Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Regionalization concept to be presented Monday
Author Message
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 8,672
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 350
I Root For: The Heels
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #181
RE: Regionalization concept to be presented Monday
(10-12-2021 06:25 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  
(10-11-2021 10:43 PM)esayem Wrote:  
(10-11-2021 08:28 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  
(10-11-2021 08:17 PM)esayem Wrote:  
(10-11-2021 07:55 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  This. Everyone not in these conferences thinks this is a great idea. Expand the idea to include the P5 conferences and, all of a sudden, everyone suddenly understands why it doesn't work.

College football seems to be re-aligning into value tiers rather than regions over the past few years. When some groups of teams are worth multiples per year of the others, you have a very obvious situation where everyone would like to be re-grouped with teams from higher tiers than theirs, but none from the lower tiers. Probably the most damning aspect of this proposal is that it's being proposed by the conference now arguably seen as the lowest tier. If the SEC had proposed this, then it would have traction.

The most interesting part of recent alignment moves to me has been that teams have been slowly moving up tier by tier as their values increase, but none of these conferences have had the gumption to kick any teams down a tier. As Houston/UCF/Cincinnati move up to the Big 12 and Texas/OU move up to the SEC, it makes sense that teams like South Carolina, Missouri, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest, Georgia Tech, Syracuse, UNC, West Virginia, ECU, Kansas State, Illinois, Akron, San Jose, UNLV, New Mexico, Hawaii, UL-Monroe, etc would move down a tier.

The tier theory doesn’t work since what’s actually happening is there were six power conferences and now there are five with nearly the same amount of teams. The only difference from now and almost 20 years ago is Temple, UConn, and South Florida aren’t in a power league, while BYU, Utah, TCU, Houston, and UCF are or will be.

It can be argued that BYU, Utah, and TCU were the powers of the Mountain West which busted down the BCS door and caused the additional BCS bowl. So those schools belonged all along, especially considering BYU had a national championship under its belt.

Yeah but the tiering is happening. If it wasn't, then the three AAC teams could/would have jumped what is clearly two steps to the Big 10 or SEC rather than taking the single step up. Texas and Oklahoma could have moved down to the ACC. There does seem to be a pecking order coming together, all the way down the P5, and down the G5.

It’s more complicated than that otherwise FSU and Clemson would be in the SEC and Carolina would be in the SEC or Big Ten.


SEC/Big10 would be a move up, not down.

I agree there are definitely tiers when it comes to money and also pecking order, for the most part. Ultimately there are still around the same number of “power teams” as 20 years ago.

I guess I’m not following your point that those AAC teams would jump to the Big 10 or SEC without tiers.
10-12-2021 07:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,561
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 785
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #182
RE: Regionalization concept to be presented Monday
(10-11-2021 11:12 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  
(10-11-2021 10:08 PM)Wedge Wrote:  There’s something you’re not mentioning though - while it’s true that many “power” teams play mostly-soft non-conference schedules, the mid-major darlings with the lopsided won-loss records often have equally weak non-con schedules.

Yeah, but it's the Golden Rule: He with the Gold Makes The Rules.

It's not like Murray State doesn't WANT to play anyone. It's that no one wants to play a team from a one-bid or non-BCS league that has talent and could beat them. There's no upside to play them for the BCS, because all it can do is reveal the fact that BCS superiority is largely a myth or self-fulfilling prophecy.

There are totally two separate realities and it's impossible to reconcile them. You cannot make a system of judging teams' performance based on results that doesn't factor in strength of schedule. But because of how CONFERENCES WORK, and what that does to SOS (there's more conference games than non-conference games, so all that matters is OOC wins, period, regardless of who they are against, to make your league have strong computer numbers); you have two separate results: Either BCS conferences are automatically massively higher even if the bottom teams really kind of suck (the system we have now), or there's a system that ignores conference and totally overrates teams that have great records and no significant wins.

Before the pandemic -- can't remember if it was the 2019 season or 2020 season that didn't finish -- Stephen F. Austin went to Duke, beat Duke, and the night they beat Duke everyone said it was impossible for SFA to get an at-large bid. Which is INSANE. The rest of the league was so bad OOC that their SOS was doomed and there was no way they could put up a RPI/NET number high enough to get a bid! They're clearly good enough to win AT DUKE on the road, because they JUST DID, but all the ACC teams can FAIL to do that and still get bids while SFA can't get an at-large even with that win?

That's not how any of this should work. I fully realize that a team like Minnesota probably is a better basketball team than a low-major who's 26-6. But at the same time, the NCAA Tournament isn't supposed to be about "Who's a BETTER TEAM" it's SUPPOSED TO BE about who had a season that DESERVES A BID.

If they changed the NCAA selection criteria to "At larges by Highest Win Percentages, period" would that leave out better teams and encourage schools to avoid playing anyone? Yeah, it would. But it would also give the BCS incentive to GO PLAY SOME GOOD NON-BCS TEAMS ON THE ROAD.

You mention Syracuse... historically, are they better than St. Bonaventure? Of course. But what would those numbers look like if Syracuse ever played a TRUE ROAD GAME against them? Syracuse hasn't visited St. Bonaventure since Konstantin Chernenko was leading the USSR.

Illinois hasn't visited Illinois State for a MBB game in over 100 years. They are like 70 miles apart.


If you flipped the process to "you have to win, period" it could self-correct. But instead we reward teams for losing. The argument that "But our league's really hard, we shouldn't be left out for playing in the really hard ACC/SEC/Big Ten" is just stupid. YOU PICKED THAT LEAGUE.

Why should we grant MORE access to BCS leagues because they made their leagues harder? You picked it FOR MONEY. If you don't like how easy it is to get into the NCAA Tournament from another conference, leave your hard conference. Syracuse can be "the Gonzaga of the MAAC" anytime they want. Go play road games at Siena, Iona and Fairfield and see what happens.


The reason I don't care about the weak non-BCS non-conference schedules is because no one will play them, and it's literally the same ADs who refuse to play good mid-majors OOC that make up the selection committee. Oklahoma's AD kept St. Bonaventure out of the 2016 NCAA tournament saying their OOC schedule wasn't good enough. When was the last time Oklahoma played an Atlantic 10 team on the road?

With all due respect, those “BCS teams” don’t owe the “non-BCS teams” a single thing. If the “non-BCS teams” truly want better schedules, then they can go play on the road anytime and anywhere and actually turn themselves into a program that actually brings something of value to those “BCS schools”. That’s what Gonzaga did for several years - they didn’t just magically get home-and-home dates with power teams after their first NCAA Tournament runs. Instead, they took the attitude that they’ll play anyone that’s willing anywhere. That meant all road games at first. When they started building their profile, they offered to play teams in Seattle when they wouldn’t come to Spokane. Today, Gonzaga is the one that turns down “BCS teams” instead of the other way around. Gonzaga turned themselves into a revenue maker instead of a revenue taker and now they have the leverage to schedule home games against power teams.

Any “non-BCS” team could play a monster non-conference schedule if they were willing to play those games on the road without a return home game. The fact that you’re harping on the lack of return home games actually means nothing competitively. In fact, a road win at a “BCS school” is worth more for NCAA Tournament resume purposes than anything else. Your complaint about the lack of return home games is really about money - the “non-BCS” teams want more of it via those home games. That’s a perfectly fine stance, but don’t complain when the “BCS teams” are simply taking the same position in not “wasting” a road game slot against a revenue taker and instead only playing road games against revenue makers.

The “non-BCS” teams are acting in their own financial self-interest by not playing *more* road games against “BCS teams” despite it being in their NCAA Tournament resume interests to do so. Like I’ve said, that’s fine, but don’t act like the revenue makers for the system have any obligation (moral or otherwise) to go on the road to play against revenue takers. Those revenue makers would be more than happy to play as many guarantee home games against any revenue taker. Complaining that those revenue makers won’t go on the road against revenue takers isn’t a complaint about SOS, but rather purely about money. So, I have little sympathy for that complaint when NCAA Tournament bids get handed out when the revenue makers are simply making a rational money decision on their end, too.
(This post was last modified: 10-12-2021 09:11 AM by Frank the Tank.)
10-12-2021 07:42 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ESE84 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,884
Joined: Mar 2005
Reputation: 119
I Root For: Rice then UH
Location: Houston

New Orleans BowlDonators
Post: #183
RE: Regionalization concept to be presented Monday
(10-11-2021 02:41 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  
(10-11-2021 12:40 PM)esayem Wrote:  So what? That goes for any G5 team in Texas playing a regional P5.

Rice drew 42,000 vs Texas in 2019.

They played in the Texans Stadium and 35,000 were Texas fans.

58,880 for the 2008 Texas Bowl when Rice played Western Michigan in the same stadium. That was probably the largest Rice alumni/friends crowd ever.
10-12-2021 08:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Michael in Raleigh Online
All American
*

Posts: 2,549
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation: 125
I Root For: App State
Location:
Post: #184
RE: Regionalization concept to be presented Monday
(10-12-2021 07:42 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  With all due respect, those “BCS teams” don’t owe the “non-BCS teams” a single thing. If the “non-BCS teams” truly want better schedules, then they can go play on the road anytime and anywhere and actually turn themselves into a program that actually brings something of value to those “BCS schools”. That’s what Gonzaga did for several years - they didn’t just magically get home-and-home dates with power teams after their first NCAA Tournament runs. Instead, they took the attitude that they’ll play anyone that’s willing anywhere. That meant all road games at first. When they started building their profile, they offered to play teams in Seattle when they wouldn’t come to Spokane. Today, Gonzaga is the one that turns down “BCS teams” instead of the other way around. Gonzaga turned themselves into a revenue maker instead of a revenue taker and now they have the leverage to schedule home games against power teams.

Any “non-BCS” team could play a monster non-conference schedule if they were willing to play those games on the road without a return home game. The fact that you’re harping on the lack of return home games actually means nothing competitively. In fact, a road win at a “BCS school” is worth more for NCAA Tournament resume purposes than anything else. Your complaint about the lack of return home games is really about money - the “non-BCS” teams want more of it via those home games. That’s a perfectly fine stance, but don’t complain when the “BCS teams” are simply taking the same position in not “wasting” a road game slot against a revenue taker and instead only playing road games against revenue makers.

The “non-BCS” teams are acting in their own financial self-interest by not playing *more* road games against “BCS teams” despite it being in their NCAA Tournament resume interests to do so. Like I’ve said, that’s fine, but don’t act like the revenue makers for the system have any obligation (moral or otherwise) to go on the road to play against revenue takers. Those revenue takers would be more than happy to play as many guarantee home games against any revenue taker. Complaining that those revenue makers won’t go on the road against revenue takers isn’t a complaint about SOS, but rather purely about money. So, I have little sympathy for that complaint when NCAA Tournament bids get handed out when the revenue makers are simply making a rational money decision on their end, too.

Frank,

I just want to speak as an alum and fan of a college basketball mid-major conference trying it's best to raise its profile.

It is a massive struggle to get good games. App State is doing its best, scheduling wise. Our coach brought us our first winning winning record in 10 years in 2019-2020, and led us to our first NCAA appearance in 21 years in 2020-2021. Yeah, yeah, App got in because of multiple upsets in the league tournament and was a 16 seed play-in loser. It is still a major progression.

Anyway, App has road games against both UNC and Duke. It's gotten a good, very nearby home-and-home with a respected mid-major in ETSU, and H&H's with Charlotte and ECU. But it is incredibly difficult nonetheless. Most P5 schools prefer bottom-of-the-barrel home games (think schools from the MEAC, SWAC, OVC, and SLC) over schools from conferences in the mid-range (12th to 25 or so). App usually can't even get *road* games against schools in top ten conferences, much less home games. It is hard to even play Davidson, a school it shared a conference with until 2013 or 2014.

Just understand that being in the athletic director of a mid-major school trying to play anytime, anywhere, with no return games, still has a big uphill battle from a scheduling standpoint.

And for the record, yes, I totally get it that the powerful conference schools don't owe anything to an App State. I'm just saying it's not as simple as being willing to do road games as it may seem.

I don't even want to get into how hard it is to get ANYONE to play at home. We're usually settling for 2-3 home games against non-D1 schools. It sucks.
10-12-2021 09:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CoastalJuan Offline
Business Drunk
*

Posts: 5,330
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation: 262
I Root For: ECU
Location: Right near da beeach
Post: #185
Regionalization concept to be presented Monday
(10-12-2021 07:03 AM)esayem Wrote:  
(10-12-2021 06:25 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  
(10-11-2021 10:43 PM)esayem Wrote:  
(10-11-2021 08:28 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  
(10-11-2021 08:17 PM)esayem Wrote:  The tier theory doesn’t work since what’s actually happening is there were six power conferences and now there are five with nearly the same amount of teams. The only difference from now and almost 20 years ago is Temple, UConn, and South Florida aren’t in a power league, while BYU, Utah, TCU, Houston, and UCF are or will be.

It can be argued that BYU, Utah, and TCU were the powers of the Mountain West which busted down the BCS door and caused the additional BCS bowl. So those schools belonged all along, especially considering BYU had a national championship under its belt.

Yeah but the tiering is happening. If it wasn't, then the three AAC teams could/would have jumped what is clearly two steps to the Big 10 or SEC rather than taking the single step up. Texas and Oklahoma could have moved down to the ACC. There does seem to be a pecking order coming together, all the way down the P5, and down the G5.

It’s more complicated than that otherwise FSU and Clemson would be in the SEC and Carolina would be in the SEC or Big Ten.


SEC/Big10 would be a move up, not down.

I agree there are definitely tiers when it comes to money and also pecking order, for the most part. Ultimately there are still around the same number of “power teams” as 20 years ago.

I guess I’m not following your point that those AAC teams would jump to the Big 10 or SEC without tiers.


I’m saying that the movement between conferences wouldn’t follow the the widely established tiers and single movements between them.

The tiering before recent movement was something like:

SEC/Big 10
PAC/ACC/Big 12
AAC
MWC
SBC/CUSA/MAC
FCS

Now it’s looking more like:

SEC
Big 10
PAC/ACC
Big 12
AAC/MWC
SBC/CUSA/MAC
FCS

You won’t generally see teams move up more than one step at a time once the tiers are established. What I was pointing out in the post above is I find it interesting that teams move up, but not down. ECU and UNC are lucky that we haven’t been kicked down to CUSA/Big 12, respectively, over the past few years. Luckily that doesn’t seem to be a thing.

I do see your point that conferences, rather than teams, do tend to get moved down, like the Big East/AAC and potentially the Big 12 if more recycling happens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
10-12-2021 09:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AssyrianDuke Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,441
Joined: Mar 2016
Reputation: 88
I Root For: James Madison
Location: Loudoun County, VA
Post: #186
RE: Regionalization concept to be presented Monday
I'm a little late to this thread. Does anyone have the "results" of the presentation? I assume that the chances of this happening went from 0% all the way up to 0%?
10-12-2021 09:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Michael in Raleigh Online
All American
*

Posts: 2,549
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation: 125
I Root For: App State
Location:
Post: #187
RE: Regionalization concept to be presented Monday
(10-12-2021 09:36 AM)AssyrianDuke Wrote:  I'm a little late to this thread. Does anyone have the "results" of the presentation? I assume that the chances of this happening went from 0% all the way up to 0%?

No leaks on the presentation or how it was received yet. I just wonder if Delany was able to sell ANYONE on it who wasn't already bought in, and if there would be any success if/when he goes to the SB and AAC.

If Delany can't persuade anyone new, this is done for good.
10-12-2021 09:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 8,672
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 350
I Root For: The Heels
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #188
RE: Regionalization concept to be presented Monday
(10-12-2021 09:31 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  
(10-12-2021 07:03 AM)esayem Wrote:  
(10-12-2021 06:25 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  
(10-11-2021 10:43 PM)esayem Wrote:  
(10-11-2021 08:28 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  Yeah but the tiering is happening. If it wasn't, then the three AAC teams could/would have jumped what is clearly two steps to the Big 10 or SEC rather than taking the single step up. Texas and Oklahoma could have moved down to the ACC. There does seem to be a pecking order coming together, all the way down the P5, and down the G5.

It’s more complicated than that otherwise FSU and Clemson would be in the SEC and Carolina would be in the SEC or Big Ten.


SEC/Big10 would be a move up, not down.

I agree there are definitely tiers when it comes to money and also pecking order, for the most part. Ultimately there are still around the same number of “power teams” as 20 years ago.

I guess I’m not following your point that those AAC teams would jump to the Big 10 or SEC without tiers.


I’m saying that the movement between conferences wouldn’t follow the the widely established tiers and single movements between them.

The tiering before recent movement was something like:

SEC/Big 10
PAC/ACC/Big 12
AAC
MWC
SBC/CUSA/MAC
FCS

Now it’s looking more like:

SEC
Big 10
PAC/ACC
Big 12
AAC/MWC
SBC/CUSA/MAC
FCS

You won’t generally see teams move up more than one step at a time once the tiers are established. What I was pointing out in the post above is I find it interesting that teams move up, but not down. ECU and UNC are lucky that we haven’t been kicked down to CUSA/Big 12, respectively, over the past few years. Luckily that doesn’t seem to be a thing.

I do see your point that conferences, rather than teams, do tend to get moved down, like the Big East/AAC and potentially the Big 12 if more recycling happens.

Yeah, people would have laughed at the thought of Nebraska joining the Big 10 or Oklahoma joining the SEC in 2002. Media money has definitely been a game changer.

North Carolina was absolutely horrible under Bunting and Fedora, no doubt. Butch Davis turned it around, but got the raw end of some stuff, but oh well.

Looking at future schedules, Carolina has more games with App State and UNCC(!) than ECU, which is bs to me. I have family that went to ECU so I like the rivalry, especially since you guys are on a streak. :cheers:

*huh, cheers not working. Guess NCAABBS doesn’t want me to cheers a Pirate.
(This post was last modified: 10-12-2021 09:54 AM by esayem.)
10-12-2021 09:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RamblinRedWolf Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,838
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 56
I Root For: Arkansas State
Location:
Post: #189
RE: Regionalization concept to be presented Monday
(10-12-2021 09:36 AM)AssyrianDuke Wrote:  I'm a little late to this thread. Does anyone have the "results" of the presentation? I assume that the chances of this happening went from 0% all the way up to 0%?

I'm sure they're trying to convince everyone to stay tight lip until they have their in-person meeting next week (still feel like we'll get some snip-its of as this week goes on)
10-12-2021 09:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
All4One Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,779
Joined: Aug 2021
Reputation: 126
I Root For: Genuine & Unprivileged
Location:
Post: #190
RE: Regionalization concept to be presented Monday
(10-12-2021 09:36 AM)AssyrianDuke Wrote:  I'm a little late to this thread. Does anyone have the "results" of the presentation? I assume that the chances of this happening went from 0% all the way up to 0%?

Some have speculated that the proposal was not intended to be made public until there was enough support for it from the people who make those decisions from the schools. If we don't hear anything, then chances are that it didn't go very well or it is taking time for presidents and chancellors of these schools to make a well-informed decision on the matter, which could take a bit.
10-12-2021 09:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,482
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 208
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #191
RE: Regionalization concept to be presented Monday
(10-12-2021 09:31 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  
(10-12-2021 07:03 AM)esayem Wrote:  
(10-12-2021 06:25 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  
(10-11-2021 10:43 PM)esayem Wrote:  
(10-11-2021 08:28 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  Yeah but the tiering is happening. If it wasn't, then the three AAC teams could/would have jumped what is clearly two steps to the Big 10 or SEC rather than taking the single step up. Texas and Oklahoma could have moved down to the ACC. There does seem to be a pecking order coming together, all the way down the P5, and down the G5.

It’s more complicated than that otherwise FSU and Clemson would be in the SEC and Carolina would be in the SEC or Big Ten.


SEC/Big10 would be a move up, not down.

I agree there are definitely tiers when it comes to money and also pecking order, for the most part. Ultimately there are still around the same number of “power teams” as 20 years ago.

I guess I’m not following your point that those AAC teams would jump to the Big 10 or SEC without tiers.


I’m saying that the movement between conferences wouldn’t follow the the widely established tiers and single movements between them.

The tiering before recent movement was something like:

SEC/Big 10
PAC/ACC/Big 12
AAC
MWC
SBC/CUSA/MAC
FCS

Now it’s looking more like:

SEC
Big 10
PAC/ACC
Big 12
AAC/MWC
SBC/CUSA/MAC
FCS

You won’t generally see teams move up more than one step at a time once the tiers are established. What I was pointing out in the post above is I find it interesting that teams move up, but not down. ECU and UNC are lucky that we haven’t been kicked down to CUSA/Big 12, respectively, over the past few years. Luckily that doesn’t seem to be a thing.

I do see your point that conferences, rather than teams, do tend to get moved down, like the Big East/AAC and potentially the Big 12 if more recycling happens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Tier after the latest moves.

SEC
Big 10
Big 12
ACC/PAC 12/MWC
SBC
C-USA
AAC
MAC
10-12-2021 10:19 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
b0ndsj0ns Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,521
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation: 633
I Root For: ECU
Location:
Post: #192
RE: Regionalization concept to be presented Monday
(10-12-2021 10:19 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  
(10-12-2021 09:31 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  
(10-12-2021 07:03 AM)esayem Wrote:  
(10-12-2021 06:25 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  
(10-11-2021 10:43 PM)esayem Wrote:  It’s more complicated than that otherwise FSU and Clemson would be in the SEC and Carolina would be in the SEC or Big Ten.


SEC/Big10 would be a move up, not down.

I agree there are definitely tiers when it comes to money and also pecking order, for the most part. Ultimately there are still around the same number of “power teams” as 20 years ago.

I guess I’m not following your point that those AAC teams would jump to the Big 10 or SEC without tiers.


I’m saying that the movement between conferences wouldn’t follow the the widely established tiers and single movements between them.

The tiering before recent movement was something like:

SEC/Big 10
PAC/ACC/Big 12
AAC
MWC
SBC/CUSA/MAC
FCS

Now it’s looking more like:

SEC
Big 10
PAC/ACC
Big 12
AAC/MWC
SBC/CUSA/MAC
FCS

You won’t generally see teams move up more than one step at a time once the tiers are established. What I was pointing out in the post above is I find it interesting that teams move up, but not down. ECU and UNC are lucky that we haven’t been kicked down to CUSA/Big 12, respectively, over the past few years. Luckily that doesn’t seem to be a thing.

I do see your point that conferences, rather than teams, do tend to get moved down, like the Big East/AAC and potentially the Big 12 if more recycling happens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Tier after the latest moves.

SEC
Big 10
Big 12
ACC/PAC 12/MWC
SBC
C-USA
AAC
MAC

Dude at least put the AAC last in your trolling.
10-12-2021 10:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 49,858
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1942
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #193
RE: Regionalization concept to be presented Monday
(10-12-2021 08:59 AM)ESE84 Wrote:  
(10-11-2021 02:41 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  
(10-11-2021 12:40 PM)esayem Wrote:  So what? That goes for any G5 team in Texas playing a regional P5.

Rice drew 42,000 vs Texas in 2019.

They played in the Texans Stadium and 35,000 were Texas fans.

58,880 for the 2008 Texas Bowl when Rice played Western Michigan in the same stadium. That was probably the largest Rice alumni/friends crowd ever.

Rice would often fill their 70,000 seat stadium in the 50s before the Oilers arrived. There was a time A&M played only at Rice because they drew more in Houston than in College Station.
10-12-2021 01:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2021 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2021 MyBB Group.