have been in a power conference since 1978 and are a state flagship, so totally not comparable to Louisville.

IOW's, you are correct that ASU and VT should not be compared to Louisville.

Focusing on both FB and BB at present, Louisville's success has been broadly comparable with that of VT and AZ across the two sports, overall for the past two decades.

Louisville is truly an "unusual animal," as it is the only urban, public, 'city' university with membership in a P5. The other P5 schools located in large cities are either 1. prestigious private schools (USC, Syracuse, Pitt, Miami, Vanderbilt, etc.) or 2. massive public universities with statewide fan bases (Washington, Texas, Minnesota, NCState, etc.).

The UofL is neither academically prestigious nor possessed of a statewide fan base. I am very familiar with the university and its athletic history, having followed Cardinal sports since the 1970s. My interest in the athletics program picked up in the late 2000s when my brother married a UofL grad.

What Louisville has done with its overall sports program is very impressive. In fact, UofL is one of only a handful of overall programs that, any given year, has a shot at seeing its football, men's and women's basketball, and baseball programs all ranked in the top 25.

The Card fan base is rabid, with many of the fans detesting Kentucky fans — and vice versa. There are some demographic dynamics involved in this, as UofL has more (relatively speaking) urban-living fans, socio-politically progressive fans and Black fans than does UK. A very similar dynamic can be found with the Memphis Tiger fans and Tennessee Vol fans. The main difference between the rivalries is that UofL is a member of a power conference and, as such, represents more a "threat" to UK than Memphis (which is not in power league) does to UT.

There are many folks who do not perceive the UofL as "deserving" of power league membership. Perhaps there are some very legitimate reasons to contend this. A counter argument would be this: One of most significant and intangible factors of an overall athletic program is, simply put, fan interest and passion. UofL fans are fiercely proud of their school and their city in general.

And by the way, Louisville is a very underrated city. Lots of beautiful historic buildings, charming neighborhoods, quality breweries and friendly people.

(09-10-2020 10:49 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(09-10-2020 09:01 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-09-2020 09:28 AM)BatonRougeEscapee Wrote:  Type IIIa: Schools with 1 or 2 nationally ranked teams in the previous decade and nationally ranked teams in prior decades., such as Arizona and Virginia Tech.

Type IIIb: School with 1 or 2 nationally ranked teams in the previous decade and nationally ranked teams in prior decades. Also has a top 10 all time basketball program, a top 20 baseball program, top 20 olympic sports, top 20 women's basketball, top 20 athletic budget greater than 75% of power teams at time of admission, #1 most profitable men's basketball team with revenue over 30 million at time of admission, etc, etc Grew up in Louisville. They don't deserve to be in a category with Va Tech and Arizona. When you get all myopic about football sometimes you miss the bigger picture.

The "bigger picture" - from someone who has zero connections to any of these schools - is that while Louisville gained power status in 2005, and only as backfill when schools like VT left the Big East, VT has been in a power conference since 1992, and was pro-actively head-hunted to an even stronger power conference in 2003.

As for Arizona, they have been in a power conference since 1978 and are a state flagship, so totally not comparable to Louisville.

IOW's, you are correct that ASU and VT should not be compared to Louisville. The market for schools in power conferences passed judgment on all three, and Louisville was judged far and away the least valuable, which is why they became "power" much later and attained power conference status only via backfill (both the Big East and ACC), whereas the other two were pro-actively invited to join by power conferences not under any dire need to fill gaps left by raids.





PS - If what i quoted above is not what you posted, my apologies. Your response to "Jed" was hard for me to decipher.

Louisville is an anomaly. They had Unitas in the 50s but definitely midmajor, they finished in the Top 20 under Corso in 1972 but was still like a MAC program. They declined after that...then Schnellenberger arrived and went to NY Day Bowl in the early 90s and won a few other bowls. He grew them into a midmajor power. Remember the basketball team was a power team back in the 70's and 80s but Schnellenberger made them a FB school too. The early aughts I'd call them a power team for everything save the league (kinda like Boise and UCF). The NBE admission was just a crowning for them.

It is quite possible that without Schnellenberger there would have been two school presently in the P5 that wouldn't have been there, Louisville, but also Miami. Both programs should be extremely thankful for his service.

(09-10-2020 11:23 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Louisville is truly an "unusual animal," as it is the only urban, public, 'city' university with membership in a P5. The other P5 schools located in large cities are either 1. prestigious private schools (USC, Syracuse, Pitt, Miami, Vanderbilt, etc.) or 2. massive public universities with statewide fan bases (Washington, Texas, Minnesota, NCState, etc.).

The UofL is neither academically prestigious nor possessed of a statewide fan base. I am very familiar with the university and its athletic history, having followed Cardinal sports since the 1970s. My interest in the athletics program picked up in the late 2000s when my brother married a UofL grad.

What Louisville has done with its overall sports program is very impressive. In fact, UofL is one of only a handful of overall programs that, any given year, has a shot at seeing its football, men's and women's basketball, and baseball programs all ranked in the top 25.

The Card fan base is rabid, with many of the fans detesting Kentucky fans — and vice versa. There are some demographic dynamics involved in this, as UofL has more (relatively speaking) urban living fans, socio-politically progressive fans and Black fans than does UK. A very similar dynamic can be found with the Memphis Tiger fans and Tennessee Vol fans. The main difference between the rivalries is that UofL is a member of a power conference and, as such, represents more a "threat" to UK than Memphis (which his not in power league) does to UT.

There are many folks who do not perceive the UofL as "deserving" of power league membership. Perhaps there are some very legitimate reasons to contend this. A counter argument would be this: One of most significant and intangible factors of an overall athletic program is, simply put, fan interest and passion. UofL fans are fiercely proud of their school and their city in general.

And by the way, Louisville is a very underrated city. Lots of beautiful historic buildings, charming neighborhoods, quality breweries and friendly people.

Totally agree about fan passion. In the final analysis it is the key to program success. And as you say, Louisville has a very passionate fan base. It is that base that practically willed UofL to power status.

As a fan of a school with an allegedly large but definitely lackadaisical fan base, i envy it.

(09-10-2020 11:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-10-2020 11:23 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Louisville is truly an "unusual animal," as it is the only urban, public, 'city' university with membership in a P5. The other P5 schools located in large cities are either 1. prestigious private schools (USC, Syracuse, Pitt, Miami, Vanderbilt, etc.) or 2. massive public universities with statewide fan bases (Washington, Texas, Minnesota, NCState, etc.).

The UofL is neither academically prestigious nor possessed of a statewide fan base. I am very familiar with the university and its athletic history, having followed Cardinal sports since the 1970s. My interest in the athletics program picked up in the late 2000s when my brother married a UofL grad.

What Louisville has done with its overall sports program is very impressive. In fact, UofL is one of only a handful of overall programs that, any given year, has a shot at seeing its football, men's and women's basketball, and baseball programs all ranked in the top 25.

The Card fan base is rabid, with many of the fans detesting Kentucky fans — and vice versa. There are some demographic dynamics involved in this, as UofL has more (relatively speaking) urban living fans, socio-politically progressive fans and Black fans than does UK. A very similar dynamic can be found with the Memphis Tiger fans and Tennessee Vol fans. The main difference between the rivalries is that UofL is a member of a power conference and, as such, represents more a "threat" to UK than Memphis (which his not in power league) does to UT.

There are many folks who do not perceive the UofL as "deserving" of power league membership. Perhaps there are some very legitimate reasons to contend this. A counter argument would be this: One of most significant and intangible factors of an overall athletic program is, simply put, fan interest and passion. UofL fans are fiercely proud of their school and their city in general.

And by the way, Louisville is a very underrated city. Lots of beautiful historic buildings, charming neighborhoods, quality breweries and friendly people.

Totally agree about fan passion. In the final analysis it is the key to program success. And as you say, Louisville has a very passionate fan base. It is that base that practically willed UofL to power status.

As a fan of a school with an allegedly large but definitely lackadaisical fan base, i envy it.

Well, Quo, look at it this way: USF has a large but lackadaisical fan base.

Vanderbilt has a small and lackadaisical fan base.

At least I can stroll through the VU campus arboretum and take solace in my Commodores fanship.